In these comments, and in the press at large, we have another great display of "damned if you do, damned if you don't".
It is constantly argued that Facebook, Google, etc. must stop political ads in America, because allowing ads benefits the party currently in power.
But now all the comments argue that Google must not stop political ads in Singapore, because forbidding ads benefits the party currently in power.
I have not the slightest doubt that the same amount of outrage would occur if Google had taken the exact opposite action: for literally any action you can construct a narrative for why it benefits the "wrong" people. It feels like some people won't be happy until Google is literally appointing the politicians they like.
It is constantly argued that Facebook, Google, etc. must stop political ads in America, because allowing ads benefits the party currently in power.
But now all the comments argue that Google must not stop political ads in Singapore, because forbidding ads benefits the party currently in power.
I have not the slightest doubt that the same amount of outrage would occur if Google had taken the exact opposite action: for literally any action you can construct a narrative for why it benefits the "wrong" people. It feels like some people won't be happy until Google is literally appointing the politicians they like.