Wouldn't a rational society also deal with likely and possible scenarios?
Targeted advertisement in social media is seen as something that works, because someone has a huge interest in convincing someone else that it does (although I wouldn't be surprised if it really works). And if you move conventional targeted ads to the political space you get Cambridge analytica.
And a rational society could have multiple problems with this regardless of whether it works. Elections are public for a reason — shouldn't the official party lead advertisement then also be public?
I see a strong case of banning targeted personal political ads purely based on that.
> Wouldn't a rational society also deal with likely and possible scenarios?
I have yet to find a good way of phrasing this, but there is the phrase "justified true belief" that captures a whole discussion in philosophy on knowledge. However, that debate only covers the past and present, it can't cover the future. Perhaps what I'm looking for is something like "forward-looking statements" in the SEC sense - statements about the future which are inherently probabilistic, but the statement-maker has a responsibility to be truthful and advance a reasoned argument for their plausibility.
Targeted advertisement in social media is seen as something that works, because someone has a huge interest in convincing someone else that it does (although I wouldn't be surprised if it really works). And if you move conventional targeted ads to the political space you get Cambridge analytica.
And a rational society could have multiple problems with this regardless of whether it works. Elections are public for a reason — shouldn't the official party lead advertisement then also be public?
I see a strong case of banning targeted personal political ads purely based on that.