Labour is signing up to Facebook transparency tool

68 comments on “Labour is signing up to Facebook transparency tool ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Tiger Mountain 1

   23 January 2020 at 3:18 pm

   Well put Micky. “Stevie’s hole” cost Labour at least 2-3% in the 2017 general election.

   If FB “Transparency” does what it says on the can it will be a useful data stream to assist interested voters becoming better informed.

   National in particular has long specialised in “dog whistle” targeted media and now people may be able to know for sure that they do. All parties target, why would they not? but the malignant micro targeting as per Cambridge Analytica and others is a different phenomenon when the true authors and funders are obscured.
   • Dennis Frank 1.1

     23 January 2020 at 3:30 pm

     Obviously if truth in politics served to differentiate between reality and alternate worlds, all essay-writers and commenters here would be wearing their real names, because the site would adopt rules to enforce that orthodoxy.

     Current site rules indicate that folks have just as much right to participate as imaginary people as real people have the right to be themselves. This reflects an ancient truism: that the world is actually hybrid. Imaginal/real. An inventor imagines something before creating it. The rational view is therefore that your "true authors and funders" have a natural right of anonymity…
     • McFlock 1.1.1

       23 January 2020 at 7:37 pm

       Pseudonyms enable truth to be told.

       More to the point, your comment seems to fail to understand how FB fake adverts work – it's about targeting content at readers using demographic information that this site doesn't even have. Using market segmentation to not just feed you bullshit, but to tailor that bullshit almost specifically to your individual weak points.

       At TS, everyone sees the same main content, or has the same opportunity to click to it. On FB, it's constantly changed to your latest vulnerability.
       • Dennis Frank 1.1.1.1

         23 January 2020 at 7:52 pm

         I plead guilty: I've never seen any good reason to use that site. My point was the marginal relation of truth to reality online, and what seemed a consequent misapprehension…

         Perhaps I could add that the supposed virtue being signalled is illusory?? I mean, I agree with the principle that key political interventions ought to be publicised: anonymity ought not to be a refuge.

         But is such just selective morality? When apparently it is morally okay for political commentators to hide behind a pseudonym. As if they don’t conduct political interventions. Most are inconsequential but if one goes viral, and changes the minds of a politically significant portion of the electorate by means of fake news??
         • McFlock 1.1.1.1.1

           23 January 2020 at 8:14 pm

           Again, your obsession with pseudonyms confuses the issue that FB created: hidden money using advanced network theory to deliberately mislead individual voters using bullshit tailored for each recipient to be received in isolation by that recipient.

           Nobody is paying to have their views published here. As far as we know, nobody here is being paid to write their views. Everyone sees the same stuff, and calls bullshit on what they see as bullshit so nothing is seen in isolation.

           Names are just labels.
           • Dennis Frank 1.1.1.1.1.1

             23 January 2020 at 9:04 pm

             Names are just labels.

             Not in politics, due to the weight carried by the legal name, and the part that the law plays in structuring democracy. Try voting by using your moniker here!

             But I assume you are suggesting that the PM's decision applies only to users of that platform and no general principles such as ethics can be deduced that apply to the rest of us. Fair enough.
             • McFlock …

               23 January 2020 at 9:37 pm

               Your assumption is way off.

               “It means voters can see who is behind paid advertising online, how much they are spending and who they are targeting. The measures help avoid anonymous fake news style ads”, Ardern said.

               You've no doubt seen the warnings here when moderators detect that posters are using multiple handles. Additionally, new posters get individually moderated, so there isn't the bandwidth to have fifty different sockpuppets pretending to support each other.

               Whereas FB advertising under 2016 rules can fire a hundred different ads, all allegedly from different accounts, at a particular narrow segment (segments that can be drilled down to one user), but all from a single paymaster.

               I make a lot of comments, but the mods work to make sure all my comments are under my handle, and I have the same 24 hours in a day that everyone else has. Paid advertisements are different, because the number of comments/ads is based on your bank balance. And some people have billions, while others have less than nothing.

               It's the identification of the paymasters that this principle is about. No payment means no paymaster.

               And legal names are just labels, too. I can change my legal name to "McFlock", just as I can change my handle here to … well, that would be telling 😉
         • McFlock 1.1.1.1.2

           24 January 2020 at 7:54 pm

           Nice job at beating the resident tories to "virtue signalling" as a dismissal of the concept, by the way. It took them until this afternoon to figure that one out.
2. Muttonbird 2

   23 January 2020 at 7:02 pm

   A masterstroke from Labour committing to a positive campaign and committing to FB's ad transparency rules.

   They are working to Ardern's strengths and challenging Bridges, Bennett and Mitchell to keep it clean which will be a mighty challenge for them indeed. It is expert framing of the election for the electorate. Without dirt as a tool, where to now for the National Party?

   But I see their pollster is attempting to paint Ardern and Labour as anti-semitic because it 'worked' in Britain.

   I mean is Ardern anti anyone? The public simply won’t believe Farrar’s position and I think they will punish him and his National party for the inference.

   But it just signals how low the the Nats will go.
   • SHG 2.1

     24 January 2020 at 3:45 pm

     This is virtue-signalling, nothing more. Read Ardern's comments, then go and read about what Facebook Ad Library actually does. Either she doesn't know what it does and she's misleading the audience, or she does know… and she's misleading the audience.

     https://www.facebook.com/help/259468828226154
     • left_forward 2.1.1

       24 January 2020 at 4:08 pm

       No SHG, it is virtue itself – something worthy of support- a return to honesty, transparency and disclosure.
       • SHG 2.1.1.1

         24 January 2020 at 4:31 pm

         Wonderful. But the Facebook Ad Library does not provide those things.
     • Incognito 2.1.2

       24 January 2020 at 6:42 pm

       “It means voters can see who is behind paid advertising online, how much they are spending and who they are targeting. The measures help avoid anonymous fake news style ads”, Ardern said.

       Here’s the example of the Ad Library Report of the Green Party: https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/?active_status=all&ad_type=all&country=NZ&impression_search_field=has_impressions_lifetime&view_all_page_id=10779081371

       Looks to me that Ardern’s comments were quite accurate and not misleading.

       Pointing to the FB Help page is not very helpful. The onus is on you to support your comment with specific info rather than for others to wade through pages and pages of gobbledygook to find out why you hold a certain opinion on the matter. You know (a lot?) about these things and you could give us (your) valuable insights.

       As it stands, you sound like just another troll making wild accusations, which tends to attract the attention of moderators.
       • Cinny 2.1.2.1

         24 January 2020 at 8:25 pm

         Cheers for the link, Incognito, that was pretty cool, personally I boycotted fb years ago.

         Crikey it would be interesting if national signed up.
         • Incognito 2.1.2.1.1

           24 January 2020 at 8:35 pm

           I do have a FB account but hardly ever access it let alone ‘use’ it; it was only ever for staying in touch with family and overseas friends.

           I’d be surprised if National were to sign up for it; the current talking points are that it is just virtue signalling and we know National wouldn’t want to be seen doing this because they are the tough (talking) action guys.
           • Cinny 2.1.2.1.1.1

             24 January 2020 at 8:57 pm

             Tough talking action guys… Lmfao !!!!

             https://twitter.com/Thoughtfulnz/status/1206154164549537792
           • Poission 2.1.2.1.1.2

             24 January 2020 at 9:05 pm

             Ah well tough talking action people such as the british parliament are very critical of facbook and its so called transparency seemingly opaque under scrutiny.

             Facebook gives the impression of wanting to tackle disinformation on its site. In January 2019, Facebook employed Full Fact to review and rate the accuracy of news stories on Facebook—including the production of evaluation reports every three months—as part of its third-party factchecking programme, the first time that such an initiative has been operated in the UK.343 However, as we described in Chapter 5, Facebook has also recently blocked the work of organisations such as Who Targets Me? from helping the public to understand how and why they are being targeted with online adverts. On the one hand, Facebook gives the impression of working towards transparency, with regard to the auditing of its news content; but on the other, there is considerable obfuscation concerning the auditing of its adverts, which provide Facebook with its ever-increasing revenue. To make informed judgments about the adverts presented to them on Facebook, users need to see the source and purpose behind the content.

             https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmcumeds/1791/1791.pdf
             • Incognito …

               24 January 2020 at 10:12 pm

               Crikey! That’s quite a document to wade through.

               I could not find anything specific on FB’s Ad Library Report tool but I thought #215 and #218 onwards were quite interesting and topical.

               I quite like the Green Party’s Ad Library Report 😉
               • Poission …

                 24 January 2020 at 10:17 pm

                 There is an interesting section on digital education as well a recommendation on education and risks etc.
                 • Incognito …

                   24 January 2020 at 10:33 pm

                   Ta

                   I quite liked this one too 😉

                   317. We recommend that participating in social media should allow more pause for thought. More obstacles or ‘friction’ should be both incorporated into social media platforms and into users’ own activities—to give people time to consider what they are writing and sharing. Techniques for slowing down interaction online should be taught, so that people themselves question both what they write and what they read— and that they pause and think further, before they make a judgement online.

                   On this site, commenters have 10 min to edit, delete, or otherwise change their minds.
3. Climaction 3

   23 January 2020 at 10:13 pm

   Signing up for a Facebook tool? Call me sceptical, but who fucking cares what people and organisations sign up for on Facebook?

   what purpose does signing up for a Zuckerberg moderated tool serve except for signalling that you agree to be moderated by Zuckerberg. Someone who hasn’t exactly covered themselves in glory when it comes to moderation on their own platform
   • Cinny 3.1

     23 January 2020 at 10:40 pm

     Wouldn't it be wonderful to have a compulsory subject at school such as 'Information Systems' or…. 'How not to be manipulated', now that would be useful/helpful for all.

     Future generations could be clued up on the likes of social media, who runs etc, media manipulation and how it's channelled, murdoch, fox, etc, etc. IMHO, such is important to know and if a child's parents aren't clued up on it, where/how/when will they learn about it?

     In the meantime it's election year, will any other outlet or platform with a wide reach, publicly hold candidates/parties to account regarding their advertising/targeting etc etc…

     Wonder if simon and co. will avoid signing up for the tool.

     Checkmate national. Lmao!
     • Climaction 3.1.1

       24 January 2020 at 6:09 pm

       You would be thick enough this provides a checkmate move.

       this is a desperate cry for legitimacy by Facebook. When the revelations of further manipulation of Facebook, ignored in the pursuit of clicks, cookies and ultimate profit, are revealed will this tool be used as plausible deniability or censorship

       [Please leave the personal insults at the door – Incognito]
       • Incognito 3.1.1.1

         24 January 2020 at 6:48 pm

         See my Moderation note @ 6:09 PM.
         • Climaction 3.1.1.1.1

           24 January 2020 at 7:53 pm

           Yep, fair call.

           Get riled when fb manipulates and loses elections for the winners, then all of a sudden it’s all right as they’ve launched a blame washing tool
           • Incognito 3.1.1.1.1.1

             24 January 2020 at 8:05 pm

             Fair enough, when I get riled the cat cops it, sometimes, and he doesn’t like it nor does he deserve it but he’s (only) a cat. I know I shouldn’t growl a pet but …
       • Cinny 3.1.1.2

         24 January 2020 at 7:54 pm

         Insulting a persons intelligence means you are losing the argument before you even start.

         I know exactly where you are coming from re fb.

         But in the grand scheme of things, do you think the majority of the largest block of active voters (65+) know about the larger fb picture?

         And who will inform them in time for the election? It's not like the local retirement villages have classes on media manipulation lolz.

         In their instance all they will hear is Labour signing up to fb transparency, and national not doing so, they won't be aware of dodgy zuckerberg.

         Happy to explain more if needed. In the meantime… here's short clip from my favourite TV show.

         It's on every Saturday night at 9.30pm during daylight savings, and 8.30pm in the winter months, channel 16 on the telly or live streamed via youtube, one more sleep, yay!

         https://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/listeningpost/2018/12/happened-zuckerberg-2018-resolution-fix-facebook-181215135521539.html
         • Climaction 3.1.1.2.1

           24 January 2020 at 8:30 pm

           You’re almost making me regret my retraction.

           you aren’t the only one who reads uses multiple news sources. 65+, who owe younger generations many apologies, are very good at scouting for information.
           • Cinny 3.1.1.2.1.1

             24 January 2020 at 8:46 pm

             You’re almost making me regret my retraction.

             Lmao, I'm not making you do anything lololz.

             Those 65+ who comment here are obviously clued up, but how about those who aren't?

             According to the stat's link I posted, they are the age group most likely to vote.

             There wasn't a stat for say those 80+, if there was I would have used it instead, as it would have been a better example.

             What are your favourite information sources climaction?
4. Gosman 4

   24 January 2020 at 11:01 am

   If they are compulsory in the US and UK and Australia then surely these nations did not have a problem with such advertisements. That seems to be at odds with people claiming that misleading Facebook advertisements did influence politics in these countries.
   • Sacha 4.1

     24 January 2020 at 12:08 pm

     This tool does nothing about the content of political adverts (which Facecloth have refused to tackle), merely knowing something about where they have been directed; otherwise invisible.
     • Gosman 4.1.1

       24 January 2020 at 12:12 pm

       What exactly is the point of signing up to this then if it makes no difference to the content?
       • Roflcopter 4.1.1.1

         24 January 2020 at 2:50 pm

         There is no point… it's a complete virtue signalling exercise, nothing more.
         • Incognito 4.1.1.1.1

           24 January 2020 at 3:03 pm

           Have the talking points come in from National HQ? That was quick!
           • Gosman 4.1.1.1.1.1

             24 January 2020 at 4:07 pm

             Or perhaps this is merely virtue signalling. Have you contemplated that might be the case?
             • left_forward …

               24 January 2020 at 4:10 pm

               Or perhaps it is indeed virtuous, and worthy or your support, have you contemplated that that might be the case?
             • Incognito …

               24 January 2020 at 7:16 pm

               When a self-confessed righty starts accusing Labour and the PM of pointless virtue signalling without providing any substance to support that opinion it sounds like just another dickhead troll move.

               The onus is on commenters to back up their claims. I know you struggle with that too.
               • alwyn …

                 24 January 2020 at 9:15 pm

                 "Have the talking points come ……. "

                 To paraphrase you own words.

                 "When a self-confessed lefty starts accusing commenters on this site of simply repeating things fed them by a Political Party without providing any substance to support that opinion it sounds like just another dickhead troll move".

                 The onus is surely on you to provide something to back up the claim. Or is that only a one way activity?

                 [Are you moderating me, Alwyn? Surely, you are not that stupid? Tell you what, you provide evidence for your claim about the self-confessed lefty and I provide evidence that Roflcopter is a self-confessed righty and has not provided any evidence to back their claim about the virtue signalling. My opening bid is their comment 4.1.1.1, which means I’m already half-way there. If you don’t, you’ll take a ban on the chin. Does that sound like a reasonable challenge to you? Incognito]
                 • Incognito …

                   24 January 2020 at 9:54 pm

                   See my Moderation note @ 9:15 PM.
                 • alwyn …

                   24 January 2020 at 11:49 pm

                   Of course I'm not "moderating" you. How could I, I'm not a "Moderator".

                   On the other hand I will admit that I never realised that all comments made by someone who has "Moderator" status must be treated differently than those made by mere mortals such as myself.

                   Please tell me. How am I to know when you are acting as a "Moderator" as opposed to someone who is behaving as a commenter?

                   Is there somewhere on this site a list of the "Moderators" whose word must be treated as gospel, and whose opinions are never to be questioned. If this list is available to peruse I will make sure that I never reply to them. After all, to disagree with anything they say would not be simply pointing out that, at least in my opinion, they are wrong. It would instead be in the nature of blasphemy, wouldn't it?

                   However, to answer your question.

                   Have you any evidence at all that there is a list of National Party "talking points" that are distributed to people who comment on blogs and that this list includes labeling things as being "virtue signalling exercises"?

                   That is what you labelled as being a planned response by the National Party. What evidence do you have that this list exists and that Rolfcopter might have received it?

                   [Only a pedant takes things as literally as you do, Alwyn.

                   You don’t have to be a Moderator to try moderate others here. In fact, a few commenters have tried to don a moderator hat here but rather unsuccessfully. They have shovelled themselves off elsewhere, voluntarily, I may add.

                   Gospel and blasphemy? OMG, the heat has affected you badly, old chap. I recommend lots of rest and plenty of water.

                   About those “talking points”. It was a slightly provocative and light-hearted question in lieu of any substance in Roflcopter’s comment @ 4.1.1.1. There was no need for a heavy-handed approach such as a Moderation note because most people, except pedants, can read between the lines and can take a hint – it was a ‘minor offense’ anyway.

                   But since you asked, you could consider parroting Simon Bridges as ‘talking points’ coming ‘from National HQ’, couldn’t you? As a matter of fact, I do. As it so happens, Simon discarded it as “virtue signalling”.

                   Here’s the link: https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/labour-signs-up-facebooks-new-transparency-rules-ahead-election

                   Since you were stupid enough to persevere with your pedantry, here’s the second half of my end of the bargain: https://thestandard.org.nz/the-next-prime-minister-is/#comment-1401985

                   Now it is your turn to hold up your end of the bargain, Alwyn, or face a ban – Incognito]
                   • Incognito …

                     25 January 2020 at 3:31 pm

                     See my Moderation note @ 11:49 PM.
                   • alwyn …

                     26 January 2020 at 2:30 pm

                     All James appears to have said that the election result wasn't what he wanted or expected. He didn't say what he actually did want. He did admit that his predictions were badly wrong but said that they were only predictions.

                     There, how's that for pin pricking?

                     I have it, on rather doubtfully reliable authority, that he wanted Mana to win lots of seats and to form the Government. Right wing you say? Actually make that totally unreliable authority. My imagination in fact as I have no idea who James is and who he votes for. Neither, I suggest, do you.

                     As for your claim that a comment by Simon, which is repeated by someone on this blog is somehow evidence of a organisation exists it the National Party Headquarters that propagates talking points to their followers who then repeat them. Are you serious? That really is pushing a very large stone up hill isn't it?

                     I have just re-read Muttonbird's comment that follows this one. I also remember a exercise a couple of months ago where I was banned. I was accused of lying for saying the entirely accurate comment that James Shaw was not present in New Zealand on Census day. I provided as evidence a story from one of the papers that was refused by one of your co-moderators because it said, a couple of days before the trip, that Shaw would be accompanying the PM on a trip round the Islands. This, I was told, was not evidence as it was written in the future tense and might not really have happened.

                     I then tracked down, and attempted to post, the following from a RNZ story in Morning Report on Census Day..

                     "It's Census Day today and the man ultimately responsible for its success or failure, won't be filling out a form. Statistics Minister James Shaw is part of the Prime Minister's delegation touring the South Pacific, so he's not required to take part."

                     This was deleted, or at least never put up on the blog. I was banned for a spell. If that wasn't evidence of Shaw not being in New Zealand what was?

                     Frankly I cannot be bothered going to the trouble of trying to satisfy your standards of proof. It simply isn't worth trying to post here any more. Due to moderators who appear to be a match for the Bard's wonderful description in Measure for Measure there are almost no comments worth reading any more.

                     What Shakespeare said that describes you so well was, as I am sure you will know.

                     "But man, proud man,
                     Dress'd in a little brief authority,
                     Most ignorant of what he's most assur'd—
                     His glassy essence—like an angry ape
                     Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven
                     As makes the angels weep"

                     Now, do whatever you will. I really don't care anymore about what happens on a Blog that seems to be following Whale Oil, and earlier blogs by both the Green and Labour parties into the eternal darkness.

                     [Dear Alwyn, why bother with this foolish behaviour? You were rather silly in picking a fight with a Moderator and then doubling down. You have done this many times in the past and got away with it without a ban.

                     In 2019, you received two bans and neither one was by me. The first one, in October, is the one you referred to in this comment: https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-09-10-2019/#comment-1659958. You received loads of warning before the ban so stop your whining. Your subsequent post was not deleted as such; it automatically ended up in Trash because you were banned – it does not require any human intervention. This was the second one, for your convenience: https://thestandard.org.nz/daily-review-16-12-2019/#comment-1673840.

                     I have no idea why you refer to James (?) and Mana. Another figment of your imagination, I assume.

                     I’ve already explained about the “talking points” as a way to persuade Roflcopter to add substance to their comment @ 4.1.1.1. It was not meant to be taken literally but you don’t seem to be able to get your head around this 🙁

                     You refer to Muttonbird’s comment, which was addressed to you, but completely ignore the message in it!? You’d make a good cherry-picker.

                     My request to you was not onerous at all; all you needed to do was to back-up your statement about the “self-confessed lefty”. Now, who was demanding Measure for Measure?

                     No matter how much I’d love to, I cannot accept the wonderfully apt description by the Bard, as I am sure you will know. Still, it was a pleasant surprise to be described as an angry ape and being a grumpy goat, I’ve put my tail between my legs 🙂

                     This Blog is what commenters like you make of it. If you don’t care about what happens on this Blog then you’re free to leave; this ain’t Hotel California. However, I think you were grossly unfair and miles off with your comparison with Whale Oil blog and “its descend into the eternal darkness”. For one, The Standard does not conduct covert smearing and slandering operations and is not, has not, and will never be involved in a Dirty Politics campaign such as orchestrated by Mr Slater and his accomplices. For this alone you will receive a ban for 11 days, which is very lenient given the above – Incognito]
                   • Incognito []

                     26 January 2020 at 4:20 pm

                     See my Moderation note @ 2:30 PM.
                   • Sacha …

                     26 January 2020 at 3:48 pm

                     somehow evidence of a organisation exists it the National Party Headquarters that propagates talking points to their followers

                     Gee, I don't know how we might have learned not to trust that particular group of people. 'Jason Ede' ring a bell?
                   • Incognito []

                     26 January 2020 at 4:26 pm

                     On behalf of Alwyn, who just received an 11-day ban:

                     @Sacha.

                     Before the axe drops, if it hasn’t already.

                     I don’t trust any politician of any party. They aren’t there to help you, but to promote themselves, That is just as true of the Labour Party or the Green Party as it is of National. NZF are rather worse of course.

                     That doesn’t mean that I think they all lie. Very few of them are quite so gross. However they are all, well all the successful ones anyway, very good at telling you something in such a way that what you think you heard is not what they said. There are only a few who are so blatant as to come out with outright lies. They will all try and confuse you though

                     They are also quite immune from thinking that real openness is a good thing. They will hide information from you whenever they can, if it is something that might embarrass them. All Politicians are in favour of the OIA when they are in Opposition and against it when they are in Power. All of them.

                     You believe things that Politicians tell you at your peril. Beware.
                 • Muttonbird …

                   25 January 2020 at 12:54 am

                   The onus is surely on you to provide something to back up the claim. Or is that only a one way activity?

                   Of course it is one way activity, you nincompoop. You are a commenter and must loosely abide by the rules of the forum when required.

                   Moderators should be allowed to be ordinary commenters. There is sometimes a frustrating conflict in that for other ordinary commenters. The alternative is that no moderator shall comment, which doesn't seem fair because we are all here to get our concerns down on paper as it were.

                   That's why I comment on forums – just to get ideas down in written form mostly. And to clean out trolls.

                   In short, Alwyn, do as they ask but don't expect them to do what you ask.

                   In fact, just don't ask.
             • mac1 …

               24 January 2020 at 9:53 pm

               Wha a world view……… that even what is good has impure motives imputed to it.

               The right thing to do is the right thing to do. The US, UK, Canada and the EU know this.
             • Muttonbird …

               24 January 2020 at 10:00 pm

               It's largely symbolic of course but it is a very, very clever move which forces the National Party to make a choice on whether to be positive, or be their natural corrupt selves.

               Ball's in their court.
5. Fireblade 5

   24 January 2020 at 5:20 pm

   Well done Labour.

   National are just a bunch of dodgy lying fuckers.
   • SHG 5.1

     24 January 2020 at 7:17 pm

     And you think they're going to run the really dodgy lying fuckery through the official National Party facebook page?

     The really effective misleading fake news type ads are going to originate on unaffiliated fan pages, "Muslims For Jacinda", "Brown Lives Matter", "Fishing Fans Aotearoa", and there’ll be hundreds of them and they will already have been running for years and building algorithmic cred because this sort of stuff doesn't happen overnight and the people who are good at this stuff are reeeeaaaallly good at it now.
     • Sacha 5.1.1

       25 January 2020 at 9:18 am

       they will already have been running for years and building algorithmic cred because this sort of stuff doesn't happen overnight

       Exactly. Yet some people ridicule corresponding advice not to respond to the seeding messages. 'But I must call them out every time!'
     • Fireblade 5.1.2

       25 January 2020 at 12:23 pm

       SHG. The Muslims, brown people and fishing fans that I know are all great people.
       • SHG 5.1.2.1

         28 January 2020 at 3:15 am

         ok boomer
         • Fireblade 5.1.2.1.1

           28 January 2020 at 1:56 pm

           Nope. I was born in the late 70's.
           • SHG 5.1.2.1.1.1

             28 January 2020 at 3:31 pm

             Then I have no idea what your post about Muslims and brown people and fishing fans means
6. Ad 6

   24 January 2020 at 7:04 pm

   Couple of problems with this.

   1. It's not compulsory, so the other side gets to lie their asses off and gain electoral advantage.

   2. No one is going to be able to notice any difference during the campaign – because only one side is proposing to do it.

   3. No one in New Zealand is going to be able to enforce it during the campaign – neither the Electoral Commission nor the Advertising Standards Authority – because it happens too fast and too big and because it's voluntary.

   4. It's giving up a weapon, and the other side gets to use it.

   5. It doesn't gain any votes.

   And sure, we could say like votes for women or nuclear weapon bans or eradicating farmer subsidies or comprehensive greenhouse gas plans, it's feels great to do something first in the world.

   But Hillary and Corbyn and Shorten would have got a lot closer to winning if they'd chosen to be at least as underhand and devious in their digital media campaigns as the winners do. I fucking hate virtuous losers.

   Ardern might just wake up to the losing side of November 2020 and go, "Ah it was great being on the side of the angels again."
   • RedLogix 6.1

     27 January 2020 at 1:25 pm

     I fucking hate virtuous losers.

     Yes, if there is one lesson I've picked up from you it's this. Too often it's just a cover for incompetence.
7. Dazzer 7

   25 January 2020 at 3:01 pm

   All sizzle no vegetarian sausage. How will that stop a party saying promising to deliver 100,000 homes yet delivering even a fraction of them?
   • Incognito 7.1

     25 January 2020 at 3:45 pm

     Another National Party parrot incapable of independent thought and simply repeating stupid lines from the Party. Actually, your inane reasoning is insulting the IQ of parrots.
     • Dazzer 7.1.1

       25 January 2020 at 6:29 pm

       Sorry, it's a valid point. How does signing up for FB prevent any party from simply dreaming up nonsense policies? It doesn't. It's a valid point expressed clearly and I would have expected mods to point that out to you. How about attempting to debate the issue?
       • Incognito 7.1.1.1

         25 January 2020 at 6:41 pm

         I’ll point it out to myself, thanks 😉

         It is not a valid point because the FB tool is not aimed at what you think it is aimed at – the tool does not verify or establish the veracity of the content of the ads. You have created a strawman, either through ignorance but more likely because you’re simply parroting the talking points from the National Party, which are on FB of all sources.

         How about you start the debate with some real substance? There’s plenty to criticise here.
       • Cinny 7.1.1.2

         26 January 2020 at 1:28 pm

         What it will show is where they will target it and how much they've spent doing it.

         It's also up to us to educate others, for example…… simon and the nat's get totally owned again and again on twitter, by fact checking educated individuals.

         Then what happens…. simon starts going on a little twitter frenzy trying to bury the tweets where he has been called out. All his tweets are based on emotive subjects, desperately fishing for common ground and coming up empty.

         We need media manipulation etc taught in schools and probably resthomes too IMHO.

         Let's fact check the example of your misinformation….

         The 100,000 houses promised in 2017 was to be over 10 years, it's only been 3 years. Since then there has been a reset, so who knows, with technology they could eventually exceed the target given in 2017 if they remain in government.

         The ad fails to disclose any other additional information such as the houses which have been built, including state houses.

         It fails to disclose that the national led government created a housing crisis.

         national is the party of misinformation.

         [Tweet deleted upon Cinny’s request]
         • Sacha 7.1.1.2.1

           26 January 2020 at 4:49 pm

           You have just helped the Nats launder that tweet by embedding it here. Well done.
           • Sacha 7.1.1.2.1.1

             26 January 2020 at 5:35 pm

             I really cannot be bothered going into this topic yet again, lest I end up sounding like a Jenny. Please ignore this and carry on doing whatever you were going to do anyway.
8. Cinny 8

   27 January 2020 at 1:00 pm

   Apologies, I didn't even think about that. Would delete/edit if I could.
   • Incognito 8.1

     27 January 2020 at 1:02 pm

     I can delete the tweet, if you like.
     • Cinny 8.1.1

       27 January 2020 at 4:17 pm

       Yes please and thank you 🙂
       • Incognito 8.1.1.1

         27 January 2020 at 4:21 pm

         

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS