How are the Tories doing with:
- promising to deliver HS2?
- promising to end ground-rent ripoffs on leasehold property?
- promising to ban conversion therapy?
- promising to sort out the sewage spewing into our rivers?
- promising “levelling up”?
- promising that the NHS is safe with them?
- promising economic competence and financial probity?
It is one thing to be in opposition and have to change your plans because someone else with the power keeps f**king up.
It is another to be the f**k-ups with the power who are so inept at delivering, and morally bankrupt in their style of government, that restorative change will take longer than it otherwise would.
We wish to confirm that we have received a number of messages in relation to claims of election fraud, raised due to concerns around marketing material. An incident has been created and will be reviewed.
Apparently this relates to a Conservative candidate who put "Labour" on his literature and used some other interesting strategies.
Anyhow, it looks like Starmer's latest pledge - to reduce immigration - is being greeted by the questions it begs.
How? Where's the plan?
As to the 'Why?' then it will certs be argued that it's the Starmer equivalent of Sunak's gammon-bait pledge to introduce National Service.
But whatever the case you'd have thought he'd have learned by now that his weather vane reputation precedes him.
There is a difficult balance, of course, for all political parties from appearing to promise the earth to making bland pledges to simply do their best and aim to achieve what they can to achieve within 'the art of the possible.'
Starmer's purported "solution" is to train people already here to do the jobs in areas with skills shortages. There are two problems here: first is that people don't want to train for jobs with awful pay and conditions. I pretty much guarantee that if base pay were 50% higher and iniquitous conditions like not being paid to travel between clients were removed we would no longer have a problem recruiting social care staff. Second is that skills shortages in well paid sectors like cybersecurity are a euphemism for companies wanting people with 5 years experience without ever wanting to be the ones providing that experience.
The other problems are that if the incoming Labour government invests in growing the economy the number of people available to be trained to do the new jobs a growing economy will create is likely to fall, and more workers will still be needed. And, while in the short term there might be enough people already in the UK to do those jobs, in the medium to longer term the proportion of working age people in the population will fall and that gap in available staff will widen.
There are already communities where lack of younger people is creating problems for the sustainability of these communities, and a combination of measures to encourage the remaining younger people to stay and encourage migration to supplement the younger population are needed to maintain these communities. That will become more and more common as the population ages and younger people migrate elsewhere to find opportunities to do better in life (as, they're regularly encouraged to). Which means investing in our communities so that they become places which draw migrants into them, opportunities for local employment as well as the decent housing and services needed.
Right, I've now had five Labour ads directed at me by YouTube (three Rachel Reeves, one Keir Starmer and one Yvette Cooper) and none from any other party. This is not OK. There should be some legislation about this.
I think the point is that the algorithm, probably unintentionally, is creating bubbles where people only see points of view they're already inclined to agree with. Whichever party benefits most this is not good for democracy as a whole.
So, the algorithm knows you are left leaning. If whoever writes the algorithm is political at all they would surely be throwing right wing ads at you?
I don't think so - it's more effective to tell people what they want to hear - "getting out the base". Surely the number of people persuaded to change their mind by a party political broadcast must be very small?
I think the point is that the algorithm, probably unintentionally, is creating bubbles where people only see points of view they're already inclined to agree with. Whichever party benefits most this is not good for democracy as a whole.
Yes - so the algorithm ‘builders’ are unlikely to be politically motivated.
Anyhow, it looks like Starmer's latest pledge - to reduce immigration - is being greeted by the questions it begs.
How? Where's the plan?
I think this, like many of Labour's other announcements is based on hoping for a reversion to mean.
On immigration this means hoping that the last few years were exceptional (Ukraine, overseas students deferring their entry by a year or so), and numbers are going to fall naturally. However the legislation to discourage students with dependents is still in place, so they could in the position of trying to lift that to avoid a collapse in the higher education sector, at that point they'd have left a really nasty hostage to fortune that the media could exploit.
On energy prices; GBEnergy is unlikely to do much to bring prices down, so they are banking on a fall in energy prices.
On the economy it's similar, a hope that the last few years were particularly bad and the economy is going to bounce back. The trouble is that unemployment is low, and much of the population work in sectors that have failed to invest and have low productivity, so without investment they are going to rely on overseas workers to continue to grow the economy. Furthermore the UK remains at odds with its closest natural trading partner.
The economic and finance picture are linked, this is how they square the plan to more or less stick with current spending plans but somehow sort out the public services. It's the hope that better management can eke out improvements while they wait for the economy to grow, at which point they can raise spending very slightly.
If you want to cut immigration - seriously, not for the sake of rhetoric - you need a plan and that plan needs to be a) practicable and b) lawful.
There is another item on the list too. It's going to be costly, at least in the short to medium term because, just for starters, you are going to be paying for a lot of people to be trained to quite a high level and praying that they don't immediately get a job in Australia when they are trained. It also probably means raising the state pension age to 70, perhaps even 75, and quite quickly.
The difficulty in this country is that we will the ends but not the means. While it's an undoubted truth that many politicians are liars and truth twisters, it's equally true that many voters are deluded, big babies who will not face reality. They want their sweeties, but they don't want to pay for their sweeties out of their pocket money as they want to spend that at the funfair.
It doesn't matter who you elect, unless they are the Wizard Merlin they can't work magic. That's what people want - magic. Only magic gives you what you want with nothing put in for exchange.
If you want to cut immigration - seriously, not for the sake of rhetoric - you need a plan and that plan needs to be a) practicable and b) lawful.
It's falling anyway (due to the circumstances I mentioned above), the trouble is that in the public mind it has become associated with policies that are counterproductive (restrictions on students bringing dependents) and the rather poisoned side show (in numerical terms) of people crossing the Channel on small boats.
More the comment on the dire state of political coverage than the election but didn't Kuenssberg think that this might have been newsworthy .. ten years ago when she heard it said?
I think the point is that the algorithm, probably unintentionally, is creating bubbles where people only see points of view they're already inclined to agree with. Whichever party benefits most this is not good for democracy as a whole.
Yes - so the algorithm ‘builders’ are unlikely to be politically motivated.
The only conscious motive for the people in control of the algorithms is the profit motive.
There was a massive scandal about this. The journalist persuing it was persecuted, but fleeting public awareness of the issue has not brought about much change.
It doesn't matter what the motivation is! The lack of balance is the same, whether politically motivated or not.
There are laws about balance for broadcast political ads and I think there should also be laws about balance for online platform ads, which are largely replacing broadcast media as the main vehicles for all sorts of content
There was a massive scandal about this. The journalist persuing it was persecuted, but fleeting public awareness of the issue has not brought about much change.
So, the algorithm knows you are left leaning. If whoever writes the algorithm is political at all they would surely be throwing right wing ads at you?
I don't think so - it's more effective to tell people what they want to hear - "getting out the base". Surely the number of people persuaded to change their mind by a party political broadcast must be very small?
It's axiomatic in political campaigning that the goal is to a) get your natural support out to vote for you and b) convince those who are inclined to vote for you but uncertain to actually vote for you. What you don't do is spend time trying to convince those who are never going to vote for you, and indeed even those who might but are very unlikely to vote for you. If you're hand delivering literature you prioritise areas where the demographics are in your favour, if you're chapping doors you politely get responses from the "no chance of voting for you" people and leave as quickly as possible, and spend time talking to those who you might convince. Especially if you're a smaller party and can't get vast numbers of supporters on the streets chapping doors or delivering leaflets. If you're paying for adverts you put them in places where they're more likely to be seen by your supporters and people you might be able to convince, it's a waste of money to target those who are never going to vote for you. If your target audience is the elderly, you don't pay for bill board adverts at the bus stop outside the local university campus, if you're targeting young people you don't pay for an advert in a magazine for pensioners. That's as true of political adverts as it is for any other product or service, marketing is still marketing. Paying to put videos on YouTube or have promoted posts on FaceBook etc is basically the same, parties aren't going to pay for that to reach a lot of people who aren't going to vote for them.
Every political campaigner knows that mass broadcast material is very ineffective, whether that's the TV broadcasts or literature through every door. That all faces a form of "algorithm", the filter provided by the TV remote control and the letter box - we all know that the vast majority of leaflets we deliver join the leaflets from the local pizza delivery in the recycle bin, unread, and that's especially true of literature from parties the resident disagrees with. There are approaches to counter that letter box filter, one is to make sure there are multiple leaflets produced (which definitely swings undecided voters with a "these lot are serious about getting my vote", but even if all people see is the name and photo of the candidate as the leaflet flies to the recycle bin it creates some positive moves in all but the most adamant "I won't vote for them" people), another is to disguise the leaflet (make it look like a non-political newsletter, or at first glance like something produced by a different party) so people read it before noticing what it is - which, of course, creates questions about the honesty of those producing these items.
Social media creates a set of algorithms that aren't entirely under the control of the users of those platforms, with some algorithms designed to target paid content to particular people (which may be as simple as based on geography, more often that plus age or education level, but may be far more sophisticated based on history of likes and shares - if someone has history of sharing positive items about Labour then Labour will want to get their content to you, not only will you be more likely to vote but you're also more likely to help the campaign by sharing that with your friends). Other algorithms push particular content to people based on their browsing history, hoping to get them more engaged with the platform and spend more time there. These algorithms aren't perfect (in some cases a long way from perfect, the FB assumption that someone who is single will be interested in dating sites being one that constantly annoys me) but do tend to get content to people who are most interested in it more efficiently than randomly bombarding people with everything.
I know it's more effective Alan! That's the problem! What the heck hope do we have of reducing the systemic pressure of social media to amplify division if we can't even take action to remove this very obviously politically polarising phenomenon, or even agree that it is a bad thing!
The trouble is, when you accept whatever cookies / data Ts & Cs (in order to use the network /website / whatever ) you have agreed to the use of algorithms in the small print - and yes, they and we know no-one reads it - but that’s their cover.
There was a massive scandal about this. The journalist persuing it was persecuted, but fleeting public awareness of the issue has not brought about much change.
The claims in particular case went well beyond normal targeting, and the "persecution" was the result of making injudicious remarks on social media.
Whereas what's described sounds more like 'normal' targeting (similar to getting repeated ads for the same thing the day after you bought it).
I know it's more effective Alan! That's the problem! What the heck hope do we have of reducing the systemic pressure of social media to amplify division if we can't even take action to remove this very obviously politically polarising phenomenon, or even agree that it is a bad thing!
So, are you suggesting that candidates spend some of their limited budget on ineffective online marketing? Or, are you suggesting that everyone who uses social media gets their feed flooded with the marketing from all candidates (presumably at a cost to the candidates less than normal rates for that particular platform to avoid exceeding spending limits or budgets)? Would it be acceptable for one candidate who has the backing of an individual with lots of money to put up a post every day that everyone gets to see? Would you consider spending government money on levelling the field so that an independent candidate with very limited funds can compete?
Or, maybe the simplest solution is to ban all online activity for all political parties.
There was a massive scandal about this. The journalist persuing it was persecuted, but fleeting public awareness of the issue has not brought about much change.
The claims in particular case went well beyond normal targeting, and the "persecution" was the result of making injudicious remarks on social media.
It's not that straightforward. She successfully defended the initial defamation case but, on appeal by the plaintiff, it was the continuing publication of the TED Talk, over which she has no control, which did for her.
I know it's more effective Alan! That's the problem! What the heck hope do we have of reducing the systemic pressure of social media to amplify division if we can't even take action to remove this very obviously politically polarising phenomenon, or even agree that it is a bad thing!
So, are you suggesting that candidates spend some of their limited budget on ineffective online marketing? Or, are you suggesting that everyone who uses social media gets their feed flooded with the marketing from all candidates (presumably at a cost to the candidates less than normal rates for that particular platform to avoid exceeding spending limits or budgets)? Would it be acceptable for one candidate who has the backing of an individual with lots of money to put up a post every day that everyone gets to see? Would you consider spending government money on levelling the field so that an independent candidate with very limited funds can compete?
Or, maybe the simplest solution is to ban all online activity for all political parties.
I am suggesting, in the first instance, that any social media organisation carrying political ads during the election campaign should be compelled to serve roughly equal number of ads from each major party to each viewer. This would be roughly in line with what OFCOM requires of broadcasters (OFCOM also defines who counts as a "major party").
What is it that would get in the way of such legislation?
Enforcement, for starters. Broadcast television is kept in check by the need for a broadcasting licence (which have to exist because there is only so much frequency space). There has never been any attempt to enforce the same rules on newspapers or any other medium that is not physically constrained in that way.
I've not seen any political videos on YouTube. Are you sure it isn't because you've been reading political websites or watching politics videos on YouTube?
I mostly watch food videos on YouTube so most of the ads I see are food related.
I mostly watch videos about physics, AI and Tolkien. But maybe it has been hunting through my other cookies - I have sometimes responded to "Organise" petitions so perhaps that has something to do with it.
Look, @TurquoiseTastic, @Arethosemyfeet@Alan Cresswell and others, quite a large part of the population, including me, would prefer there was some way of slewing one's own algorithms so that one got no canvassing adverts, from anybody, whether from the political parties one favours or detests. But if the public could do that, Facebook, X etc wouldn't get so much revenue from the parties that pay them to send you this stuff. That would defeat the object of running social media outlets that people don't have to pay to join. And if people did have to pay to join them, who would?
I don't think it is all that rational to equate social media organisations with broadcasters rather than newspapers. If one were going to attempt to be fairer, it would be more appropriate to attack this at the political party end of things and restrict their freedom to spend so much on campaigning - something which the outgoing administration has recently relaxed.
I think, also, that it would be a good thing if politicians and political parties were obliged not to mislead, were held to the truth of what what they proclaim, and were sanctioned if they didn't, but again, expecting the social media providers to take responsibility for that rather than the people who tell the lies is the equivalent of claiming that sending illegal immigrants to Rwanda will get rid people smugglers, rather than going for the smugglers direct.
Look, @TurquoiseTastic, @Arethosemyfeet@Alan Cresswell and others, quite a large part of the population, including me, would prefer there was some way of slewing one's own algorithms so that one got no canvassing adverts, from anybody, whether from the political parties one favours or detests.
And then there are a chunk of the population who get offended if they get nothing, because they think it means candidates don’t care what they think. But also, if this were achievable, and you want got no election literature - what *do* you want as a way of finding out what your candidate or their political party are intending to do in office ?
No one wants to watch party political broadcasts, most people don’t want to watch political debates, most people acknowledge that each newspaper pushes its own agenda, and it is pretty much impossible for all candidates to talk to all voters. So what, in an ideal world, would we actually want to happen ?
Look, @TurquoiseTastic, @Arethosemyfeet@Alan Cresswell and others, quite a large part of the population, including me, would prefer there was some way of slewing one's own algorithms so that one got no canvassing adverts, from anybody, whether from the political parties one favours or detests. But if the public could do that, Facebook, X etc wouldn't get so much revenue from the parties that pay them to send you this stuff. That would defeat the object of running social media outlets that people don't have to pay to join. And if people did have to pay to join them, who would?
A lot of people already have ad-blockers and YouTube still seems to be solvent. In any case we don't need to go that far. This is a request for a little regulation during election time, which would barely impace ad revenues at all. There's already regulation to prohibit illegal content so it's clearly possible for social media companies to do this if they want to or are made to.
And @Doublethink such regulation could also be used to inform, rather like the broadcast regulators. Not only are broadcaster obliged to be even-handed, they also must offer party-political slots at election time. Perhaps YouTube could be obliged to show at least one three-minute ad from each politcal party for every 6 hours of viewing in the run-up to an election, say.
The effect of obligatory political ads during election periods would be to drive a lot of people off those platforms during election periods, and they may not come back. As @Doublethink noted, the vast majority of people don't want to see those ads. Those of us interested in knowing what different candidates are saying know how to find that information without it being forced down their throat.
I'd support greater restrictions on political spending, both during election periods and outwith those periods. But, restricting spending and then forcing them to spend money on obligatory social media content rather than leaving them free to decide how to spend their limited budget doesn't seem helpful.
The bit where candidates don’t try to persuade people they’ve already classified as unlikely to vote for them really annoys me though. I have canvassed before and they basically want you to distribute material as fast as possible. If you don’t actually make an argument how can you expect people to change their minds ?
The effect of obligatory political ads during election periods would be to drive a lot of people off those platforms during election periods, and they may not come back. As @Doublethink noted, the vast majority of people don't want to see those ads. Those of us interested in knowing what different candidates are saying know how to find that information without it being forced down their throat.
I'd support greater restrictions on political spending, both during election periods and outwith those periods. But, restricting spending and then forcing them to spend money on obligatory social media content rather than leaving them free to decide how to spend their limited budget doesn't seem helpful.
The vast majority of people would rather not see any ads, but we put up with them as a minor annoyance. I don't want to see adverts for Grammarly or HubSpot when I'm watching videos but I haven't quit YouTube in protest. In fact, as I've said, I already get political ads, but only Labour ones, and I put up with those too. So viewers should get no more annoyed than they do already.
I can't believe there is so much resistance to my extremely good idea that all right-thinking people should agree with!
I don't go on YouTube a great deal but when I do I normally watch music videos, one's about language or accents - including historic pronunciation- or some theological content.
I have never, ever seen any political ads or party political broadcasts there.
What the algorithms seem to throw up are more music videos, more videos about accents and historical pronunciation and more theological content. Lots of bearded monks.
Online platforms like YouTube don't work like traditional TV channels. The content is determined by what you look at. If I tune into the BBC, ITV or Channel 4 or whatever I get what's scheduled. I don't get 'tailored' content based on my viewing patterns.
We aren't comparing like with like.
I don't see how it would be feasible to require YouTube to put out scheduled party political broadcasts in the way they are on 'normal' TV channels.
As others have said, it doesn't work that way.
There are some protocols governing how political ads should be formatted for Facebook, for instance and the political parties themselves have guidelines.
The Lib Dems I think spent more than the other parties on FB ads in 2019 but to no avail. The Conservatives spend a lot too. I'm not sure what Labour do on social media beyond what individual councillors put out.
I'm not convinced that party-political spending on social media is effective. People want to see videos of cute cats and so on, not party-political broadcasts.
When I was a councillor I used social media to inform people what was going on and to redress misinformation but found it very ineffective for putting across any particular party political stance.
I think political parties waste a lot of money online. Use it to engage with constituents by all means, but don't treat it as a one-way propaganda pipeline.
Are you both talking about the same thing? TurquoiseTastic, do you mean you saw party political broadcasts as 'suggested videos' to watch next? Or were they inserted into the middle of the views you saw in the way a YouTube adbreak would be?
Are you both talking about the same thing? TurquoiseTastic, do you mean you saw party political broadcasts as 'suggested videos' to watch next? Or were they inserted into the middle of the views you saw in the way a YouTube adbreak would be?
The latter. I select my astronomy or chess video and it (often) shows me two ads before I can start watching. At the moment one of the two ads is very often a Labour PPB. I can "Skip" after 5 seconds.
Are you both talking about the same thing? TurquoiseTastic, do you mean you saw party political broadcasts as 'suggested videos' to watch next? Or were they inserted into the middle of the views you saw in the way a YouTube adbreak would be?
The latter. I select my astronomy or chess video and it (often) shows me two ads before I can start watching. At the moment one of the two ads is very often a Labour PPB. I can "Skip" after 5 seconds.
Yes that's what I assumed and I wonder whether @Gamma Gamaliel was talking about the former.
Comments
Doesn't detract from the fact that on a local/regional level the Conservatives consistently make promises they know darn well they can't keep.
I have my differences with Labour but I don't see them doing that at a local or regional level.
Starmer though is as flippy-floppy as a flippy-floppy thing. That doesn't let the Conservatives off the hook.
Are you really suggesting they've got anything to be proud of given their abysmal track-record over the last 14 years?
- promising to deliver HS2?
- promising to end ground-rent ripoffs on leasehold property?
- promising to ban conversion therapy?
- promising to sort out the sewage spewing into our rivers?
- promising “levelling up”?
- promising that the NHS is safe with them?
- promising economic competence and financial probity?
It is one thing to be in opposition and have to change your plans because someone else with the power keeps f**king up.
It is another to be the f**k-ups with the power who are so inept at delivering, and morally bankrupt in their style of government, that restorative change will take longer than it otherwise would.
When I can think of something , I will actually post it
Where have you been for the last few years?
I look forward to your post on what the Tories have done to be proud of recently.
Derbyshire Police Tweet:
Apparently this relates to a Conservative candidate who put "Labour" on his literature and used some other interesting strategies.
AFZ
How? Where's the plan?
As to the 'Why?' then it will certs be argued that it's the Starmer equivalent of Sunak's gammon-bait pledge to introduce National Service.
But whatever the case you'd have thought he'd have learned by now that his weather vane reputation precedes him.
There is a difficult balance, of course, for all political parties from appearing to promise the earth to making bland pledges to simply do their best and aim to achieve what they can to achieve within 'the art of the possible.'
There are already communities where lack of younger people is creating problems for the sustainability of these communities, and a combination of measures to encourage the remaining younger people to stay and encourage migration to supplement the younger population are needed to maintain these communities. That will become more and more common as the population ages and younger people migrate elsewhere to find opportunities to do better in life (as, they're regularly encouraged to). Which means investing in our communities so that they become places which draw migrants into them, opportunities for local employment as well as the decent housing and services needed.
They are throwing right wing ads. Reeves, Starmer and Cooper are all pretty right wing, doubly so in an election campaign.
I don't think so - it's more effective to tell people what they want to hear - "getting out the base". Surely the number of people persuaded to change their mind by a party political broadcast must be very small?
Yes - so the algorithm ‘builders’ are unlikely to be politically motivated.
I think this, like many of Labour's other announcements is based on hoping for a reversion to mean.
On immigration this means hoping that the last few years were exceptional (Ukraine, overseas students deferring their entry by a year or so), and numbers are going to fall naturally. However the legislation to discourage students with dependents is still in place, so they could in the position of trying to lift that to avoid a collapse in the higher education sector, at that point they'd have left a really nasty hostage to fortune that the media could exploit.
On energy prices; GBEnergy is unlikely to do much to bring prices down, so they are banking on a fall in energy prices.
On the economy it's similar, a hope that the last few years were particularly bad and the economy is going to bounce back. The trouble is that unemployment is low, and much of the population work in sectors that have failed to invest and have low productivity, so without investment they are going to rely on overseas workers to continue to grow the economy. Furthermore the UK remains at odds with its closest natural trading partner.
The economic and finance picture are linked, this is how they square the plan to more or less stick with current spending plans but somehow sort out the public services. It's the hope that better management can eke out improvements while they wait for the economy to grow, at which point they can raise spending very slightly.
There is another item on the list too. It's going to be costly, at least in the short to medium term because, just for starters, you are going to be paying for a lot of people to be trained to quite a high level and praying that they don't immediately get a job in Australia when they are trained. It also probably means raising the state pension age to 70, perhaps even 75, and quite quickly.
The difficulty in this country is that we will the ends but not the means. While it's an undoubted truth that many politicians are liars and truth twisters, it's equally true that many voters are deluded, big babies who will not face reality. They want their sweeties, but they don't want to pay for their sweeties out of their pocket money as they want to spend that at the funfair.
It doesn't matter who you elect, unless they are the Wizard Merlin they can't work magic. That's what people want - magic. Only magic gives you what you want with nothing put in for exchange.
It's falling anyway (due to the circumstances I mentioned above), the trouble is that in the public mind it has become associated with policies that are counterproductive (restrictions on students bringing dependents) and the rather poisoned side show (in numerical terms) of people crossing the Channel on small boats.
https://x.com/BBCSounds/status/1796963435495805143
Rhetorical question obviously, as Chomsky's retort to Marr applies here.
There are laws about balance for broadcast political ads and I think there should also be laws about balance for online platform ads, which are largely replacing broadcast media as the main vehicles for all sorts of content
Sure, but this is much more blatant!
Every political campaigner knows that mass broadcast material is very ineffective, whether that's the TV broadcasts or literature through every door. That all faces a form of "algorithm", the filter provided by the TV remote control and the letter box - we all know that the vast majority of leaflets we deliver join the leaflets from the local pizza delivery in the recycle bin, unread, and that's especially true of literature from parties the resident disagrees with. There are approaches to counter that letter box filter, one is to make sure there are multiple leaflets produced (which definitely swings undecided voters with a "these lot are serious about getting my vote", but even if all people see is the name and photo of the candidate as the leaflet flies to the recycle bin it creates some positive moves in all but the most adamant "I won't vote for them" people), another is to disguise the leaflet (make it look like a non-political newsletter, or at first glance like something produced by a different party) so people read it before noticing what it is - which, of course, creates questions about the honesty of those producing these items.
Social media creates a set of algorithms that aren't entirely under the control of the users of those platforms, with some algorithms designed to target paid content to particular people (which may be as simple as based on geography, more often that plus age or education level, but may be far more sophisticated based on history of likes and shares - if someone has history of sharing positive items about Labour then Labour will want to get their content to you, not only will you be more likely to vote but you're also more likely to help the campaign by sharing that with your friends). Other algorithms push particular content to people based on their browsing history, hoping to get them more engaged with the platform and spend more time there. These algorithms aren't perfect (in some cases a long way from perfect, the FB assumption that someone who is single will be interested in dating sites being one that constantly annoys me) but do tend to get content to people who are most interested in it more efficiently than randomly bombarding people with everything.
The claims in particular case went well beyond normal targeting, and the "persecution" was the result of making injudicious remarks on social media.
Whereas what's described sounds more like 'normal' targeting (similar to getting repeated ads for the same thing the day after you bought it).
Or, maybe the simplest solution is to ban all online activity for all political parties.
I am suggesting, in the first instance, that any social media organisation carrying political ads during the election campaign should be compelled to serve roughly equal number of ads from each major party to each viewer. This would be roughly in line with what OFCOM requires of broadcasters (OFCOM also defines who counts as a "major party").
You can't 'control' it to the same extent.
Enforcement, for starters. Broadcast television is kept in check by the need for a broadcasting licence (which have to exist because there is only so much frequency space). There has never been any attempt to enforce the same rules on newspapers or any other medium that is not physically constrained in that way.
I mostly watch food videos on YouTube so most of the ads I see are food related.
I don't think it is all that rational to equate social media organisations with broadcasters rather than newspapers. If one were going to attempt to be fairer, it would be more appropriate to attack this at the political party end of things and restrict their freedom to spend so much on campaigning - something which the outgoing administration has recently relaxed.
I think, also, that it would be a good thing if politicians and political parties were obliged not to mislead, were held to the truth of what what they proclaim, and were sanctioned if they didn't, but again, expecting the social media providers to take responsibility for that rather than the people who tell the lies is the equivalent of claiming that sending illegal immigrants to Rwanda will get rid people smugglers, rather than going for the smugglers direct.
And then there are a chunk of the population who get offended if they get nothing, because they think it means candidates don’t care what they think. But also, if this were achievable, and you want got no election literature - what *do* you want as a way of finding out what your candidate or their political party are intending to do in office ?
No one wants to watch party political broadcasts, most people don’t want to watch political debates, most people acknowledge that each newspaper pushes its own agenda, and it is pretty much impossible for all candidates to talk to all voters. So what, in an ideal world, would we actually want to happen ?
And @Doublethink such regulation could also be used to inform, rather like the broadcast regulators. Not only are broadcaster obliged to be even-handed, they also must offer party-political slots at election time. Perhaps YouTube could be obliged to show at least one three-minute ad from each politcal party for every 6 hours of viewing in the run-up to an election, say.
I'd support greater restrictions on political spending, both during election periods and outwith those periods. But, restricting spending and then forcing them to spend money on obligatory social media content rather than leaving them free to decide how to spend their limited budget doesn't seem helpful.
Although I'll note that Google is making significant efforts to make ad-blocking harder.
The vast majority of people would rather not see any ads, but we put up with them as a minor annoyance. I don't want to see adverts for Grammarly or HubSpot when I'm watching videos but I haven't quit YouTube in protest. In fact, as I've said, I already get political ads, but only Labour ones, and I put up with those too. So viewers should get no more annoyed than they do already.
I can't believe there is so much resistance to my extremely good idea that all right-thinking people should agree with!
I have never, ever seen any political ads or party political broadcasts there.
What the algorithms seem to throw up are more music videos, more videos about accents and historical pronunciation and more theological content. Lots of bearded monks.
Online platforms like YouTube don't work like traditional TV channels. The content is determined by what you look at. If I tune into the BBC, ITV or Channel 4 or whatever I get what's scheduled. I don't get 'tailored' content based on my viewing patterns.
We aren't comparing like with like.
I don't see how it would be feasible to require YouTube to put out scheduled party political broadcasts in the way they are on 'normal' TV channels.
As others have said, it doesn't work that way.
There are some protocols governing how political ads should be formatted for Facebook, for instance and the political parties themselves have guidelines.
The Lib Dems I think spent more than the other parties on FB ads in 2019 but to no avail. The Conservatives spend a lot too. I'm not sure what Labour do on social media beyond what individual councillors put out.
I'm not convinced that party-political spending on social media is effective. People want to see videos of cute cats and so on, not party-political broadcasts.
When I was a councillor I used social media to inform people what was going on and to redress misinformation but found it very ineffective for putting across any particular party political stance.
I think political parties waste a lot of money online. Use it to engage with constituents by all means, but don't treat it as a one-way propaganda pipeline.
Well I'd never seen any before this week and now I have seen Rachel Reeves five times!
What have I done wrong?
The latter. I select my astronomy or chess video and it (often) shows me two ads before I can start watching. At the moment one of the two ads is very often a Labour PPB. I can "Skip" after 5 seconds.
Yes that's what I assumed and I wonder whether @Gamma Gamaliel was talking about the former.
They have kept the country going through difficult times since early 2020. They have supported Ukraine in their war with an aggressive Russia
This reminds me of the reminder that a certain leader of a southern European nation was rather good at getting the trains to run on time.
The Tories have brought this country to the edge of ruin. Not an opinion, just counting.