15 ms·

Yes, it's not like this is a problem that hasn't been dealt with in other media. I think one of the things that makes it more difficult in the case of facebook

Yes, it's not like this is a problem that hasn't been dealt with in other media. I think one of the things that makes it more difficult in the case of facebook is that the ad targeting makes it possible to serve specific ads only to very specific groups. This means that if the ads say untrue or damaging things, most people will never know, as opposed to newspaper or TV ads. In my mind this argues for at least as strict controls, if not more stringent.

pm90 7y ago
What this ignores is that there is a finite amount of ads one can run. It would be easy enough for Facebook to classify ads as political/non-political and for political ads have more scrutiny over what they decide to air. And have strict penalties against those who choose to mis-classify their ads. Or make political ads visibile publicly for anyone to search for details as to who created them, how much they paid, how many people were targeted. All these are valid solutions to the problem, but Facebook doesn't want to do it, because if they can get away with what they're doing right now, they can make a ton of ad money.
- grandmczeb 7y ago
  > Or make political ads visibile publicly for anyone to search for details as to who created them, how much they paid, how many people were targeted. Isn't that already the case? You can already search all political ads and see who ran them, how much was paid, and the number of people who saw the ad.
  - pm90 7y ago
    Is it? I can’t find any documentation on how to query all the political campaigns that are currently active, who is paying for them and who they’re targeting. All of this information is critically important to be made public to ensure the integrity of our elections.
    - grandmczeb 7y ago
      Did you look at https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/ https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/ ? It should show all active (and inactive) ads, information about the page that ran the ad, and who paid for the ad. It doesn't show targeting, but it does show amount spent and the gender/age/geography of who saw the ads.
- Infinitesimus 7y ago
  > It would be easy enough for Facebook to classify ads as political/non-political and for political ads have more scrutiny over what they decide to air. I doubt it is as easy as you think because not all political ads look like "vote for foo!" They will evolve to look like governor foo paid company xyz which sells home security products to make an ad about how unsafe the country is...while governor foo runs on a platform all about reducing crime rates...etc Look at some of the propaganda during the 2016 election era for instance
  - grandmczeb 7y ago
    Facebook already classifies ads about "social issues, elections or politics" and those ads are subject to extra scrutiny[1]. [1] https://www.facebook.com/help/180607332665293 https://www.facebook.com/help/180607332665293
aaomidi 7y ago
Part of the regulation could be that Facebook can only serve stateless political ads. If a politician wants to advertise, they can't pick and choose any parameters.
- dahfizz 7y ago
  Surely there are some parameters that would make sense? I don't want to see political ads from a local election across the country. There's also no reason for me to see an ad for the Republican primaries if I am voting in the Democratic primaries. Etc
  - notjulian 7y ago
    "Surely there are some parameters that would make sense?" For sure... "I don't want to see political ads from a local election across the country." They should be targeting eligible voters. If a local election is taking place across the country, then, of course, you shouldn't be seeing the ads. "There's also no reason for me to see an ad for the Republican primaries if I am voting in the Democratic primaries. Etc" No, this defeats the purpose. We should be trying to expose people to more viewpoints - not creating more echo-chambers.
    - bilbo0s 7y ago
      FEC rules don't really cover who sees what, they cover what anyone can see. Now we can expand on those rules to dictate who can see what, but no matter who views the ad, it would likely be bland, and confer no new viewpoint at all. Lest it fall afoul of FEC rules. What we're really talking about with FEC rules, is a return to the middle, because extremist views can be shut down by pointing out misleading content in the ads and subsequently rejecting them. Whereas the bland, meaningless stuff will always be free of any misleading content, and be subsequently approved.
      - nimblegorilla 7y ago
        > Whereas the bland, meaningless stuff will always be free of any misleading content, and be subsequently approved. I'm not sure what media you consume, but TV and radio ads always seem filled with misleading content about political rivals.
the_reformation 7y ago
Television advertising isn't stuck in the dark ages. Political candidates run and create ads targeted at specific counties or districts.
- lazyasciiart 7y ago
  Next to Facebook targeting, that is the dark ages.
  - philwelch 7y ago
    True, but that level of targeting isn't completely unprecedented. Direct mail was an extremely targeted form of political advertising and faced zero content regulations. (Much of the targeting was achieved by buying magazine subscription data from magazine publishers; you could target households pretty effectively based on which magazines they subscribed to.)
caconym_ 7y ago
Agreed. The fact that it's harder to do on the web for whatever reason shouldn't mean they get to ignore the rules. I see this sort of paradoxical mindset all over the place: X breaks the rules but X is just so successful, or so full of potential, so shouldn't we just bend or break the rules for it? But the fact is that X is probably successful or full of potential in large part because it's been breaking the rules, and the rules exist for a reason.
- adthrowaway123 7y ago
  If there were rules governing political ads in social media, they would look very much like Facebook's policy. At least TV ads (which are more tightly regulated due to the use of radio spectrum, which are public goods) are regulated as to force TV stations to air even political ads they deem untruthful: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2019/oct/15/elizabeth-warren/phony-facebook-ad-warren-said-most-tv-networks-wil/ https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2019/oct... From that perspective, Facebook deciding to censor untruthful political ads would be much more akin to ignoring the rules.
NoodleIncident 7y ago
This used to be more of a problem, but IIRC they have forced political ads to be publicly visible to anyone on the page that's running the ads.
taway7879 7y ago
>> Yes, it's not like this is a problem that hasn't been dealt with in other media. And it was dealt with poorly. My whole life, minorities (persons of color esp) have been scapegoated in elections in ads on TV, etc. So, yes, political ad censorship has been dealt with by media, and the "deal" was that victims would be minorities. In a sense, Facebook just makes it fair. Now anyone can criticize anyone, everyone gets to suffer equally. Those who don't like it should have spoken up decades earlier. I'm posing anon for obvious reasons. My hope: Lets let Facebook win this round, so we as a society come up with decency rules that help all of us, rather than just defending protected groups.
- jonfw 7y ago
  > minorities (persons of color esp) have been scapegoated in elections in ads on TV, etc. Do you have any sources for this?
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    IIRC, Willie Horton.
- isoskeles 7y ago
  My whole life, minorities (people who earn more money than average esp) have been scapegoated in elections... What if you said this? What happens when Bernie Sanders run a dozen ads saying the “rich” haven’t been “paying their fair share” and what standard would allow this to be consider truthful, or will the ad need to define words like rich and fair (good luck on that 2nd one)?
  - pell 7y ago
    Yes, talking about corporations avoiding taxes is the same as talking about Mexicans and refugees coming to destroy your country. You really need a dose of nuance.
adthrowaway123 7y ago
This was dealt with in other media the same way that Facebook decided to deal with it. https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2019/oct/15/elizabeth-warren/phony-facebook-ad-warren-said-most-tv-networks-wil/ https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2019/oct... TV networks are required to air even untruthful ads as not to run afoul of regulations governing political ads. It's also likely that campaign laws requiring all political ads to be true would be unconstitutional. Either way, the very fact that the Elizabeth Warren campaign is promoting a fairly blatant falsehood (and many people are happy to parrot a false talking point in the name of truth) is a symptom of the same problem that would force any reasonable entity to make the same decision Facebook just did. Truth isn't very popular, especially in politics and people (on every side of most political issues) would lose their mind if falsehoods were strictly banned.
- gleenn 7y ago
  I think it’s important to mention that Elizabeth Warren is displaying a blatantly false ad to illustrate this exact point: she thinks that it’s ridiculous that Facebook is airing obviously false ads and has no accountability.
  - adthrowaway123 7y ago
    The blatantly false part I'm talking about isn't "Mark Zuckerberg is endorsing Trump" which everyone understands to be the obviously false statement, but the subsequent argument that is still being repeated here that "If Trump tries to lie in a TV ad, most networks will refuse to air it." A whole bunch of comments here are along the lines of: how come Facebook isn't required to abide by the rules that other media companies have to follow? But this is the exact opposite of how things are - small media companies can adopt whatever standards they want, but the broadcast networks have to air even false political advertising, because these types of regulations are more about protecting fairness and free political speech than about the truth. This is an example of Facebook subjecting themselves to the highest possible standards, instead of making arbitrary editorial decisions that smaller actors can get away with.

pm90 7y ago

What this ignores is that there is a finite amount of ads one can run. It would be easy enough for Facebook to classify ads as political/non-political and for political ads have more scrutiny over what they decide to air. And have strict penalties against those who choose to mis-classify their ads. Or make political ads visibile publicly for anyone to search for details as to who created them, how much they paid, how many people were targeted. All these are valid solutions to the problem, but Facebook doesn't want to do it, because if they can get away with what they're doing right now, they can make a ton of ad money.

grandmczeb 7y ago
> Or make political ads visibile publicly for anyone to search for details as to who created them, how much they paid, how many people were targeted. Isn't that already the case? You can already search all political ads and see who ran them, how much was paid, and the number of people who saw the ad.
- pm90 7y ago
  Is it? I can’t find any documentation on how to query all the political campaigns that are currently active, who is paying for them and who they’re targeting. All of this information is critically important to be made public to ensure the integrity of our elections.
  - grandmczeb 7y ago
    Did you look at https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/ https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/ ? It should show all active (and inactive) ads, information about the page that ran the ad, and who paid for the ad. It doesn't show targeting, but it does show amount spent and the gender/age/geography of who saw the ads.
Infinitesimus 7y ago
> It would be easy enough for Facebook to classify ads as political/non-political and for political ads have more scrutiny over what they decide to air. I doubt it is as easy as you think because not all political ads look like "vote for foo!" They will evolve to look like governor foo paid company xyz which sells home security products to make an ad about how unsafe the country is...while governor foo runs on a platform all about reducing crime rates...etc Look at some of the propaganda during the 2016 election era for instance
- grandmczeb 7y ago
  Facebook already classifies ads about "social issues, elections or politics" and those ads are subject to extra scrutiny[1]. [1] https://www.facebook.com/help/180607332665293 https://www.facebook.com/help/180607332665293

aaomidi 7y ago

Part of the regulation could be that Facebook can only serve stateless political ads. If a politician wants to advertise, they can't pick and choose any parameters.

dahfizz 7y ago
Surely there are some parameters that would make sense? I don't want to see political ads from a local election across the country. There's also no reason for me to see an ad for the Republican primaries if I am voting in the Democratic primaries. Etc
- notjulian 7y ago
  "Surely there are some parameters that would make sense?" For sure... "I don't want to see political ads from a local election across the country." They should be targeting eligible voters. If a local election is taking place across the country, then, of course, you shouldn't be seeing the ads. "There's also no reason for me to see an ad for the Republican primaries if I am voting in the Democratic primaries. Etc" No, this defeats the purpose. We should be trying to expose people to more viewpoints - not creating more echo-chambers.
  - bilbo0s 7y ago
    FEC rules don't really cover who sees what, they cover what anyone can see. Now we can expand on those rules to dictate who can see what, but no matter who views the ad, it would likely be bland, and confer no new viewpoint at all. Lest it fall afoul of FEC rules. What we're really talking about with FEC rules, is a return to the middle, because extremist views can be shut down by pointing out misleading content in the ads and subsequently rejecting them. Whereas the bland, meaningless stuff will always be free of any misleading content, and be subsequently approved.
    - nimblegorilla 7y ago
      > Whereas the bland, meaningless stuff will always be free of any misleading content, and be subsequently approved. I'm not sure what media you consume, but TV and radio ads always seem filled with misleading content about political rivals.

the_reformation 7y ago

Television advertising isn't stuck in the dark ages. Political candidates run and create ads targeted at specific counties or districts.

lazyasciiart 7y ago
Next to Facebook targeting, that is the dark ages.
- philwelch 7y ago
  True, but that level of targeting isn't completely unprecedented. Direct mail was an extremely targeted form of political advertising and faced zero content regulations. (Much of the targeting was achieved by buying magazine subscription data from magazine publishers; you could target households pretty effectively based on which magazines they subscribed to.)

caconym_ 7y ago

Agreed. The fact that it's harder to do on the web for whatever reason shouldn't mean they get to ignore the rules. I see this sort of paradoxical mindset all over the place: X breaks the rules but X is just so successful, or so full of potential, so shouldn't we just bend or break the rules for it? But the fact is that X is probably successful or full of potential in large part because it's been breaking the rules, and the rules exist for a reason.

adthrowaway123 7y ago
If there were rules governing political ads in social media, they would look very much like Facebook's policy. At least TV ads (which are more tightly regulated due to the use of radio spectrum, which are public goods) are regulated as to force TV stations to air even political ads they deem untruthful: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2019/oct/15/elizabeth-warren/phony-facebook-ad-warren-said-most-tv-networks-wil/ https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2019/oct... From that perspective, Facebook deciding to censor untruthful political ads would be much more akin to ignoring the rules.

NoodleIncident 7y ago

This used to be more of a problem, but IIRC they have forced political ads to be publicly visible to anyone on the page that's running the ads.

taway7879 7y ago

>> Yes, it's not like this is a problem that hasn't been dealt with in other media. And it was dealt with poorly. My whole life, minorities (persons of color esp) have been scapegoated in elections in ads on TV, etc. So, yes, political ad censorship has been dealt with by media, and the "deal" was that victims would be minorities. In a sense, Facebook just makes it fair. Now anyone can criticize anyone, everyone gets to suffer equally. Those who don't like it should have spoken up decades earlier. I'm posing anon for obvious reasons. My hope: Lets let Facebook win this round, so we as a society come up with decency rules that help all of us, rather than just defending protected groups.

jonfw 7y ago
> minorities (persons of color esp) have been scapegoated in elections in ads on TV, etc. Do you have any sources for this?
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  IIRC, Willie Horton.
isoskeles 7y ago
My whole life, minorities (people who earn more money than average esp) have been scapegoated in elections... What if you said this? What happens when Bernie Sanders run a dozen ads saying the “rich” haven’t been “paying their fair share” and what standard would allow this to be consider truthful, or will the ad need to define words like rich and fair (good luck on that 2nd one)?
- pell 7y ago
  Yes, talking about corporations avoiding taxes is the same as talking about Mexicans and refugees coming to destroy your country. You really need a dose of nuance.

adthrowaway123 7y ago

This was dealt with in other media the same way that Facebook decided to deal with it. https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2019/oct/15/elizabeth-warren/phony-facebook-ad-warren-said-most-tv-networks-wil/ https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2019/oct... TV networks are required to air even untruthful ads as not to run afoul of regulations governing political ads. It's also likely that campaign laws requiring all political ads to be true would be unconstitutional. Either way, the very fact that the Elizabeth Warren campaign is promoting a fairly blatant falsehood (and many people are happy to parrot a false talking point in the name of truth) is a symptom of the same problem that would force any reasonable entity to make the same decision Facebook just did. Truth isn't very popular, especially in politics and people (on every side of most political issues) would lose their mind if falsehoods were strictly banned.

gleenn 7y ago
I think it’s important to mention that Elizabeth Warren is displaying a blatantly false ad to illustrate this exact point: she thinks that it’s ridiculous that Facebook is airing obviously false ads and has no accountability.
- adthrowaway123 7y ago
  The blatantly false part I'm talking about isn't "Mark Zuckerberg is endorsing Trump" which everyone understands to be the obviously false statement, but the subsequent argument that is still being repeated here that "If Trump tries to lie in a TV ad, most networks will refuse to air it." A whole bunch of comments here are along the lines of: how come Facebook isn't required to abide by the rules that other media companies have to follow? But this is the exact opposite of how things are - small media companies can adopt whatever standards they want, but the broadcast networks have to air even false political advertising, because these types of regulations are more about protecting fairness and free political speech than about the truth. This is an example of Facebook subjecting themselves to the highest possible standards, instead of making arbitrary editorial decisions that smaller actors can get away with.