The question: To what extent, if at all, would you support or oppose banning political adverts from being shown on social media platforms?
They conclude with: Voters for far-right parties are frequently less likely to support banning of political advertising on social media … and less likely to think regulations are too lax … typically less likely to think social media regulations are too relaxed (with Italy being an exception).
Maybe the issue here is that many political options have social media and underground marketing as their only option due to heavy bias and censorship on European traditional media.
Even the term used here "far right" is an euphemism for opinions not approved by governing European regimes.
EDIT: I am ignoring this link since its main source is Corrective, propaganda outlet funded by the German regime.
Edit since I can’t answer: I’m not referring to this thread. It’s German regime outlets calling their opponents Nazis and far right.
No one is calling everyone nazi in this thread. Who are you referring to?
This is about the actual fact about whitewashing the actual historical Nazi Germany. So I would take it as you are dodging the question and you are agreeing with my previous criteria:
The people or organization whitewashing the actual historical Nazi Germany issues would be considered as far right.
Edit: self-approved is better term, since without recount of votes we still don’t know if current regime has a majority.
Well, if you ignore all the evidence you consider inconvenient, you could, you know, read their own self-description as "right wing" and combine that with the observation of them being too right wing for the other right wing parties.
What about most of them? Just look at who they are teaming with in the European Parliament. Or what they say about themselves. That should give you a hint.
> I am ignoring this link since its main source is Corrective, propaganda outlet funded by the German regime.
Right. It’s just what (((they))) want you to believe.
And you didn’t list a single far right policy of AfD.
How about just naming one actual far right AfD policy so we can bring discussion from feeling back to facts.
> It [regime] is used colloquially by some, such as government officials, media journalists, and policy makers, when referring to governments that they believe are repressive, undemocratic, or illegitimate or simply do not square with the person’s own view of the world.
Seems like they don't like when their citizens apply the same terminology.
"Far right" views are far right views. They are morally repulsive in the extreme. We've witnessed the consequences before.
AfD in Germany. Le Pen in France. Fratelli d’Italia in Italy. VOX in Spain. PVV in the Netherlands.
I do not know that any of those parties would seriously disagree with their classification as far right.
Seriously. We know what far right is. It’s close to mainstream or mainstream in all EU countries. It is not suppressed anywhere, except for the nazi party in Germany. I mean, even AfD, which is as close as it gets, can still present candidates and campaign for them.
And we have plenty of experience of what happens when they come to power. You can stop clutching your pearls.
The fact that we can use money to saturate the information economy, and create the perception of validity, is a form of market manipulation that is used extensively today. See “Intelligent Design” for a great example of how that was applied in America.
These ideological beach heads are strategized and implemented by media consultants, and media owners. Yet this is protected speech. All the while actual fact checkers, researchers and content moderation efforts are censorial.
This super simplistic interpretation of how speech operates in the modern world is now more abused by attackers, than of explanatory value to defenders.
I would really love if people were somehow more interested in the way modern persuasion techniques are applied. At least that way we would have more interesting conversations on how to have checks and balances that work.
What you call "censorship" and "bias" is just people disagreeing with you.
It's important though, that attempts from foreign governmental entities (you might guess which country) might backfire if it's against popular policy decisions. I'm not sure if this foreign government is aware of it.
They'll be weighing constituents by their ability and willingness to give campaign donations and other favors.
That would be a matter of linguistics, and I can't say which of both definitions is true.
I don’t think this is really an issue of censorship to a lot of people (though that may be how it shakes out in the government) but rather of control over their digital environment and sanity.
EDIT: I don’t think this is what I’m remembering, but it has concrete numbers somewhat lower than I thought (48% of teens think social media harms people their age, but only 14% think it harms them personally) https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2025/04/22/teens-social...
Back in the day of forums personal banning wasn't a thing, we had to see everything until someone did something bad enough to be deplatformed from the forum. In the current social media, you can just block people you don't like, you don't have to endure their "content".
The censorship is built-in in modern platforms. I prefer the old ways personally but in the old days the profile of the people was different.
in the old days there were actual people, today most “social” media is not people
Do you have any evidence to support that?
People frequently claim the majority of social media is "bots", but I highly doubt that.
People are not having concerned citizen ideas 24 hours a day everyday, those are obviously professionals who are having concerns about the society, race, jews etc in order to fulfill some goals. Those are not real people, you won't be able to change their minds with argumentation because they don't speak their mind in first place. That's for Twitter of course, in other places they have other productions like "tradwifes" on Instagram or reviewers on Youtube. They are all businesses or indies trying to become businesses. They all use analytics and do A/B testing to acquire and steer their content ideas to the platforms liking. Platforms decide what will be shown to the users, they of course need to run their own business and they also pursue their own KPIs but as cost of doing business they allow other businesses to insert their KPI into the algorithm in exchange of money or favors. For example when there's a new movie release upcoming they can pay the platform to boost engagement on content about their movie, platforms also incentivize the creation of such content by paying certain influencers if they create a content that feeds into the campaign(i.e. if they do a dance from a movie that is being promoted they get paid if their dance video meets the quota). They can do all this for consumer products but they can do it for political stuff too.
Almost no genuine content, its all one big reality show all orchestrated by the big tech. I mean sure, there is genuine content but they are all fillers or trying to win against the flow.
I think an easier way to achieves instead of imposing this on everyone. Social media companies should be required to add paid tier where the individual user can block the types of the user does not want to see, (or just block all of them).
In some places perhaps the government would ban "free social media" and only allow the paid tier to operate.
This in the best case would make the price reasonably low, if the social media company does not want to lose a lot of users. Perhaps even subsidised. At which point the goal set above is achieved.
The key being age verification. Under 18, or maybe 16 accounts have: Mandatory blackout periods (after 9pm most account functions stop working, parents could set this more aggressively if they cared about the child's studies). Interaction limits like time spent on feeds, type of content that will appear in feeds, number of friends, visibility of comments ect. Only one account allowed and enforcement taken seriously.
Over 16/18s should have the option to "time themselves out" for a chosen period with their account going into a limited mode where feeds no longer work . Similar to the option problem gamblers have where gambling sites are supposed to stop them playing if they block themselves. Maybe when someone needs to focus for exams or a work commitment.
Sure kids will try and get round limits, but I think when you have investment in a main account it would be something you would want to keep, so the threat of loosing it would be real.
If you concede in your first sentence, obviously not.
It’s happened in Australia. It’s building in America. And I think there are enough European countries
Participation in social media (including comments sections in newspapers, etc) only with verified identities but behind some sort of escrow (so that you're anonymous to the public and also the platform... until you break the law by threatening SA or similar).
Why?
Bots, trolls, etc are a huge problem and if only actual people could post, this would a bit harder for bad actors.
andsoitis•1mo ago
You mean "social media regulation". Not "tech regulation".
nis0s•1mo ago
amarant•1mo ago
notahacker•1mo ago
[1]the UK calls its military satcomms network that, but we've always been different...
fancyfredbot•1mo ago
It does not mention surveillance, and it's not about tech in general. The title is misleading. (Edit: the OP kindly updated the title and it's no longer misleading)
bilbo0s•1mo ago
Which, ironically, given the topic of this post, speaks to the kinds of pathologies we find out on social media these days.
andersa•1mo ago
nis0s•1mo ago
andsoitis•1mo ago
How should we square that with EU politicians pushing for MORE surveillance, not less? One of many examples: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jan/24/eu-dig...
alphager•1mo ago
snowpid•1mo ago