Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Fought Rules That Could Have Exposed Fake Russian Ads (bloomberg.com)
According to Bloomberg, Facebook has for years fought to avoid being transparent about who's behind election-related ads online. "Since 2011, Facebook has asked the Federal Election Commission for blanket exemptions from political advertising disclosure rules -- transparency that could have helped it avoid the current crisis over Russia ad spending ahead of the 2016 U.S. election," reports Bloomberg. From the report: Communications law requires traditional media like TV and radio to track and disclose political ad buyers. The rule doesn't apply online, an exemption that's helped Facebook's self-serve advertising business generate hundreds of millions of dollars in political campaign spots. When the company was smaller, the issue was debated in some policy corners of Washington. Now that the social network is such a powerful political tool, with more than 2 billion users, the topic is at the center of a debate about the future of American democracy. Back in 2011, Facebook argued for the exemption for the same reasons as internet search giant Google: its ads are too small and have a character limit, leaving no room for language saying who paid for a campaign, according to documents on the FEC's website. Some FEC commissioners agreed, while others argued that Facebook could provide a clickable web link to get more information about the ad.
Facebook wouldn't budge. It warned that FEC proposals for more political ad disclosure could hinder free speech in a 2011 opinion written by Marc Elias, a high-powered Democratic lawyer who later became general counsel for Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign. Colin Stretch, a top Facebook lawyer, said the agency "should not stand in the way of innovation," and warned that such rules would quickly become obsolete. When it came time for the FEC to decide in June 2011, the agency's six commissioners split on a 3-3 vote. Facebook didn't get its exemption, so an advertiser using its platform was still subject to a 2006 ruling by the FEC requiring disclosure. But the company allowed ads to run without those disclaimers, leaving it up to ad buyers to comply.
Facebook wouldn't budge. It warned that FEC proposals for more political ad disclosure could hinder free speech in a 2011 opinion written by Marc Elias, a high-powered Democratic lawyer who later became general counsel for Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign. Colin Stretch, a top Facebook lawyer, said the agency "should not stand in the way of innovation," and warned that such rules would quickly become obsolete. When it came time for the FEC to decide in June 2011, the agency's six commissioners split on a 3-3 vote. Facebook didn't get its exemption, so an advertiser using its platform was still subject to a 2006 ruling by the FEC requiring disclosure. But the company allowed ads to run without those disclaimers, leaving it up to ad buyers to comply.
Every time I follow a link to a news story, the web site puts a popup on my browser that says I should turn off my ad blocker. Are you going to tell me that Facebook can't generate a popup that shows the source of an ad when you simply move you mouse or pointer or finger over the ad? I have a hard time believing that.
nope. no crisis.
This is exactly what the banks and Wall Street firms did from 2005 - 2007. Every time a bill came up which would require them to be more transparent, to have greater oversight applied, to hold more cash on hand, they fought it tooth and nail. Their claim was all those "rules" would defeat their competitive nature in the financial markets. Don't worry. They knew what they're doing. It was different this time.
We saw how that worked out.
Now here we are, with Facebook having done the same thing and having to face up to the reality of why those rules were necessary. It will be interesting to hear the excuses Zuck throws out. He's already given his faux apology and faux promise to make things better. All that's left is for him to flip us the middle finger like Jamie Dimon and Lloyd Blankfein have done and the circle will be complete.
At least the Senate investigation into Russian collusion is still going strong and expanding.
I don't give a dam if they track me. Many times, when they just put ads on the sides, I have clicked on one to find something that actually interests me. I know that it takes money that I don't have to run all kinds of sites that I watch. And they can keep advertising.. I just hate it when the screen goes dark and an ad gets pushed in your face forcing you to find the hard to find "x".
colluded with Hillary's campaign:
http://truepundit.com/wikileaks-bombshell-podesta-emails-prove-facebook-colluded-with-hillary-clinton-during-election/
So now we're supposed to believe that about $50k worth of Facebook ads tilted the election to Trump despite the fact Hillary spent over $1.2 billion during her campaign?
I am sure that they would welcome that, if they though they could get away with it.
Rick: How can you close me up? On what grounds?
Captain Renault: I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!
[a croupier hands Renault a pile of money]
Croupier: Your winnings, sir.
Captain Renault: Oh, thank you very much.
"I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
There is no "current crisis" over $100,000 worth of across-the-spectrum noise-generating BS ads run by Russia in an election season when the Clinton machine spent or exercised on her behalf over $2 billion. It's only a "crisis" in the sense that it's one of the only absurd little threads that Clinton and her followers can still cling to as a reason she lost, short of having to finally confront the fact that she's an awful person and a worse candidate into which to invest $2 billion dollars and the phony hopes and dreams of a number of people in a couple of coastal cities.
The more that media outlets scream it's a crisis, the more you can be sure they've got nothing else to try to trot out.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Waaa waaaa waaaa..... Ukraine tried to stop Trump getting elected..... it's all a plot of Ukraine, in cooperation with the UK..... and the NFL..... and Mexico... and the deep state..... McCain, rogue Republicans....waaaaa waaaa waaa.
It's pathetic to hear yet another whining excuse.
Yeh, Trump is such a victim, we get it. And he's endlessly bleeting about how America is a victim.
>Nothing is illegal about Russians buying ads
That is not true. Political advertising is heavily regulated and the rules are strict regarding foreign countries trying to influence US elections.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com...
CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE
Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence. These sources may be untrustworthy for credible/verifiable information, therefore fact checking and further investigation is recommended on a per article basis when obtaining information from these sources. See all Conspiracy-Pseudoscience sources.
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Notes: Though they do occasionally publish a legitimate story, some are conspiracies. This source also currently delivers news straight from the Daily Caller which has a strong right-wing bias. Most articles from True Pundit have anonymous authors. This source has also been flagged for false information and has an unproven claim. Simply not trustworthy.
It's the kind of site that dreams up "Pizzagate" conspiracies when it's not too busy reposting other conspiracy loons' vague "new world order" conspiracies.
Yes, yes the media has...
$100,00 spent over 3 years in a presidential campaign that cost $2.4 billion. That's some bang for your buck!
Russians buying ads to influence our political system is a problem? Really?
What do you call President Obama outright stumping for Macron in France?
Last time I checked President Obama was not a French citizen and not eligible to vote in their elections. Isn't that unwanted foreign influence in an election?
"At least the Senate investigation into Russian collusion is still going strong and expanding"
You anti-Trumpers are really hanging onto this one. A mere days after a guy shoots up Las Vegas authorities announce no ISIS ties to the gunman.
http://www.washingtontimes.com...
Yet a year into this Russia!, Russia!, Russia! investigation has produced nothing showing improper collusion with the Trump campaign and Russian authorities or agents.
How much time and how many millions of dollars are you willing to throw into the toilet trying to find something - anything to pin on Trump?
Maybe it's time to just let the constitutionally elected president do his job.
Fake Russian ads, rather than fake Democrat and fake Republican ads?
I'm not sure there's anything to get excited about.
Did I miss something?
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
I just came here to say I chuckled when I read "the current crisis over Russia". Beating the hell outta that dead horse, is there so much desperation that this is where they end up? The big bad Major Russia influence and collusion to tip the election was....REPORTS (of course from a Anon source) of a pin drop amount of money buyings ad's on FB, a whopping...three thousand? LMFAO it's really getting kind of sad now. Hilary you lost because you're a horrible person and corrupt to the core, not because of Russia, not because or racism. Because you were the worst possible candidate to run in 2016 for democrats, so bad in fact you had to rig the nomination to make sure you were the candidate over the more popular Sanders.
They do ONLY what is in their own interest... financially!