4 ms·

This is something that Facebook and ad-serving companies should be fully transparent about. * Who is paying for their political propaganda? * How much was spe

This is something that Facebook and ad-serving companies should be fully transparent about. * Who is paying for their political propaganda? * How much was spent? * What were the ads? * How was it paid? Not being able to track ad spending by political parties, governments or individuals opens opens a huge opportunity for political corruption.

deogeo 7y ago
There's a problem in how do you classify ads into political and non-political. But then, why not make all ad spending public? What benefit is there to society in keeping the source of ads secret?
- inetknght 7y ago
  > make all ad spending public I like this idea tbqh
- tudelo 7y ago
  I guess one downside for those selling the ads is that other companies could easily attempt to poach based on this information... what upside would there be for a company who sells ads?
  - deogeo 7y ago
    They can compete in offering a better product/service, instead of with a secret client list. Advertising itself is about connecting buyers and sellers - so making that information public would make the market all the more efficient! What's good for the goose and all that. Besides, the world is drowning in ads. Any downside for advertisers is an undiluted upside for society at large.
- isostatic 7y ago
  Facebook does - at least in the UK. Try to run a "political" ad and there's a lot of hoops to jump through.
  - ris 7y ago
    Right, but again, what is "political"? A research group trying to sell their new whitepaper which just happens to have a provocative title and abstract? Commercial, surely? Any such definition will be worked around.
  - lozenge 7y ago
    The government isn't allowed to run political ads (by its own rules on impartiality) but they are running up a huge ad spend right now on supposedly non political ads. (See the latest Private Eye).
zo1 7y ago
> "Not being able to track ad spending by political parties, governments or individuals opens opens a huge opportunity for political corruption." Okay, but why? Are you implying that it gives people some sort of advantage? If so, how is it any different to all the myriad other things that people could do that can effectively push or platform a campaign/political opinion? E.g. Biased reporting, speeches, skilled orators, organized rallies and their funding, etc. And also, what is your definition of "political corruption"? Also, how is all this different to "campaigns", activism and general spending that is targeted at altering public opinion at the early childhood level? I.e. at primary and secondary schools. I guess where I'm getting at is where do you draw the line, if any. We are, after all, part of a democratic society and one of the big supposed benefits is that it's marketplace of ideas where the best one effectively gets translated by the elected officials. Advertising/promoting such ideas should be part and parcel of such a marketplace. Personally, I draw the line at propaganda and such aimed at developing minds. Till the past decade, I'd say the biggest movement that was doing this was the climate/pollution one. It's been heavily promoted and pushed at children way past the point of trying to foster environmentally-conscious and behaved adults that understand the consequences of some of their actions on the environment.
- fourthark 7y ago
  Is "propaganda" a clear line?
  - zo1 7y ago
    Perhaps, but what people find propaganda or not varies from person to person. Especially in this age where apparently none of us can agree on facts and truth.
hos234 7y ago
Also TV 'news' shows. I'd like to see a ticker above Anderson Cooper/Sean Hannity's head with that info.

deogeo 7y ago

There's a problem in how do you classify ads into political and non-political. But then, why not make all ad spending public? What benefit is there to society in keeping the source of ads secret?

inetknght 7y ago
> make all ad spending public I like this idea tbqh
tudelo 7y ago
I guess one downside for those selling the ads is that other companies could easily attempt to poach based on this information... what upside would there be for a company who sells ads?
- deogeo 7y ago
  They can compete in offering a better product/service, instead of with a secret client list. Advertising itself is about connecting buyers and sellers - so making that information public would make the market all the more efficient! What's good for the goose and all that. Besides, the world is drowning in ads. Any downside for advertisers is an undiluted upside for society at large.
isostatic 7y ago
Facebook does - at least in the UK. Try to run a "political" ad and there's a lot of hoops to jump through.
- ris 7y ago
  Right, but again, what is "political"? A research group trying to sell their new whitepaper which just happens to have a provocative title and abstract? Commercial, surely? Any such definition will be worked around.
- lozenge 7y ago
  The government isn't allowed to run political ads (by its own rules on impartiality) but they are running up a huge ad spend right now on supposedly non political ads. (See the latest Private Eye).

zo1 7y ago

> "Not being able to track ad spending by political parties, governments or individuals opens opens a huge opportunity for political corruption." Okay, but why? Are you implying that it gives people some sort of advantage? If so, how is it any different to all the myriad other things that people could do that can effectively push or platform a campaign/political opinion? E.g. Biased reporting, speeches, skilled orators, organized rallies and their funding, etc. And also, what is your definition of "political corruption"? Also, how is all this different to "campaigns", activism and general spending that is targeted at altering public opinion at the early childhood level? I.e. at primary and secondary schools. I guess where I'm getting at is where do you draw the line, if any. We are, after all, part of a democratic society and one of the big supposed benefits is that it's marketplace of ideas where the best one effectively gets translated by the elected officials. Advertising/promoting such ideas should be part and parcel of such a marketplace. Personally, I draw the line at propaganda and such aimed at developing minds. Till the past decade, I'd say the biggest movement that was doing this was the climate/pollution one. It's been heavily promoted and pushed at children way past the point of trying to foster environmentally-conscious and behaved adults that understand the consequences of some of their actions on the environment.

fourthark 7y ago
Is "propaganda" a clear line?
- zo1 7y ago
  Perhaps, but what people find propaganda or not varies from person to person. Especially in this age where apparently none of us can agree on facts and truth.

hos234 7y ago

Also TV 'news' shows. I'd like to see a ticker above Anderson Cooper/Sean Hannity's head with that info.