Presumably because they want to make it a bit harder for malicious foreign influence operations to run divisive ad campaigns.
Honestly, identity validation should probably be required for _all_ ads, given how many scams you can find there nowadays and how bad actors just show up with the next sockpuppet once caught. Being trigger-happy on requiring identity validation is the next best thing.
Given how clearly it's stated even in the screenshot shown in the article, I wonder if neither the creator nor BoardGameWire can read, or both are just trying to stir up drama (rather than addressing the issue) because it's much better free advertisement, or they tried that but that crucial fact got completely omitted from the article.
* In local elections; they don't have national elections.
> It would be absurd to suggest that women’s votes will be taken away or that this would solve the political problems that vex us. While I don’t think any class of people should be disenfranchised, I have little hope that voting will make things better.
Thiel isn't opposed to Women's suffrage, he's just noting that it had negative impacts (in his opinion). By that logic I'm opposed to social media.
Facebook for me was a net negative.
Instagram, I still keep even though it is owned by Meta. (Just like I still keep WhatsApp even though it’s owned by Meta.) But I don’t use Instagram all that much. Instagram doesn’t even show up in the “Most Used” category in Screentime on my iPhone, for example. So for me, Instagram does not negatively affect me much. Probably mainly because I am not very active there these days.
TikTok, I spend quite a bit of time watching and posting to. But I don’t feel like it’s affecting me negatively in any way.
I deleted my Facebook account ages ago because I noticed that it was a waste of time and a drain of energy.
Reddit I use quite a bit. And your experience there depends greatly on what subreddits you subscribe to.
HN is certainly social media as well, mind you! And out of all, it is the one that has had the greatest positive impact on my life. A lot of my skills are thanks to HN. And even my current job, which I’ve had for a bit over a year now, is thanks to HN (and third party tools for filtering and searching “Who’s Hiring” threads.)
For me, social media has been a net positive. But it has required that I pay attention to where and what I spend my time and energy on. God knows I wasted a lot of hours playing FarmVille on Facebook back in 2009/2010 for example.
The attitude of "I disagree with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it", certainly can apply to voting too, and seems to be at work in this case.
E.g Without expressing opposition to the suffrage of the elderly, I could state that elderly people vote against many of the policies I like.
Which is actually a common narrative at Huffington Post. Old people's voting patterns are holding us back. So yeah, you're spot on.
Rather it often makes sense to pay to tool a factory for a limited set of runs, produce the amount you know you can sell plus a bit of extra inventory, and then eventually when it sells out you can consider tooling up again.
Preorders make total sense for board games because of these issues, so that you make as much as there is actual demand and get the money up front to fund the manufacturing, and especially for a reprint of a successful ones because then it's not a cat in the bag but customers can reasonably know what they're getting in the end.
It's only natural that profit from the first run might not be enough to pay for the costs of second run. And if you don't want investors poking their noses into your business and seeking free rent of of you, you might choose to pre-sell the next batch. And one of the ways you can do that is Kickstarter.
Are you replying to the wrong thread by chance? The article isn't about tracking or cookies at all.
I'll put it another way: I'm anti-Trump. By extension, I think people who vote for Trump exert a negative influence on society by casting their votes in his favor. It also happens that these voters are predominantly rural. I also don't think rural voters should be disenfranchised, and if Trump wins the election, so be it.
Part of the idea of democracy is that you do want your preferred party to win, but that doesn't automatically mean you're against all the other teams having the right to vote. It certainly can be the case that a demographic or rules change makes it harder for your team to win. That doesn't mean you are against that change, whether it's universal suffrage, proportional representation, etc.
Support for fair and legitimate elections are usually a stronger foundational principle than one's support for their own favorite party. Especially because their party's victory would be empty if it wasn't won legitimately.
As for whether libertarianism and democracy are at odds, I really don't know myself. I think it's fine for Thiel to have his own opinion on that.
Saudi Arabia is 0.018% of Facebook audience. Factoring in language differences and content geofencing and it'll be about a handful Saudis likely to see an ad for the game - all of them probably visiting the US.
So bring it home for us. How do 6 Saudis (of unknown opinion on voting)
transform a longstanding reality - that women vote
into an issue so sensitive that banning game ads is a reasonable response?
But we all choose to believe what we want to believe. He certainly never said he opposed women's suffrage, as the original commenter claimed.
The trouble is that generally people don't make this leap automatically, and simply noting a problem doesn't come with an implied "therefore ban it." Generally the people who do automatically make this leap have authoritarian mindsets, for whom personal preferences and public policy are nigh inseparable. Watch out for these kind of people, they would likely impose their preferences on you if they ever gain power over you, without even thinking about it. The emperor doesn't care for pre-tattered jeans, therefore he bans them for everybody else too; not a good sort of man to have in charge.
Now, the pertinent question is which of these sorts is Peter Thiel? When this self-espoused libertarian says "X is bad for me" does that necessarily imply that it should be banned for everybody else as well? Is there evidence for him behaving in a way that betrays this kind of authoritarian mindset?
>Most importantly, I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible. https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...
How can society be democratic if the workplace is not?
extra welfare + women voting, (both difficult for libertarians blah blah), have rendered the notion of “capitalist democracy” into an oxymoron.
edit:
downvote all you like, it doesn't magically make a quarter of a sentence not exist.
All i was pointing out is that leaving out a section of a sentence you are trying to explain your interpretation of is not a good way to convey that you are arguing in good faith.
Especially when that section could be thought of as not neatly fitting in to the narrative you are trying to explain.
What part of my reply stood out to you as the part that shows i didn't understand what i was reading ?
For many self described libertarians, that conflict is to be decided entirely in favor of their liberties and everyone else's liberties don't matter. Democracy is inherently about everyone trying to have some freedom, which comes at a cost to Peter Thiel's, and apparently that's the only one that counts.
It's absurd, just like the bizarre fetish for using the term "Democrat party" as some kind of slur. But that's the essence of American politics now: a constant culture war, where the primary thing people want out of elections is to hurt the other side rather than pursue actual political goals.
The US is doing no such thing :-)
Hell, American unemployment is already quite a lot more (as a percentage of previous income) than I'd get in the UK.
Since Peter Thiel is a libertarian, it's quite reasonable to surmise that he believes America is moving in the direction of social democracy. And if he has in mind the shifting political preferences of younger generations of Americans, I personally think it's a reasonable position to take. Public polling shows that more funding and reform for social programs is increasingly popular with younger Americans.
What indicative changes have there been that make you believe this?
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/social-spending-oecd-long...
It seems endemic to democratic states.