"Ireland Keep Your Taxes Low: Vote "NO" " Ad

DeVore

Oscar, black and white examples are useful to illustrate a point but the real world situations we will be faced with will not be so clear cut.

In terms of your example how about: "If you vote Fine Gael, Enda Kenny will hike taxes and ruin our economy".


Should we run that ad?

DeV.

BlitzKrieg

Item 1. The question is, "If person Y approaches boards and offers amount Z to run Ad X; and Ad X is not obscene or libellous or in violation of any other pertinent law; Should boards.ie run the ad?"

Item 2. I'm saying take the money. If you run ads, and you refuse a subset based on whether or not you believe them, you're not being independent or objective or fair or even smart.

I'd be of the opinion then that if a subset adverts on a topic are hitting a sour point to a subtantial number in boards I'd refuse to run any ads to do with said topic even the ones not proving difficult.

I'd also be of the opinion that an advert policy should be like irish television and not american television in that direct advertising shouldnt be allowed by lobbiests/parties. I'd hope anyone voting should research the topic themselves rather then getting a one sided viewpoint by clicking on a flash banner.


just my opinion.

Sparks

Sparks wrote: »

*Commences banging head off desk in fustration*

Right.

Item 1. The question is, "If person Y approaches boards and offers amount Z to run Ad X; and Ad X is not obscene or libellous or in violation of any other pertinent law; Should boards.ie run the ad?"

Item 2. I'm saying take the money. If you run ads, and you refuse a subset based on whether or not you believe them, you're not being independent or objective or fair or even smart.

No the point is:
Is the ad correct.

Item 3. BB, you've managed to argue for two pages with someone who thinks the contents of Lisbon are a Good Thing. Well done. Keep it up and Libertas will be very happy at the huge number of No votes.

No I'm listening in amazement at your attempt to section off the commissioner thing and say what libertas is saying is true or not true depending on which post I read from you.

Item 4. The Libertas ad is only wrong in your own subjective opinion. There is no law saying that it is physically impossible to keep a commissioner in the event of a No vote. It is overwhelmingly unlikely, not impossible that we could keep the commissioner in the event of a No vote. It is impossible to keep the commissioner in the event of a Yes vote because that's the text of the treaty. So Yes = impossible to keep him; No = overwhelmingly unlikely to keep him. NOT THE SAME BLOODY THING.

incorrect.
Yes means you may lose him/her on the first rotation or the second or the third and so on.
No means you may lose him or her on the first or the second or the third and so on.

Both are the same outcome so the libertas ad is a lie.

Sparks

the "what do we do if some people believe an ad is dishonest while others dont"

Ignore it. It's fairly clearly obvious by this stage that it's not something anyone can resolve. So either ban all ads, or accept all* ads.
And I say take the money.



*all as in "all non-obscene, non-libellous, legal" obviously

FrankGrimes

Have to say Dev, you're being very open and reasonable on this - regardless of what our individual opinions may be it has to be said this level of discussion from a policy owner just doesn't happen elsewhere (unfortunately) and that does help underline faith in the boards ethos.

DeVore wrote: »

Perhaps we should just apply the normal commonsensical approach, not allow anything "uncivil" and demand sources for fact-quotation? DeV.

That sounds like a very reasonable approach and the example called out by RoundTower a few pages back was a good example of a situation where common sense is required and it seems you see it that way too.

I also agree with Blitzkrieg's view that the ad policy would ideally be more like standard Irish approach to advertising as opposed to the American 'Don't buy XXXX cos it's krud, buy our gear cos it's super!' style.....but I guess that one is a matter of taste.

oscarBravo

Rb wrote: »

Regarding the bad things, well what can they do? Boot us out of the EU? I can't see them evicting us from the EU for not approving some piece of legislation, can you imagine the reaction if they did? What would that say about the EU if they did?

Not being funny, but this isn't the forum to discuss it - there's an EU forum for that.

DeVore wrote: »

Oscar, black and white examples are useful to illustrate a point but the real world situations we will be faced with will not be so clear cut.

In terms of your example how about: "If you vote Fine Gael, Enda Kenny will hike taxes and ruin our economy".


Should we run that ad?

I actually broadly agree with your approach as you've outlined it.

My question is, what happens when it actually is as black and white as the example I gave? In other words, if someone actually did want you to run an Enda-Kenny-hamster-eating ad, would you have a problem with it?

I ask, because the Libertas ad falls squarely into the same category: it's blatantly, completely and utterly untrue, and designed to mislead. This isn't a matter of opinion, whatever Sparks may say. We are committed - through our ratification of an international treaty - to losing a permanent commissioner. It's that simple.

Sure, the rest of the EU might decide that we're the only country that can keep a permanent commissioner. And Enda might eat my hamster. Both theoretically possible. Both not gonna happen, and Libertas know it.

DeVore

The black and white problems are actually the easy ones. Someone posts kiddy porn.... kewl, I can switch off brain and simply go nuts on them. Its the grey area issues that take time and need to be teased out.

I dont think its as straightforward as you make out but more importantly I doubt we will have even this level of surety in the future.

I dont feel good about that particular ad but we just need to learn from the experience for the future. Of course, as I said, my opinion is that anything that comes in a 468x60 box is a lie to begin with so perhaps I am the wrong person to ask

DeV.

nesf

DeVore wrote: »

Vex and I chatted about this ad when it first arrived. Our decision was that refusing the ad would be an implicit statement of support for the YES side so we would have to reject their advertising too. This basically unravels all advertising because everyone can raise an objection to something (take for example the people who were annoyed about our seeming support for St Lukes hospital, in the thread linked above!).

This is clearly political though, and not a grey area. There are advantages to not having political advertising on the site, it avoids appearing biased which is more relevant than whether or not you are biased. Banning clearly political advertising, i.e. stuff directly and clearly calling for people to vote in a particular way wouldn't unravel all advertising.

I don't think your argument works, I'm not sure if you should bad political advertising or not but the above argument doesn't cut it, I think. Denying the No side advertising space would only implicitly support the Yes side if you didn't do the same to them.

DeVore

And nestle ads? CokeCola ads? Scientology? Personally I find every word out of Micheal O'Leary's ignorant gob to be a fncking travesty. Everything is political.... a while back we had complaints for advertising for people to oppose the closure of a local *hospital* and we thought we were on safe ground with that one!

DeV.
ps: I've opened up a thread on the topic of the commissoner's term on the EU forum.

nesf

DeVore wrote: »

And nestle ads? CokeCola ads? Scientology? Personally I find every word out of Micheal O'Leary's ignorant gob to be a fncking travesty. Everything is political.... a while back we had complaints for advertising for people to oppose the closure of a local *hospital* and we thought we were on safe ground with that one!

DeV.
ps: I've opened up a thread on the topic of the commissoner's term on the EU forum.

I agree to an extent but ads calling on people to vote in an upcoming referendum or election in one way or another are pretty damn clear cut. I don't think political ads of this type would spiral out of control.

I'm not sure whether or not you should ban them though you are implicitly giving them a platform on this site for political purposes. There's a line, and it is fairly blurred to be sure, between commercial and political advertising and the two shouldn't be viewed as the same, especially on a site that is dedicated to discussion and where people may come to get information about political matters.

Call Me Jimmy

I understand your position DeVore, if you vote no to the vote no ads it sets a precedent. It's just so hard to take, every time I go onto boards now I'm met with (at the very least) serious attempts to mislead. And I'm thinking of a huge number of people who will never look at anything more than that ad and will vote no. But then again I should be blaming the people for that so it's a tough one.

DeVore

You might also blame the Yes campaign who should be out in force countering and exposing...

DeV.

Call Me Jimmy

Aye I suppose you could say the Yes campaign should have banner ads on here as well and it's their fault that they don't but I'm basically just airing my frustration at the intention to mislead on the behalf of libertas because deep down I know there's not much that can be done without a whole lot of hassle in the future.

But something like, "creates an unelected president", is that even a fact? People were saying because we will lose a commissioner for five years at a time that that makes it a fact so then it should be ok even if it is misleading. But if there was a banner ad calling for people to abstain from voting in a general election because it will create an "unelected taoiseach" would that be allowed? Hardly the best example but ye know what I mean, is people think our taoiseach is elected then they have to say that the president and foreign minister are elected...

Esel

I haven't read the whole thread, but whatever about the pros and cons of carrying the ad, I think it should be dropped from midnight tonight, following the standard media practice of not allowing these type of ads immediately before polling day. Just my 2c.

Hitchhiker's Guide to...

esel wrote: »

I haven't read the whole thread, but whatever about the pros and cons of carrying the ad, I think it should be dropped from midnight tonight, following the standard media practice of not allowing these type of ads immediately before polling day. Just my 2c.

actually this is a very good point imo. Is this going to happen?

btw DeV, the mod forum is getting highly excited about all the hookers and coke that Libertas have surely funded through their ads.

ETA?

cornbb

Roundtower2 wrote: »

btw DeV, the mod forum is getting highly excited about all the hookers and coke that Libertas have surely funded through their ads.

ETA?

I could not, with a clear conscience, snort coke from between the jubblies of hookers that were paid for with Libertas' dirty money.

DeVore

They do seem like a bad bunch. That said, I always liked the phrase "an idea isnt responsible for the people who support it".

DeV.

Sparks

Not to mention, if Libertas were really sneaky, they'd push for a yes vote and we'd all have to vote no...

Scofflaw

I don't have a problem with the ads at all as ads. If Libertas are outspending the others on Google Adwords, well, that's what money's for - influencing people.

My issue would be that the claims it makes are either factually incorrect or tendentious.

There is no such position as "President of Europe" - there's only a President of the European Council, which Bertie held for six months in 2004.

The Treaty doesn't "move 60 new areas of power to Brussels" - it moves 34 new areas to QMV voting(from Ireland's point of view) - and you can only move an area to QMV when it's already an EU competence.

The Commissioner will be gone for five years out of fifteen - but that will be true whether Lisbon passes or not (see this post).

Cutting our voting power in half is grossly inaccurate (except in respect of Malta) - the reshuffle of QMV voting increase our voting weight in respect of 12 countries, decreases in respect of 14. How much our relative voting weight is 'reduced' or 'increased' depends entirely on what country you choose for comparison.

However, if boards.ie refused ads simply because their content is false, you're not going to get a lot of advertising...

cordially,
scofflaw

bauderline

Scofflaw,

Spot on with that post, the vast majority of advertising is wildly (not a little bit) misleading. Think of toothpaste ads as an example, those nice white teeth can only be gained by image editing or bleaching your teeth every 12 hours.

The "YES" vote is a hard sell because there are no real advantages for Ireland in it so "YES" campaigners have resorted to trying to scare the crap out of people by trying to imply that voting "NO" will have utterly terrible consequences for Ireland, which is of course completely untrue.

As far as I am concerned equal amounts of bull are being put forward by either side and as such its fair digs.

You also have to bear in mind an advert is just an advert, it is just trying to sell you something, it doesn't matter if its a political viewpoint or a three piece suite in a range of feckin fabrics. Any sensible individual will take an advert for what it is and know that if they want hard facts they will need to look elsewhere...

I think there is nothing wrong with the advert it is just as misleading or not as any other advert. Nothing new here....

Don't like the message ? Tough ! Don't buy it !

b.

DeVore

I concur regarding viewing all advertisements as at least partly biased in nature. Some more biased then others.... We are in discussions with the ASAI regarding out status as an advertiser in fact (mostly to see if we fall under the categories which have to observe a 24 hour blackout prior to the vote). We'll keep you informed during the day on that one.

DeV.

Hitchhiker's Guide to...

that would have interesting implications for all websites. For example, if it was judged that you have to observe the 24h blackout, presumably that would mean that websites that are primarily advertisements for a political issue would have to shut down in that period as well.

Sully

But a banner advert is like a poster on a lamppost - whats the problem with it? If that was banned all discussion would have to stop nearly.

Sully

Sully wrote: »

But a banner advert is like a poster on a lamppost - whats the problem with it? If that was banned all discussion would have to stop nearly.

Explain?

This is a discussion forum and a discussion medium.
All we were discussing here really was whether it was right in the first instance for boards to have a banner containing lies.
But more importantly whether it was right to have one telling lies that could influence the way a country is run as opposed to just promoting a physical product or service.

A decision on that has no impact whatsoever on the too'ing and fro'ing of the discussion in threads here.

Sully

DeVore wrote: »

I concur regarding viewing all advertisements as at least partly biased in nature. Some more biased then others.... We are in discussions with the ASAI regarding out status as an advertiser in fact (mostly to see if we fall under the categories which have to observe a 24 hour blackout prior to the vote). We'll keep you informed during the day on that one.

DeV.

Deleted User wrote: »

Explain?

This is a discussion forum and a discussion medium.
All we were discussing here really was whether it was right in the first instance for boards to have a banner containing lies.
But more importantly whether it was right to have one telling lies that could influence the way a country is run as opposed to just promoting a physical product or service.

A decision on that has no impact whatsoever on the too'ing and fro'ing of the discussion in threads here.

I was not refering to the point if the advertiser was liying or not. Boards cant be forced to take them down if the organisation is allowed say them in public and have them up on lamposts. People are to make informed decisions by listening to both arguments, looking up a netrual source and coming to their own conclusion. I think that DeV has already pointed that out.

My point was refereing to that DeV was checking should the adverts be taken down to observe the 24hr blackout and I was commenting on that.

Sully

Sully wrote: »

I was not refering to the point if the advertiser was liying or not. Boards cant be forced to take them down if the organisation is allowed say them in public and have them up on lamposts.

I think though we were always debating here the principle of whether this place should be a vehicle for paid for political lies.

People are to make informed decisions by listening to both arguments, looking up a netrual source and coming to their own conclusion. I think that DeV has already pointed that out.

I'd agree with you only for the repeated rubbish posted often over on the EU forum by the no side.
Scofflaw plainly points out why it's rubbish and the no voter either go's gahh I'm voting no anyway so there or and just doesn't indicate that they accept it at all.

My point was refereing to that DeV was checking should the adverts be taken down to observe the 24hr blackout and I was commenting on that.

Ah I see.
I thought you made a point on all discussion having to be taken down as a result which is what I was commenting on though.

DeVore

"I think though we were always debating here the principle of whether this place should be a vehicle for paid for political lies."

Now I think that that is ridiculous hyperbole. I'm not wild about that ad and I'm sure we have learned something through this, but I'm not about to stand by and allow the site to be called a vehicle for political lies

I think you might be going a touch ott there.

In terms of political honesty, you started this thread implying (indeed outright saying) that you were a swing voter and inviting the no camp to sway you. Then you argued with each point and forgive me if you dont seem, subsequently, to be a swing voter at all...

I'm sure this seems all fair game to you but it does strike me as awful "shilly".

DeV.

DeVore

The ASAI got back to us and have ruled that online is not part of the media blackout, so at least that's clarified.

DeV.

Sully

Deleted User wrote: »

I think though we were always debating here the principle of whether this place should be a vehicle for paid for political lies. I'd agree with you only for the repeated rubbish posted often over on the EU forum by the no side.

Say that to the councils who leave up the posters then. Its just another form of media.

Scofflaw plainly points out why it's rubbish and the no voter either go's gahh I'm voting no anyway so there or and just doesn't indicate that they accept it at all.

Such is life. Its a discussion forum, your not guarnteed accurate or tuthfull comments. If people cba to do the research on their own, and vote no/yes based on posters, adverts and comments on a forum - then there is **** all we can do about it. They said it on Pat Kennys show, they said it plenty of times in the media - nobody cares. You cant force people to agree with your POV.

The Yes campaign sucked, the No campaign was far stronger and the Yes campaign did a ****e job at arguing back.

Ah I see.
I thought you made a point on all discussion having to be taken down as a result which is what I was commenting on though.

Ya, my bad for not quoting DeV - I can see the confusion

Sully

DeVore wrote: »

The ASAI got back to us and have ruled that online is not part of the media blackout, so at least that's clarified.

DeV.

Did they give any indication as to why? I agree with them, just curious!