Google, Meta and Microsoft to stop showing political ads in the EU

General reaction to EU platforms stopping political ads

• Many commenters welcome fewer political ads, describing them as manipulative, low‑information, and “pay‑to‑win.”
• Others see the move as symbolic or limited, because it doesn’t address propaganda via organic content, influencers, bots, and shell companies.
• Some note the irony that EU institutions themselves have been major buyers of political ads on these platforms.

Do political ads actually work?

• Several argue ads strongly influence elections, citing examples of last‑minute ad blitzes shifting referendum polls from ~50% to ~60%.
• Others claim individuals “don’t care” or aren’t swayed, but are challenged with: “then why do campaigns keep spending billions and measuring ROI?”
• There’s broad agreement that negative / “shit‑flinging” ads are especially effective.

Banning ads vs regulating formats and content

• One camp wants all (or nearly all) unsolicited ads banned, comparing their psychological impact to harmful manipulation.
• Opponents warn this entrenches incumbents: without advertising, new businesses and political entrants struggle to gain visibility.
• Middle‑ground proposals: ban specific categories (politics, tobacco, alcohol, medicine, religion) or intrusive formats (loud, full‑screen, public‑space billboards).

Defining “advertising” and “political”

• Major concern: where to draw the line. Is SEO, a portfolio website, a social media reel, product placement, or branded content “advertising”?
• For politics, many worry broad definitions could sweep in NGO campaigns, climate or poverty advocacy, even AIDS awareness.
• Examples are given of sustainability‑related ads already being rejected as “political,” seen as overreach or “malicious compliance.”
• One pragmatic criterion suggested: if money or equivalent value is paid to promote it, it’s an ad.

Influencers, bots, and astroturfing

• Multiple comments argue paid influencers and covert agenda‑pushing are now more important than explicit ads.
• Fears that banning formal political ads will push money into less transparent influencer ecosystems and anonymous astroturfing.

Democracy, free speech, and incumbency

• Some see restrictions as protecting democracy from billionaire and foreign interference; others see them as silencing populists and opposition.
• A recurring worry: powerful incumbents could ban “political ads,” then dominate attention through state media and “official” communication.
• Others counter that bans on specific advertising (e.g. cigarettes) have been workable and effective, suggesting political‑ad rules can also be enforced.