<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>danso</author><text>&amp;quot;Political advertising&amp;quot; may be limited to advertising that is bought for by political campaigns and PACs, which they have a previously defined policy for:&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;business.twitter.com&amp;#x2F;en&amp;#x2F;help&amp;#x2F;ads-policies&amp;#x2F;restricted-content-policies&amp;#x2F;political-content&amp;#x2F;political-campaigning-advertising-policy-FAQs.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;business.twitter.com&amp;#x2F;en&amp;#x2F;help&amp;#x2F;ads-policies&amp;#x2F;restricted...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; &lt;i&gt;The policy varies across markets but generally applies to ads that advocate for or against a candidate or political party, or ads by candidates and&amp;#x2F;or entities registered with their respective electoral commission.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;edit: as u&amp;#x2F;ben509 pointed out, the above link only refers to political campaigns. Here&amp;#x27;s the link that defines &amp;quot;political content&amp;quot; as both campaigns and issue advocacy (at least in the U.S.)&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;business.twitter.com&amp;#x2F;en&amp;#x2F;help&amp;#x2F;ads-policies&amp;#x2F;restricted-content-policies&amp;#x2F;political-content&amp;#x2F;US-political-content.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;business.twitter.com&amp;#x2F;en&amp;#x2F;help&amp;#x2F;ads-policies&amp;#x2F;restricted...&lt;/a&gt;</text><parent_chain><item><author>Consultant32452</author><text>I&amp;#x27;m skeptical of this.  Is a private charity promoting an LGBT fundraiser a political ad?  What about Fox News pushing an ad about how other news is fake.  Or MSNBC pushing an ad about Russia collusion?  Was the now infamous Gillette woke ad political?  It&amp;#x27;ll be interesting to see how this all plays out.</text></item><item><author>buboard</author><text>&amp;gt; Which I cannot read in any way but “f-you, Facebook.”&lt;p&gt;He was even more explicit:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; For instance, it‘s not credible for us to say: “We’re working hard to stop people from gaming our systems to spread misleading info, buuut if someone pays us to target and force people to see their political ad…well...they can say whatever they want! ”</text></item><item><author>nlh</author><text>Bravo. That whole thread is smart, well-reasoned, and puts democracy above profits. Good for them.&lt;p&gt;I particularly like his last point:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; A final note. This isn’t about free expression. This is about paying for reach. And paying to increase the reach of political speech has significant ramifications that today’s democratic infrastructure may not be prepared to handle. It’s worth stepping back in order to address.&lt;p&gt;Which I cannot read in any way but “f-you, Facebook.”&lt;p&gt;And honestly, he’s totally right.  This issue is NOT about freedom of expression...it’s about freedom to pay for expression (and freedom to pay for having others see your expression), and I don’t think that’s inherently a good thing. It’s certainly not what the first amendment is about.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Twitter to ban political advertising</title><url>https://twitter.com/jack/status/1189634360472829952</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>xkjkls</author><text>It&amp;#x27;s far easier and less controversial to decide what is and isn&amp;#x27;t political than to decide what is or isn&amp;#x27;t true.</text><parent_chain><item><author>Consultant32452</author><text>I&amp;#x27;m skeptical of this.  Is a private charity promoting an LGBT fundraiser a political ad?  What about Fox News pushing an ad about how other news is fake.  Or MSNBC pushing an ad about Russia collusion?  Was the now infamous Gillette woke ad political?  It&amp;#x27;ll be interesting to see how this all plays out.</text></item><item><author>buboard</author><text>&amp;gt; Which I cannot read in any way but “f-you, Facebook.”&lt;p&gt;He was even more explicit:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; For instance, it‘s not credible for us to say: “We’re working hard to stop people from gaming our systems to spread misleading info, buuut if someone pays us to target and force people to see their political ad…well...they can say whatever they want! ”</text></item><item><author>nlh</author><text>Bravo. That whole thread is smart, well-reasoned, and puts democracy above profits. Good for them.&lt;p&gt;I particularly like his last point:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; A final note. This isn’t about free expression. This is about paying for reach. And paying to increase the reach of political speech has significant ramifications that today’s democratic infrastructure may not be prepared to handle. It’s worth stepping back in order to address.&lt;p&gt;Which I cannot read in any way but “f-you, Facebook.”&lt;p&gt;And honestly, he’s totally right.  This issue is NOT about freedom of expression...it’s about freedom to pay for expression (and freedom to pay for having others see your expression), and I don’t think that’s inherently a good thing. It’s certainly not what the first amendment is about.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Twitter to ban political advertising</title><url>https://twitter.com/jack/status/1189634360472829952</url></story>