Slashdot Mirror


Seattle Finds Facebook in Violation of City Campaign Finance Law (reuters.com)

Seattle's election authority said on Monday that Facebook is in violation of a city law that requires disclosure of who buys election ads, the first attempt of its kind to regulate U.S. political ads on the internet. From a report: Facebook must disclose details about spending in last year's Seattle city elections or face penalties, Wayne Barnett, executive director of the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission, said in a statement. The penalties could be up to $5,000 per advertising buy, Barnett said, adding that he would discuss next steps this week with Seattle's city attorney.

106 comments

  1. Liked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I like this

  2. I love where I live by elcor · · Score: 5, Funny

    They're cutting the balls of Facebook, passing a law to cut the balls of Apple's inbuilt obsolescence, have native Indian tribes controlling most of the forests. Yep i like Washington state Too bad about those blue scanners tracking cars on the 405. Now they need to cut the balls off microsoft who installed those.

    1. Re:I love where I live by ArylAkamov · · Score: 1

      What scanners are you talking about? I don't venture down there too often.

    2. Re:I love where I live by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      too bad about all the faggots and hipsters though

    3. Re:I love where I live by sdinfoserv · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      The far left "extortion" lane, you know, rather then add more driver lanes to an traffic system over capacity - State DOT added "toll" lanes and charges $12 per pass, or $24 per day (2 ways) unless you want to sit in traffic for 3 hours to drive 30 miles.
      But that's the State... Wanna talk about Seattle, talk about the mandated "Safe Injection Sites" so drug users get clean needles and doctor oversight as they shoot up - courtesy of the tax payers.
      Or Lynnwood Washington's 10.4% sales tax.....oh, again, that's not Seattle... where there's just no answer to the question "so how much of other peoples money do you need to spend?"

    4. Re:I love where I live by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      He's talking about the HOV hot lanes where you can pay to drive in them if you are not carpooling. It has absolutely nothing to do with Microsoft.

      Indian tribes control very, very little of the forests too. The vast majority of forest land in WA is owned by the Department of Natural Resources, not the tribes. Reservation land owned by the tribes is very small:
      http://www.indian-ed.org/resources/tribal-directory-map/

    5. Re:I love where I live by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and the joke is on the idiots paying for to use those lanes. they only save 5-10 minutes during their commute. If they do that every day they can pay $1000s per year just to get to work or home a couple minutes faster.

    6. Re:I love where I live by Ichijo · · Score: 0

      The far left "extortion" lane, you know, rather then add more driver lanes to an traffic system over capacity - State DOT added "toll" lanes and charges $12 per pass, or $24 per day (2 ways)

      This page says it costs between 75 cents and $10 based on real-time traffic conditions. How did you get $12?

      If paying market rates is"extortion", then is eBay "extortion bay"? Have you ever felt cheated when you won an auction?

      Meanwhile, does the freeway finally pay for itself now, or is it still being subsidized by taxpayers? Who's extorting whom?

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    7. Re: I love where I live by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Safe injection sites"

      I'm actually in favor of these, as it means guys dope up under supervision and with cleaner drugs. Better they do it in an enclosed area where they can safely dispose of the used syringes and bottles than in the streets where dirty needles litter the sidewalk.
      I do agree that Washington state has ridiculous taxes though.

    8. Re:I love where I live by Altrag · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The idea with safe injection sites -- aside from just being a decent human and recognizing that other people need help -- is that needles are easier and cheaper to deal with than bodies (or worse, long-term health problems like AIDS and other needle-transmitted diseases. Even if you decide the person in question isn't worth treating, they've got the possibility to spread those diseases around and multiply the costs.)

      But of course, helping people in need is UnAmerican.. at least in the opinion of many on the right (and even some on the left.) They'll happily eat whatever long-term costs if they get to punish people _right now_ who fell on hard times, made one bad choice they can't escape from, or were just plain unlucky in life.

    9. Re:I love where I live by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These "Safe Injection Sites" might save money for all we know. I can only describe it as preventive health. May prevent small trespassing from dudes wanting to keep out of sight. Even very small reductions in crime and betterments of mental health and cleanliness may be good for something.
      I saw on TV people going to this sort of place in Switzerland. Normal people who have a job, etc.

    10. Re: I love where I live by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So which is more obsolete, an iPhone that gets regular OS updates and has battery management software which makes a device useable for longer than 2 years as the batteries get older, or an Android phone which has an obsolete OS the day it is shipped and which will never get a single update putting all the data on the phone at risk? I think Android phones have a lifespan of about 21 months compared to iPhones 3 years, so really which companies should be the target of this law?

      Fortunately the lucky people in Seattle will soon have someone's mommy who can tell them what they can buy, and who can step in with some hefty taxes if you decide you have a mind of your own and feel you can make your own choices.

    11. Re:I love where I live by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You know, it's funny: before Trump was elected, it was all about piling power upon power into the federal government. We can't have everyone consulting state and local governments every time they want to do something, too burdensome. Inefficient. Moreover the people at the federal level are smarter and better at their jobs. They have advanced degrees from better schools. Who has Seattle got? People with degrees from State U?

      Then overnight, it went to inefficient burdensome regulations written by the poorly educated for everyone. Suddenly it was good? You realize one of Trump's "things" is that we don't need a federal government to do everything and state & local governments can do for themselves? You're just falling for his con man act. I thought you were smarter than that. Resist!

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    12. Re:I love where I live by Obfuscant · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But of course, helping people in need is UnAmerican..

      That assumes that giving people the tools to kill themselves using illegal substances without picking up a fatal disease in the process is actually helping them, compared to providing services to help them break the habit. While you might argue that we aren't providing enough of the latter, that doesn't mean we should just take the easy way out and pretend that we are helping.

    13. Re:I love where I live by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Decent humans encourage druggie-types to drop-dead ... and encapsule HIV+ perps in UTAH gulags. Fuck the bitches. Next question hampster-breath ?

    14. Re:I love where I live by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      405 has many separate toll entrance/exit points and I wouldn't doubt it adds up to 12 dollars if you need to get through 12 miles of tolls.

    15. Re:I love where I live by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... Microsoft who installed those.

      It's cute you think they're doing this for you. What would motivate government to cut the balls off obedient giants; best (for government) to enjoy the alignment of values?

      US politicians are happy to screw-over each other and in the process, the voter. They're not so happy when a third-party (eg. Russia) can play favourites. Seattle is merely enforcing a 40 year-old law to ensure that politicians use complete 'honesty' when buying their dishonest adverts.

    16. Re:I love where I live by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Even if needle exchange programmes do nothing at all to help people get off drugs (and I can't think of a better way of offering help for those who need it than through such a service), the point is that it reduces both emergency medical care resulting from sharing needles (which taxpayers pay for) AND reducing the littering of used needles (a massive public health hazard and a costly mess to clean up).

      These programmes save far more of our tax money than they cost, but some people will oppose them because they also help people whom they don't like. If we were feeling extra generous, we can spend that saved money on programmes to help people get off drugs entirely, or at least we could if it wasn't for people like the OP frothing at the mouth at the thought of "his" tax money going to help people he's deemed morally corrupt for becoming addicts.

    17. Re: I love where I live by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You tell 'em, Ivan!

    18. Re: I love where I live by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      Freeway traffic neutrality sounds like a fine idea. Allowing the rich to pay for better streets than the masses are allowed to drive on is a deeply corrupt policy.

    19. Re:I love where I live by DavidMZ · · Score: 2

      You know, it's funny: before Trump was elected, it was all about piling power upon power into the federal government. We can't have everyone consulting state and local governments every time they want to do something, too burdensome. Inefficient. Moreover the people at the federal level are smarter and better at their jobs. They have advanced degrees from better schools. Who has Seattle got? People with degrees from State U?

      Then overnight, it went to inefficient burdensome regulations written by the poorly educated for everyone. Suddenly it was good? You realize one of Trump's "things" is that we don't need a federal government to do everything and state & local governments can do for themselves? You're just falling for his con man act. I thought you were smarter than that. Resist!

      When the federal government is failing, the local government takes the necessary measures to protect the population. Still, that's a government failure and it is not something to rejoice about.

    20. Re: I love where I live by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, close down the safe injection sites and then the drug addicts can hang around and shoot up around your neighborhood. If you want to help even more you can form a neighborhood group that goes around telling them that drugs are bad and that they should pull themselves together. How does that sound as an alternative?

    21. Re: I love where I live by MattFlower · · Score: 1

      That doesnâ(TM)t sound like a valid analogy to me. âoePay for priorityâ sounds more like allowing some customers to pay $150/mo for gigabit internet largely built with taxpayer dollars while others just canâ(TM)t afford or justify the additional expense.

      Net neutrality is more like a making a rule that exclusively allows Honda cars in the âoepay for priorityâ lane because they paid the transportation department off. Few would buy a Kia even if they were amazing because everybody wants to be home earlier and Kias take too long to get there. Furthermore, Kia would never be able to buy there way into that lane because they can never earn quite enough money to afford it. Honda becomes the de facto car and is difficult to unseat from their position of power. To me, thatâ(TM)s net neutrality.

    22. Re:I love where I live by maggotbrain_777 · · Score: 1

      Keep whinging. Be thankful that most of these are 'sin' taxes and not an across the board state income tax.

    23. Re:I love where I live by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Even if needle exchange programmes do nothing at all to help people get off drugs (and I can't think of a better way of offering help for those who need it than through such a service),

      I try not to respond to AC because they usually say patently silly things, like this. You can't think of a better way of helping people to get off drugs than to give them needles so they can continue to shoot up with less worry about fatal illnesses?

      the point is that it reduces both emergency medical care resulting from sharing needles (which taxpayers pay for) AND reducing the littering of used needles (a massive public health hazard and a costly mess to clean up).

      And none of this is helping the drug addict in the long run. It's saving the taxpayer money. It may APPEAR to "help the addict" but it is really enabling a behavior that is dangerous and often fatal in itself. Virtue signaling, I think it is called.

      The typical insult as demonstrated by the GP is that conservatives don't want to help people if they don't want to give them clean needles. As I pointed out, this assumes that giving people clean needles so they can kill themselves with illegal drugs with less fear of getting a fatal disease in the process is "helping them".

      These programmes save far more of our tax money than they cost, but some people will oppose them because they also help people whom they don't like.

      Yep, and now you've repeated the same nonsense insult, using the same incorrect assumption. If you like someone you will help them get off drugs, not make it easier and less troublesome for them to keep doing them.

    24. Re:I love where I live by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... giving people the tools to kill themselves ...

      Addiction is narcissism, which is psychopathic/sociopathic behaviour. Chemical addition tends towards the psychopathic side. (eg. Everybody else is a cheque-book, you're for me or against me, the world owes me). Alas, one cannot tell them what to think, or make them respect other people. So minimizing the damage caused by those able to 'limit' their addiction and helping the others die (although safe-injection clinics tend to save lives) is the best outcome.

    25. Re:I love where I live by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... too burdensome. Inefficient.

      True. Yet the more generalized paperwork is, the fewer desirable outcomes it produces. So it's a compromise between saving money and ensuring "No child left behind". The US federal government tends to do badly at compromises.

      ... state & local governments can do for themselves ...

      US state governments are meant to write the unifying legislation they want, which doesn't happen. It gives the federal government an opportunity to push their laws onto everyone, not a good outcome when politicians are routinely bribed.

      Governance of the people is meant to be divided between state and local government. Duplication of departments doesn't ensure local control, it ensures less accountability of bureaucrats.

    26. Re:I love where I live by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are very stupid.

      Encouraging them to go to where medical staff is is totally a bogus way to get people help because it is impossible that those staff members have knowledge of where to go for help.

      numbnuts

    27. Re: I love where I live by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That doesn't make sense. Something should either be legal or illegal. Safe injection sites basically are another name for "spaces to do ". The only reason they exist is because governments are giving up trying to control/prevent it. But imagine if things like rape got to ridiculous levels and were uncontrollable, should we make safe spaces to commit rape? Shootings? Suicides?

      Either legalize drugs or ban drugs. Or just admit that society has passed the point of fixing and convert to an anarchist system. IMHO drugs are just all around bad and people can't seem to be trusted to avoid them, so ban them completely and if someone is caught using it they get the choice to a mandatory rehab program or the choice to get banned from the country and taken out to sea (maybe give them three chances).

    28. Re:I love where I live by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are a god damn idiot

    29. Re:I love where I live by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 1

      You do realize that a lot of people get upset at ebay sellers like with the nintendo classic and online people definitely called it extortion.

    30. Re:I love where I live by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seattle == flyover? WTF?

    31. Re:I love where I live by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The far left "extortion" lane, you know, rather then add more driver lanes to an traffic system over capacity

      You should look up "induced demand".

    32. Re:I love where I live by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what is more efficient , having people go out hunting for the people on drugs to help them get off them or have those people come to the people who are going to try and help them get off drugs?

      side note, by giving the people who do the drugs clean needles and a place to dispose of those needles you are not helping them, instead you are helping the people who are not on drugs from encountering used and possibly infected needles in open spaces.

      Anyways, your argument seems to be focused on the drug user them selves which is an incredibly close minded sentiment. You are also using snark and insults to help prove your point and when combined with your assumptions it is clear you have missed the point. the previous AC poster was making the argument that safe injection sites are a net benefit for society while you continued to focus on only the drug user. based on a cost benefit analysis, the previous AC is right.

      Costs of a safe injection site:
      - the cost to operate
      - enabling drug users who do not want to quit.

      Benifits:
      - clean needles reduce transmittable diseases (this benefits society as non drug users interact with drug users on a regular basis)
      - Needle disposal reduces transmittable diseases from discarded needles to the general public (also a benefit to society in general)
      - providing testing kits meaning less overdoses (also net burden to society in the form of less emergency personnel to pay for)
      - a more efficient method to intervention and prevention of drug use (rather than going out hunting for drug users, have professionals talk to the ones that come in)

      and those are all just off the top of my head, the point that i am making is that such sites are a net benefit to society but removing the burden of collateral damage that such drug users force on to the society in general. From sharing their transmittable diseases to the non drug using public to the theft and crime that comes with the drug use through its illegality. the annoying part for me is that we haven't figured out the lesson we should have from prohibition, that making substance use illegal we just create more crime and substance abuse. The statistics from other countries who have decriminalized drug use confirms this several times over. Some drug users are always going to be shooting up, it pays in the long run to reduce their impact on the rest of society and just because you don't see them doesn't mean that they aren't there.

      In conclusion, these sites are not about the drug addict, they are about containing the collateral damage from drug addiction which is a net benefit to society even if they do cost tax payer money. It has nothing to do with your political affiliation or whether you want to help drug users or not, quite simply it comes down to do these sites have a net benefit to society or not. You are the one going on about virtue signaling instead of attacking the previous argument based on its merits alone, as you continue to focus on the benefit to the drug user instead of the benefit to everyone.

    33. Re:I love where I live by sdinfoserv · · Score: 1

      The toll is always $10 when there is heavy traffic - plus a $2 service fee if you have not purchased the automated charge GoodToGo pass that requires a credit card... 10+2 is 12.....

    34. Re:I love where I live by sdinfoserv · · Score: 1

      Your second question: who's being extorted?
      The DOT took away 1 regular traffic lane and built a toll lane, leaving 2 toll lanes. If you don't "pay to play", you end up sitting in traffic 3 hours on a 25mile drive. I live in Mukilteo and my wife worked in Redmond taking the 405 daily. Yes, I purchased a goodtogo pass, even after the savings of the fees, still cost $75 per week which is $3900 per year. Even in the toll lane, her commuter was 45min to an hour per way. Without the toll lane, in regular traffic lanes (for those who can't afford the $4K per year in tolls), it's 1-2 hours per way for 25 miles... That's obscene.
      Add on top of the $4000 traffic tools the DOUBLING of my vehicle registration for the Sound Transit $54BILLION expansion, and the increased property taxes, again for the Sound Transit Expansion, and yes, the State is extorting money.
      Is the 405 paying for itelf? It was passed into law under the conditions of the law states the two-year anniversary requirement that the toll lanes meet the 45 mph standard and collect at least enough money to meet operating costs or they “must be terminated as soon as practicable.” The estimated $18M in collection fees is actually $30M, but the speed is no where near 45 MPH average. Yet it's not terminated, like most legislators, ours are addicted to tax money.
      Additionally, there's a new tunnel into Seattle being dug that will be a toll. The Seattle area has become the worst traffic area in the Country
      https://www.seattletimes.com/s...
      and all the State wants to do is capitalize on traffic jams, create revenue and fund homeless and drug "safe sites" where addicts get free needles and doctor supervision. https://www.washingtonpost.com...

    35. Re:I love where I live by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      Yes, I purchased a goodtogo pass, even after the savings of the fees, still cost $75 per week which is $3900 per year. Even in the toll lane, her commuter was 45min to an hour per way.

      With so many people eager to pay the toll that the freeway was still congested, it sounds like the price was too low!

      Without the toll lane, in regular traffic lanes...it's 1-2 hours per way for 25 miles... That's obscene.

      Or in the words of Yogi Berra, "nobody takes the 405 anymore. It's too crowded."

      Is the 405 paying for itelf? It was passed into law under the conditions...that the toll lanes...collect at least enough money to meet operating costs

      Ok but what about maintenance costs, construction costs (including land acquisition costs) and opportunity costs (including the lost property and sales taxes the city would earn if they used the land for something else)? Will tolls cover all of the cost of building the new tunnel or will it also require a tax subsidy?

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    36. Re:I love where I live by Dutchmaan · · Score: 1

      I want highway neutrality!!!!! The great irony is that 405 is a complete physical example of not having net neutrality.

    37. Re:I love where I live by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what happens when you guys in king county decide to allow the state to make the hood canal bridge toll. You guys paved the way to let the state start tolling whatever they want.

    38. Re:I love where I live by Altrag · · Score: 1

      People already have those "tools to kill themselves." The safe injection site gives them a way to use the drugs that's safer for them, safer for the public and if they do OD, they've got trained staff on hand who can deal with the situation instead of in a dirty apartment or an alley or something where they're almost certain to die, with a body left for just anybody to find.

      And of course you're also ignoring that safe injection sites also highly promote and often even offer services to help addicts get off the drugs, so its helping in that aspect as well.

      So it:
      a) Is cheaper in the long term by ensuring immediate care is available should an OD occur rather than having to deal with the much more expensive consequences after the fact.

      b) Helps the public by reducing used needle litter, reducing the spread of infections diseases and so on.

      c) Helps the drugs users themselves, as much as they can be helped.

      The _only_ downside to safe injection sites is the NIMBY argument. Most people (rightfully, imo) don't want a bunch of drug users passing through their neighborhood, regardless of whether they're on their way to a safe injection site or for some other purpose. But that's a matter for city planners and its not _that_ hard to deal with in most cases. For starters, putting the site in an area that's already got a large drug usage problem both reduces the NIMBY complaints as well as managing the users to some degree, again helping out the non-using neighbors.

      Also a bit off topic but, by the way you talk about drugs as "tools to kill themselves," I'm curious as to your views on the second amendment? I have a suspicion from your phrasing that you're a supporter..

    39. Re:I love where I live by sdinfoserv · · Score: 1

      They're going to toll every single upgrade. The Alaska Viaduct upgrade will be tolled once complete:
      http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projec...

  3. 5000$? by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    Wow, the petty-cash will not even get a dent.

    1. Re:5000$? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's $5K per ad buy. Could be looking at millions in fines.

  4. Consequence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What if they straight up not pay? How could Seattle hold Facebook accountable?

    1. Re:Consequence? by darkain · · Score: 1

      Facebook has physical offices within the city of Seattle. I'm sure they can think of several ways to enforce this upon those offices.

    2. Re:Consequence? by sabri · · Score: 2

      Facebook has physical offices within the city of Seattle

      Which can be closed in a day, if needed. City laws apply only within the city.

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    3. Re: Consequence? by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      So you're saying the city should send out the pigs and toss some FB execs in the clink until the company pays up?

      C'mon, if we're going to have a police state - and we already do - we might as well put it to good use.

    4. Re:Consequence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moving an office and employees is extremely expensive and wastes a ton of time.

      numbnuts

    5. Re:Consequence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who said anything about moving an office and employees? The guy said "close" not "move".

    6. Re:Consequence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would imply FB doesn't need the services that office provides so why is it open to begin with? If it doesn't have to duplicate what that office does it never needed it to begin with.

      I wish you morons would spend the 5 seconds it takes to think through your shitty arguments.

      numbnuts

  5. The law's been around since 1977 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    throw the book at them

  6. Re:The city is short on money... by greenwow · · Score: 0

    Like the nearly 80% tax on soda and nickel tax per bullet which for cheaper calibers could be more than a 100% tax.

  7. So many violations. by Narcocide · · Score: 1

    Facebook is guilty of so much... if they were even fairly prosecuted for half of it they'd have to shut down the company.

  8. Two powerhouses of liberal influence.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ... cannibalizing each other.

    No surprise - it's how things always end when pretense of care for people is used as a route to power.

    Why? Because power is the real end game, not people.

  9. And if Hillary had won, nobody would've cared by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The law went unenforced against tech companies until a local newspaper, The Stranger, published a story in December in the wake of the Russia allegations asking why.

    It's ironic because, in both of Obama's campaigns he claimed to get the majority of his fundraising from individual credit card donations and many people pointed out that nobody could track the source of the money wondering if that was in violation of campaign finance laws.

    Nobody bothered investigating that.

    OTOH, California and Washington refused to provide information to Trump's election investigation too because they felt they had a right to ignore laws they detest. Perhaps Facebook and Google should do the same and cite to the courts this same rationale.

    1. Re:And if Hillary had won, nobody would've cared by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      whataboutism

    2. Re:And if Hillary had won, nobody would've cared by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh look, you think yourself so clever because you can use an internet meme as if you're using logic while not even understanding the concept presented because it might make you actually look to deeper truths (which I know you don't want).
      #HeadInTheSand

      The fact of the matter is that law enforcement has become political and we enforce only those laws and against those as we see fit. That's not fair, impartial or even judicial.

    3. Re:And if Hillary had won, nobody would've cared by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are you surprised? Memes protecting the feelz is all that's taught these days.

    4. Re: And if Hillary had won, nobody would've cared by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      There's no such thing as all of you before the law. Never has been, probably never will be. The law is but a tool of the powerful for the oppression of the masses.

    5. Re:And if Hillary had won, nobody would've cared by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What law requires states to cooperate with voter suppression efforts?

      numbnuts

  10. I hope the city is ready for the legal bills by wfrazee2004 · · Score: 1

    For the big Giants of the internet the last thing they want is established precedent where a metro municipal code drives the practice of national or global content.

    Expect Facebook to fight back with amicus briefs from every major content provider weighing in on thier side.

    This would be a quixotic foray for Seattle, and a phyrric victory the best possible outcome.

    1. Re:I hope the city is ready for the legal bills by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      It's one of the things that companies tend to forget when it comes to the internet laws aren't the same everywhere. As an advertising company that targets local ads they should be aware of the laws in places that they target. When it comes to Seattle and the disclosure of advertising in their local elections this isn't global or national content we are talking about it's advertising that is targeting the Seattle residents of voting age in a local matter. Other businesses whether local or multinational still manage to follow local laws in the places they do business the internet shouldn't be any different.

      This makes doing business over the internet more difficult but I still see products on sites where they don't ship to certain states like california.

    2. Re:I hope the city is ready for the legal bills by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      For the big Giants of the internet the last thing they want is established precedent where a metro municipal code drives the practice of national or global content.

      Do YOU want national or global content controlled by a metro municipal code? Remember, lots of things are illegal someplace.

    3. Re:I hope the city is ready for the legal bills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This was for a MUNICIPAL election.
      One would assume that the groups buying ads would understand local laws.

    4. Re:I hope the city is ready for the legal bills by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      This was for a MUNICIPAL election. One would assume that the groups buying ads would understand local laws.

      I understand my local laws. I also don't live in Seattle. Suppose I buy an ad in USA Today that makes a non-glaringly obvious reference to a Seattle election. I followed the laws of the municipalities I live in. What crime have I committed? USA Today doesn't know the ad refers to Seattle, are they liable?

      Many things are illegal someplace. Do you want national content controlled by municipal laws?

    5. Re: I hope the city is ready for the legal bills by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      FB sells geographically targeted advertising. It would not be unreasonable to bar them from selling ads that target Seattle. Essentially saying, do whatever you want in other cities, but you are not free to do business in our city.

      Now whether that is desirable public policy is a whole different question.

    6. Re: I hope the city is ready for the legal bills by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      FB sells geographically targeted advertising.

      Wouldn't it be nice if "the Internet" provided instantly available absolutely correct location information about every person who visits your website, at the granularity necessary to know which town they are in? (That's "street address level", in case you were wondering.) Would that be nice? You get content controlled by local municipalities AND location tracking in one package.

      I just love going to websites that want to access "your location data", which none of the browsers I use actually has to begin with. And then those websites guess where I am, with often comical results. (One recent example: a website I was accessing through an ISP in MA sent me to their HAWAII web pages. How droll.) You may be using an ISP that isn't even on the same side of the country that you are, so the user could be in the heart of Seattle but look like they're in New Jersey as far as Facebook can tell. I've seen satellite internet services show that users standing in downtown Seattle are someplace in Mexico, because that's where the downlink is.

      Even more likely, you're in Seattle but the cell tower your phone is connected to is just outside the city limits. Are you "in" or "out" of Seattle, and should FB show you the ad or not? How far away from Seattle should Seattle law extend?

      You can "geographically target" all you want, but if your data isn't good, then you're going to prison. The only safe option for web operators is to limit their content based on all municipal laws. Do YOU want that to be how the internet works?

    7. Re: I hope the city is ready for the legal bills by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      You're making this *way* harder than it needs to be. FB is an advertising company. They sell advertising products that are targeted to specific cities. A customer says to FB something along the lines of, "doodz, I wanna like sell shoes to people in like Seattle, hook me up!" And Facebook can reply, "Sorry sir, local laws in the city of Seattle prohibit us from selling advertisements targeted to that city. Maybe you would like to buy an ad for Portland instead?"

      No need for absolute certainty about a user's location. The issue is the product they are offering for sale, not the precision of IP-based geolocation.

    8. Re: I hope the city is ready for the legal bills by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      A customer says to FB something along the lines of, "doodz, I wanna like sell shoes to people in like Seattle, hook me up!" And Facebook can reply, "Sorry sir, local laws in the city of Seattle prohibit us from selling advertisements targeted to that city.

      And what does FB say when someone says they want to advertise their shoes nationwide? "Sorry, we can't accept your ad because Seattle doesn't allow shoe ads." Ok, can I advertise suspenders? "Nope, Kansas City has laws against suspender ads."

      You're looking at this like someone is always going to target their ads at a specific city. They aren't. In fact, if someone knows their ad is banned in that city and they want to get the message through anyway, they'll just not say it is targeted at that city. (I gave an example in another post already.) And FB isn't going to know that the user is in any specific city, so they can't stop users from seeing ads based on their location.

      It is harder than you think it is. That's why you think I'm making it harder than it has to be.

      No need for absolute certainty about a user's location.

      If you don't know where the user is, you don't know what ads you can and cannot show him based on local laws. If you have to refuse to accept ads because some city someplace has banned them, then indeed, national content is being controlled by municipal laws. Do YOU want that? I don't. Many things are illegal somewhere.

      Nazi. Oops, not only did I Godwin this discussion, I broke the laws of the German republic. Go figure.

    9. Re: I hope the city is ready for the legal bills by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      And what does FB say when someone says they want to advertise their shoes nationwide? "Sorry, we can't accept your ad because Seattle doesn't allow shoe ads." Ok, can I advertise suspenders? "Nope, Kansas City has laws against suspender ads."

      You're looking at this like someone is always going to target their ads at a specific city. They aren't. In fact, if someone knows their ad is banned in that city and they want to get the message through anyway, they'll just not say it is targeted at that city. (I gave an example in another post already.) And FB isn't going to know that the user is in any specific city, so they can't stop users from seeing ads based on their location.

      It is harder than you think it is. That's why you think I'm making it harder than it has to be.

      Let's roll back for a minute. The actual issue in Seattle now is disclosure about campaign advertisement spending. So we're both kind of barking up the wrong tree talking about banning ads.

      Anyways, this is a pretty narrow class of advertisements. I think from television there is quite a bit of existing law about how to tell what is and is not a campaign ad subject to the disclosure laws.

      Just because FB is a nationwide company headquartered out of state, should it be exempt from campaign finance disclosure laws? If someone buys a bunch of "Elect Ike Eisenhower for Major!" billboard ads from Clear Channel, should Clear Channel also be exempt from the local law because it is headquartered out of state?

      Extending already established campaign finance disclosure laws to online advertising is a narrower issue than allowing local laws to block what products may be sold or what content may be published. Its maximal failure mode is not that bad - tons and tons of campaign finance disclosure with potentially burdensome administrative overhead.

      One might argue a Federal-level uniform set of campaign finance disclosure laws for online advertising would be a better way to go. Certainly it would ease the administrative burden on big national companies. However on the issue of campaign transparency I suspect many local laws are going to be better and more in the public interest than any Federal law we might realistically expect.

    10. Re: I hope the city is ready for the legal bills by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      Just because FB is a nationwide company headquartered out of state, should it be exempt from campaign finance disclosure laws?

      Yes, absolutely! Anyone with no physical presence in a given jurisdiction ought to have zero obligation to follow that jurisdiction's rules. The location of the user of the service should be irrelevant. The local government can try regulating the users and intermediaries within their jurisdiction directly if they have a problem with people accessing an outside service. Of course, there will probably be a certain amount of political fallout should the Seattle government attempt to ban access to Facebook within the city's borders...

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
  11. Re:The city is short on money... by greenwow · · Score: 1

    Just paid without tax $13.75 for a 32 pack at Costco. That's 42.97 cents per can which is much less than your 47 cent challenge.

  12. 1st amendment, cunts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Block all internet in Seattle.

    1. Re:1st amendment, cunts by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      If you force most people to choose between Amazon & MS or Facebook, I'm not sure Seattle's the one that gets cut off.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    2. Re:1st amendment, cunts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is about disclosure.
      People have a right to know who is backing who in a campaign.
      This is not about hindering one's first amendment rights.
      If anything, it's opening the flood gates to freedom of information.
      Especially when that information is something the voters have a right to know.

    3. Re:1st amendment, cunts by Grunschev · · Score: 1

      Well, we have laws about political campaign finance. They vary widely from state to state. I can't speak to Washington, but when I ran for office a couple years ago I had to take a half day class from the Secretary of State's office here in Colorado.

      For example, it's illegal for a foreigner to contribute to the political campaign of somebody running for office in Colorado. That contribution doesn't need to be in cash. It could be "in kind", which would include pretty much anything other than money. Like advertising. There are also limits on individual donations. Here in CO, a person can't contribute more than $400, and corporations aren't allowed to contribute.

      You invoking the First Amendment doesn't apply. What we want to find out is who is paying and how much they're paying. It's not about the content of the speech. So, we require reporting. Which means we want to know who spent the money and how much they spent.

      Of course, you might be somebody who doesn't care how our elections are funded. In which case you can drink some Chlorox. Have a nice day!

    4. Re:1st amendment, cunts by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Of course it is about content. More precisely it is about protecting the incumbents from outside challengers. For example, that half day you spent in that class in order to run for office provides just the first barrier to entry. In order to understand that the point of campaign finance laws is to protect incumbents all you have to do is look at the rate at which incumbents win re-election...every time a new campaign finance law is passed, the chance that the incumbent will lose the election goes down. The "best" part about campaign finance laws is that those who do defeat an incumbent are now almost always deeply indebted to the political machine which supplied the money for them to even campaign.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    5. Re: 1st amendment, cunts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're saying the Chinese and Saudi governments should not have been allowed to bankroll Hillary's campaign?

    6. Re:1st amendment, cunts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are a fucking retard

  13. Excellent by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Too bad it doesn't include jail time for senior execs

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:Excellent by Altrag · · Score: 1

      Why would it? Major companies like FB run into issues like this all the time. Not even they have the resources it takes to ensure they're in compliance with every bylaw in every jurisdiction they service around the entire world. This is a big nothingburger that wouldn't even make the 17th page news if it was anyone other than Facebook involved. I mean its not like Russia gives a shit who the mayor of Seattle is in the same way they're interested in who POTUS is. Never mind the fact that there isn't (as far as I know) any allegations of anybody meddling in the Seattle city elections. Basically someone just found an old law that happens to have an extremely vague relation (little more than buzzword matching) to major national events and decided to make a name for themselves.

  14. FaceBook is worth BILLIONS, so.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not try to get a slice of that delicious pie? :D

    Gotta get them bucks somehow.

    1. Re:FaceBook is worth BILLIONS, so.... by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      Facebook should just ban any advertising or news on their platform mentioning members of the city council positively.

      I mean, after all, as long as they are going to have to go through the trouble and expense of setting something up to figure out which advertising might be considered political and may affect city elections, they could just tack that policy on to make good use of it. Alternately, they could just move all offices and employees out of the State and then point to the Interstate Commerce Clause.

      Back in the non-seattle-normal-world, advertisers are sometimes required to include who paid for an ad in their ad, but they people they pay to show the advertisement aren't setup to become the arbiters of what is a political ad and what isn't and trace who paid for what. How are they supposed to know if someone's post in support of a politician on their Facebook page is paid advertising or free publicity, for example?

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
  15. Re: The city is short on money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Funny thing there was an episode of Sliders codemning Republicans for taxing sodas etc. Funny it turned out to be Democrats to do it instead.

  16. Natural Evolution of Applying laws to Internet by IcyWolfy · · Score: 2

    Because the Internet exists no-where, one can easily argue that it exists everywhere.

    And this is how countries start applying national laws to international companies who have an Internet Presence in their country.
    And that presence is the consumer viewing or interacting with the website primarily, a company office secondarily.

    So, with all the countries (rightfully) applying basic national laws to anyone providing a service to their residences leads to the next step:
    These companies have a presence in, and should be following all the laws for sub-national political entities.

    The US has started this by having internet companies follow broad laws at the state level. Which is usually fairly homogeneous.
    However, even smaller localities have a legitimate claim to apply their laws to services being offered to their residents, since the point of interaction is physically at the consumers terminal.

    The rhetoric from a decade ago "How can you follow all the laws for all the countries who can view your content?", turned out to be: You simply provide a different experience to each geographic region. And follow the laws required.

    This will get exponentially more difficult once all the localities start to realise that they need to apply their laws to all entities, or start doing the TV thing and black-out regions.

  17. Expected from thieving Suckerberg JUDENoid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jews believe this of all they call goyim/gentiles (any non-jew): Jews = biggest racists of all (for which they "jew guilt" you for no less! They're hypocrites known as thieves all thru history or were Argentines in the 1940 under Perrone, Spanish inquistion & Spain 1492 (Christopher Columbus the jew https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22C... sailed to the US for them to create it), France (1306), Egypt (despoiled/robbed by jews), Arabs (pre & post 1948), England (1330 Edward longshanks), Romans under titus, Russia pogroms and Germany who got rid of them from their nations nazi german's too? No. Driven into DESERTS ages ago! Don't wonder why after all those exilings above. Should anyone doubt any of this see Jacob Javits' crony Rosenthal spill the beans on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4zMVZ8HnFI/ where he called all Christianity fools for helping Israel and the biggest scam of all time per their beliefs below from their Talmud. This is the province of the synagogue of Satan (Khazar/Pharisees whom Jesus Christ himself kicked to the curb out of the temple & they killed him for it. Jeremiah did the same to them also + the Essenes could not stand them either breaking away from the pharisee corruption):

    Maria Abramovic satanist spirit cooker pal of Hillary Clinton the Voodoo queen is a jew https://www.google.com/search?...

    Like Hillary Clinton's mentor Saul Alinsky author of rules for radicals book dedicated to Lucifer

    "Most Jews do not like to admit it, but our god is Lucifer â" so I wasnâ(TM)t lying â" and we are his chosen people. Lucifer is very much aliveâ Harold Rosenthal http://www.thetruthseeker.co.u...

    Jewish rabbi openly admits to satan worship use white children's blood they kill for passover bread, infiltrating and subverting the catholic church, creating the Jesuit order https://www.youtube.com/watch?... and https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Barbara Spectre, a jew, tells everyone it's jews orchestrating the muslim migrant problem in Europe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ/ . No migrant raping of women in Poland. Tons in Sweden. Do the math. Use common-sense. This is to get muslims and other goyim/gentiles to wipe one another out as incompatible cultures that will clash and always have.

    Rabbi A. Finkelstein ADMITS their greatest enemies are ARABS and WHITES (blacks too) whom they wish to kill one another in a 'theater of war' which they find AMUSING https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Finkelstein also admits JEWS DID 9/11 https://www.youtube.com/watch?... profiting by it (and that 3,000 jews employed there did not show up for work that day knowing about it beforehand).

    Finkelstein also admits JEWS are going to destroy the U.S. Dollar and dumping it for other world currencies and gold to destroy the United States.

    George Soros who funds groups to create division in the USA?? A jew. One who sold his own jew people into death for the nazis.

    Zucker now FIRED @ CNN is another frying publicly for lying about "russians" and John Bonifield a producer @ CNN said it is bs. Van Jones did also.

    Bernie Madoff (who made off with everyone's money, especially construction union pensions) shows the thieving nature of the JUDEN!

    Eric Schmidt had to step down @ JEWgle (a jew).

  18. Re:The city is short on money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    80% of $0.47 is $0.37

  19. Who is responsible? by PPH · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For disclosing the financing behind a political ad? If I buy TV time or space on a billboard for a political ad, it's up to me to place some identifying information within the ad. The media owners may have no idea who is behind the advertisement. Because more often than not, the space in the media is purchased through an ad agency or other intermediary.

    Now, if Seattle determines that some ad isn't within compliance of an election law, they can serve Facebook with a warrant to find out who pays for that account. But Facebook has no way of determining in advance to what use I am putting my pages. I might be using it to promote my favorite pizza place or microbrewery. It's not up to Facebook to track that in advance. They may not even have the expertise to evaluate ads for political content.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Who is responsible? by tomhath · · Score: 2

      They don't need to know in advance. But if it's a political ad they need to reveal who paid for it.

      How to identify something as a political ad is an entirely different problem.

    2. Re:Who is responsible? by Grunschev · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you probably need to bone up on campaign finance law.

    3. Re:Who is responsible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always thought it was the advertiser's responsibility to disclose as part of the ad who is behind it.

    4. Re:Who is responsible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope - everything you wrote is wrong in every single case.

    5. Re:Who is responsible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Real campaign finance law? Or Seattle's 'I want a pony' version of it?

  20. Re:The city is short on money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you weren't busy being so obtuse, you could have looked up the fact that the tax is actually 1.75 cents per ounce, making the total percentage vary between beverages based on the original cost. But hey, it's easier to shitpost, amirite?

  21. Re: Expected from thieving Suckerberg JUDENoid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This inane wallotext brought to you by the Anti Defamation League. Send us a donation or you're a bad person!

  22. More Progressive temper tantrum via the courts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is just like the actions of several other Progressive states and cities. A 1977 law that has been unenforced is being pulled out for partisan reasons. Progressives just cannot understand how a candidate as flawed as Clinton could possibly have lost, so they're turning to the courts to punish anyone that may have played a role in the sure thing candidate losing.

    Progressives are going to go down in history for being sore losers who will do anything to protect their beliefs. They will abuse any law and bit of political power they can out of self righteousness. They believe they're morally superior and cannot understand why there are large swaths of the population that do not agree with them. Simply put, the uneducated, deplorable idiots. Those that keep screaming fascism and dictator are the very ones that want to dictate their ideology on the masses. That don't believe anyone that doesn't agree with them on every little nuance of progressive ideology have any right to an opinion.

    1. Re:More Progressive temper tantrum via the courts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no you are just a fucking idiot

  23. Re:The city is short on money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    80% tax? 21 cents on 12 oz of soda is 80%?

    Show me where I can get them $0.47 cokes! or get your facts straight.

    For the $0.21 tax per 12oz can to be 80% you'd be paying $3.15 per 12-pack, which isn't too hard to find if you're shopping sales on Coke/Pepsi products, or buying store brands. But since that $0.21 per can is passed on to the customer (Costco is itemizing that tax on their price tags and receipts) you're also paying sales tax (10.0%-10.4% in the Seattle area) on that tax plus the actual price of the drink itself. Once figuring in sales tax the total tax for a case of Mountain Dew at the Seattle Costco was 103%, ($8.99 for a 36 pack, $7.56 in Seattle sugar tax, and $1.67 in sales tax).

  24. Re:The city is short on money... by tbq · · Score: 1

    you'd be paying $3.15 per 12-pack, which isn't too hard to find if you're shopping sales on Coke/Pepsi products, or buying store brands

    It's not hard to find 12-packs on sale 3 for $10, or occasionally 4 for $11, but you'll never see those princes within the Seattle city limits with the sugar tax.

  25. how i get cured from HIV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am so so happy today, I have been suffering from hiv for the past 2years now, i have spent a lot on drugs and herbs which has all proved abortive, i have tried all means in life to become hiv negative , but there was no answer until i decided to try herbal solution and i found Dr Osebor in an online research i contacted him and after I took his medication as he told me, i am now Hiv Negative, i am very very happy, thanks to Dr.Osebor for helping my life come back newly again without any form of crisis, i promise to tell your name and good deeds to the whole world. Kindly contact him for cure regarding, HIV, Herpes, Cancer and other disease. Email: oseborwinbacktemple@gmail.com or call or what sapp him on +2349066110887

  26. Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...that they completely ignore Soros...lol