6 ms·
I'm a political advertiser as part of my job and one thing most people don't get is that it's not just ELECTORAL ads that Facebook usually is referring to when
by elicash 6y ago
I'm a political advertiser as part of my job and one thing most people don't get is that it's not just ELECTORAL ads that Facebook usually is referring to when they're talking about "political" ads. It's, as mentioned in the article, a shorthand for "Ads About Social Issues, Elections or Politics."
So, a few points. First, the obvious, that these things all depend on the extent to which Facebook promotes this "feature." So with that said:
1. I planned a big vote-by-mail (political orgs are concerned about in-person voting bc of COVID) ad campaign to members of my organization. Obviously, it wasn't just Facebook and Instagram, but these will be flagged as politics and less effective than they were previously. Facebook will do its own encouragement to register and to vote, but we know our membership better than Facebook and were crafting campaigns meant to motivate them based on research of what we know works, combined with in-person organizing that's coordinated in a way Facebook would never do. This will also hurt recruitment for members who want to knock on doors.
2. They define social issues as "sensitive topics that are heavily debated, may influence the outcome of an election or result in/relate to existing or proposed legislation." That's an "or" joining those, so it's an incredibly broad category. Expect more to be swept up in this than people in this thread are talking about.
3. The category is so broad that it's going to include most union ad activity. Not just organizing new workers, but let's say a union wants to advertise to its membership of nurses about how they can advocate for N95 masks in the workplace with their employer. It's not actually about public policy, yet Facebook generally will reject this type of ad if it's not categorized as "political." Facebook and Google both have anti-union ad practices, but this is unintentionally going to make it worse.
I'm not necessarily against these policies. Something can be bad in some ways and offset by the good. But if Facebook wants to make the argument about giving users the freedom, let me just ask, how informed are users going to be about what they're blocking? Do they know they might be blocking organizations they are dues-paying members of? Are they allowed to make a distinction between electoral ads and ads that are simply about "debated" topics?
- schuyler2d 6y agoIndeed -- quite the timely response: Allow people to turn off ads advocating racial justice and equity.
- elicash 6y agoThis is a great point. Will a person who turns these ads off even UNDERSTAND that they're not allowing a Black Lives Matter organization to let them know about upcoming events? How will that be explained to the user? The advertiser might only even be sharing the ads with people set up on a recurring contribution to inform them how to stay involved.
- vorpalhex 6y agoWould you be ok with the inverse situation? You could allow ads from an organization you'd support, but you'd also be allowing ads from organizations contrary to your own beliefs?
- elicash 6y agoThat's literally the status quo. Yes, I probably favor that over this. My point is three-fold: 1. There's no education about what this actually means. This has been pitched as during the 2020 election, hide ads from candidates. But it's not that. The coverage is unclear and it's unlikely Facebook will fully explain. 2. There's no flexibility to let people change the settings how they truly wish. Maybe I want to hear from organizations I belong to but don't want to see ads from political figures, for example. There's no setting for this. Keep in mind, you can be a dues-paying member of an org, follow them on Facebook, and still rarely see their organic posts. Facebook limited to reach of Facebook pages to encourage advertising, so simply being a Fan isn't a reliable way to see updates. 3. The meaning of "politics" is unclear. It allows ads from polluting companies, but not from environmental orgs. The restriction applies to Black Lives Matter, but possibly not to organizations raising money for police.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- 6y ago
- wombat-man 6y agoI feel ya, but that's not why I use facebook. I unfollow friends who mostly post political stuff, even though I generally agree with them. I'm there for pictures, the shared calendar and the messaging. I'll check out memeorandum or NYT for news, and will sometimes read political stuff on reddit or twitter. To me, I prefer FB as a way to stay connected with friends. I have many other ways to learn about political topics.
- elicash 6y agoI'm sensitive to this, which is why I added those questions to the end. But let me make create a random example. Oil companies will be able to advertise on Facebook and reach everybody. Environmental organizations talking about oil will not. We don't call the oil companies a political or social issue advertiser, but this disparate treatment for what we consider "social issues" is going to have real-world implications. You're not there for the ads at all -- you're there for "pictures, the shared calendar and the messaging."
- wombat-man 6y agoyes, fair enough. I suppose they had to draw the line somewhere. I'm kind of surprised they decided to take this route. I'm guessing they are trying to get ahead of future regulation by governments.
- t-writescode 6y agoYour response reminds me of Captain Beatty's speech to Montag in Fahrenheit 451: https://mediadwellers.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/beatty-speech-to-montag-excerpt.pdf https://mediadwellers.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/beatty-spe...
- wombat-man 6y agohow so?
- t-writescode 6y ago
- Vysero 6y agoI am alright with blocking everything you mentioned across the board. That being said, I have never payed ANY attention to Facebook ads so... Most of the problems I have had revolve around my own friends, and family posting their thoughts, and ideas about politics tbh.