Political Ads

From iGeek
Jump to: navigation, search

Facebook enacted a new policy, "We require Pages to be authorized to run ads about social issues, elections or politics."... and to become authorized you need to list the name/identity of the person(s) paying for the ad. (Not the voracity or quality of the article/post, just the identity of the poster). They of course have no such requirements for anything else, or I suspect if the political leaning of the ad is left wing enough. To the superficial thinkers, that sounds reasonable, "just trying to prevent trolling from foreign governments". While thinkers realize that foreign agents have resources to create fake identities and credit cards: so the only people it is really blocking are domestic folks that want to remain anonymous. And who would do that and why? Because the left has a rich history of violent threats and actions. I speak as someone that has had death threats mailed to my house. The latest leftist fad of doxxing and harassing anyone on the right is well known. From getting CEO's fired for having unpopular conservative views, to various other vandalism and assaults (like spitting or Andy Ngo Assault). The right knows to not put their families at risk by having their name on a leftist hit list, like FB's ads. Whereas the last major political assault on a lefty for being an ignorant progressive was when JFK when he was shot... by a further lefty for not being left enough.

Facebook is 3 things: bad interface, bad management, and biased policies. I want a social network that gives me control of what I see and share -- both to my friends and to advertisers. I realize they need to make a buck, and my information is their product, but the point is you can still give users the illusions of control. But Zuckerberg seems to have falling into the egocentric pit that many young billionaires do, they think because they timed things well, and worked hard, and got lucky that they're smarter than everyone else. This makes them arrogant, less mature, and slower to grow than the average human: Dunning-Kruger, inflated by being surrounded by yes-men.


The page (article) I was going to promote was the following:

Anti-Science Party
Republicans are the anti-science party, unless we're talking about any of the following things the left believes that are anti-science: Beepocalypse, Biofuels, Black Conspiracy Theology, Carpool lanes, Corporate Personhood & Citizens United, Evolution and Creation, Gender Wage Gap, Gender is a choice, Global Cooling Scare, Green Energy, Keynes, Leftonomics, Life Begins at..., Light Rail, Nuclear Energy, Organic food fraud, Paranormal beliefs​, Peak Oil Theory, Plastic Bag Bans, Recycling, Science and Religion, Secondhand Drinking, Secondhand Smoke, Smoking, Smoking and Healthcare costs, Straw Bans, The Population Bomb, Unintended Consequences, War on Science, Wind Power, and so on. The right isn't immune to being anti-science, it's just that democrats/left/media pretends they are better, when the informed know that as a group, they definitely are worse. Of course I treat individuals as individuals and not a group, but any democrat/leftist individual that broad brushes conservatives for being anti-science is demonstrating hyper-selective blinders (hypocrisy).



📚 References