the introvert
Nov 1 · 1 min read

You may have a very good point about defining ‘political’ and ‘advertising,’ and it would be a blow to all those causes. I think some advertising content can be moderated without splitting hairs, for example the branded advertising of a politician’s video, or speech, campaign posters, unquestionable content. That moderation can never happen on current big social media, nor can it be entrusted to it: because it is too infallible, and it’s too easy for political interest groups to covertly infiltrate.

Given their lion’s share of social media, corporate interests have endless resources that the ground roots can’t really compete with (FB/Twitter) anymore. Social media is to political advertiser’s advantage because at the end of the day, money controls most of what’s being said and heard in big media.

Without status quo big social media, the ground roots, activist groups would lose out only until they found new, uninfected, platforms, which must be inevitable for their survival unless we trust the government and big corporations that control them to control news and sway opinion. The way to do that is to have social media sites that don’t accept or promote advertising.

In the long scheme of things, grassroots and NFPs can cultivate their own social media networks and let people be heard there. Abandoning big social media outlets leaves the political advertisers by themselves, no longer representing any voice of the people. Blockchain technology can someday be employed in these networks to control people or entities trying to manipulate visibility on the platforms.

    the introvert

    Written by

    Deconstructionist, flaneur, debunker, and pookah