Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Facebook Fought Rules That Could Have Exposed Fake Russian Ads (bloomberg.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the election-related dept.

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.

28 of 193 comments (clear)

  1. Wait a minute. by mark_reh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Wait a minute. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Are you going to tell me that Facebook can't generate a popup

      Of course they can, but that isn't the point. Their objection is not that it is difficult, but that it is wrong. The law does not require them to disclose the source. Nor should it. Here is the 1st Amendment:

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

      Please explain where in the phrase "no law" you can fit a law requiring the disclosure of the source of political speech.

    2. Re:Wait a minute. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      In no way is any of these requirements a violation of 1st Amendment protections.

      This law does what the Constitution says "no law" can do. So how is that not a violation?

      Companies like Facebook, Twitter, and Google are not bound by the 1st Amendment

      They are not bound by the 1st Amendment, but they are protected by it.

      If TV and Radio media channels fall under the FCC why not the companies who dominate the online communication channels?

      TV and radio use limited broadcast spectrum that is licensed to them in return for restrictions on what they can use if for. Facebook, and cable TV, do not use licensed RF spectrum, and the government has no right to regulate what they say.

    3. Re: Wait a minute. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't give a fuck who bought the ads. If people are fucking stupid enough to let it sway their opinion then they deserve Trump-Clinton for PotUS.

    4. Re:Wait a minute. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This law does what the Constitution says "no law" can do. So how is that not a violation?

      The text of the 1st amendment does not run "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of foreign intelligence services to undermine this Constitution." It provides no constitutional guarantee of anonymity such as you appear to claim nor does it prohibit laws requiring disclosure in regard to political advertising.

      Indeed, as the distinction between prohibiting certain US persons from publishing political ads (clearly unconstitutional) and the requirement of those persons to disclose themselves (not unconstitutional) was made clear in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission 558 U.S. 310 (2010), your position would appear difficult to sustain.

    5. Re:Wait a minute. by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      It's not "no law". It's "no law [...] abridging".

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    6. Re:Wait a minute. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      It's not "no law". It's "no law [...] abridging".

      If you try to speak, and the government stops you and threatens to arrest you if you speak without identifying yourself, then that is an abridgment of your right to free speech.

    7. Re:Wait a minute. by mrclevesque · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's not "no law". It's "no law [...] abridging".

      If you try to speak, and the government stops you and threatens to arrest you if you speak without identifying yourself, then that is an abridgment of your right to free speech.

      "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"

      I don't see how political add disclosure curtails or reduces a corporations' ability to speak.

    8. Re:Wait a minute. by tsqr · · Score: 2

      Foreign ad, pay a person at the locale of choice to place the ads for you, no skill, no, ability, just a citizen who is absolutely legally contracting out labour.

      "Absolutely legally"? No. "Participating in a conspiracy to violate Federal law"? Yes.

    9. Re:Wait a minute. by jbengt · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The right to anonymity is considered by many to be essential to the right to freedom of speech. It's a contentious issue of debate, and I lean towards that opinion. But the courts almost never consider any single right to be absolute, and will weigh one right against other rights and against potential consequences; e.g. conspiracy to commit a crime is not protected speech. As pointed out above, courts have ruled that your right to know who is supporting a political candidate is greater than the right of that person, corporation, or political entity to be anonymous. The same does not hold for paid speech advocating a policy rather than a candidate, so there's a lot of grey area in the law.
      IANAL, YMMV, etc.

  2. "current crisis over Russia ad spending" by turkeydance · · Score: 3, Informative

    nope. no crisis.

    1. Re:"current crisis over Russia ad spending" by ClickOnThis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is against the law for foreign nationals to spend money to try to influence US elections. Russia did this en masse in 2016. So yes, crisis.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    2. Re:"current crisis over Russia ad spending" by Obfuscant · · Score: 2
      I have yet to hear how we expect the US to enforce this law, or why we can make laws concerning what foreign nationals can do while solely within the borders of foreign countries. Shanghai Bill points to the First Amendment as a reason that all campaign finance laws are unconstitutional, so I will point out, besides being an unconstitutional limit on free speech, it is a law created to control someone who has no representation within our system of government. We fought a war over taxation like that, so why wouldn't we fight a war if someone tried to create laws over our citizens? If we wouldn't accept it, why should any other country?

      Now, if it were a law prohibiting US corporations from accepting money to carry such ads, that's a different thing. But the law itself does not make the campaign or anyone involved legally responsible for ads ("electioneering communication") purchased by foreign nationals, only for money accepted as a donation to their campaign.

      But no, the fact that some Russians bought some ads in 2016 doesn't turn it into a crisis.

    3. Re:"current crisis over Russia ad spending" by HermMunster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Including having the UK Parliament publicly make statements about Trump's mental health and or fitness for office before the election? How about that? How about the US media that aired those abusive statements and comments? How on Earth do you enforce any of it?

      What law, BTW? What law says that they can't post political ads?

      What about Hillary's campaign working with Ukraine on getting the dirt on Trump? How about the Hillary campaign using a business that paid for the dirty dossier generated by an ex member of the UK intelligence agencies? How about once an intelligence agent then always an intelligence agent?

      At what point do you cease allowing the political party a say on when and what will be enforced?

      --
      You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
    4. Re:"current crisis over Russia ad spending" by ClickOnThis · · Score: 2

      Really? So you are saying that as a Permanent Resident Canadian, not only am I not allowed to vote, thought I'm taxed (which is REAL rich given the whole 'no taxation without representation' mantra of how the US SUPPOSEDLY started its revolution), but now you're saying I can't give any money to any group trying to influence a US election of any kind?

      That's different. A Permanent Resident is not a US citizens, but is a US person. US persons cannot vote, but they can donate money and time to US political campaigns. They can even assist in some ways at polling places.

      I should have specified that nonresident foreign nationals are prohibited by law from donating to, or participating in, US election campaigns.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    5. Re:"current crisis over Russia ad spending" by ClickOnThis · · Score: 4, Informative

      Including having the UK Parliament publicly make statements about Trump's mental health and or fitness for office before the election? How about that? How about the US media that aired those abusive statements and comments?

      If the UK parliament were to comment on a candidate's mental health, and the media (US or otherwise) reports on it, that's perfectly fine.

      But if the UK parliament were to pay money to run political ads on US media about a candidate's mental health, then yes, that's illegal.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    6. Re:"current crisis over Russia ad spending" by davide+marney · · Score: 3, Informative

      Here's a summary of the FEC regs: https://www.fec.gov/updates/fo...

      "In a decision that was later affirmed by the Supreme Court, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the foreign national ban “does not restrain foreign nationals from speaking out about issues or spending money to advocate their views about issues. It restrains them only from a certain form of expressive activity closely tied to the voting process—providing money for a candidate or political party or spending money in order to expressly advocate for or against the election of a candidate.” Bluman v. FEC, 800 F. Supp. 2d 281, 290 (D.D.C. 2011), aff’d 132 S. Ct. 1087 (2012)."

      So, depends on the nature of the advertisement. If it's issues-oriented, it's probably fine.

      --
      "We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
    7. Re:"current crisis over Russia ad spending" by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Including having the UK Parliament publicly make statements about Trump's mental health and or fitness for office before the election?

      It was important for our MPs to discuss those issues, given that there was a very real possibility of someone with possible mental health issues and a volatile temperament and finger hovering over the tweet button might win.

      It's actually worked out really badly for us. The EU is on the rise again as people look to it for strength and leadership as America declines, and our hope of getting a good trade deal post-Brexit from Mr. America First fucked-over-everyone-he-ever-did-business-with is looking pretty remote.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  3. Sounds familiar by quonset · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  4. Ads by Neuronwelder · · Score: 2

    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".

  5. Podesta's leaked emails proved Facebook... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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?

    1. Re:Podesta's leaked emails proved Facebook... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The alternative is to believe that Hillary and her team made bad decisions and also did not spend all that money effectively.

    2. Re:Podesta's leaked emails proved Facebook... by Mashiki · · Score: 4, Informative

      The alternative is to believe that Hillary and her team made bad decisions and also did not spend all that money effectively.

      You mean besides being an unlikable candidate, pissing off core democrat voters, rigging their own primary? That even when Donna Brazile leaked debate questions to Clinton she still lost the debate? Nah, none of that is her fault we know that. She keeps screeching and saying so, it was all that Russia's fault. And she would have gotten away with it too if it hadn't been those pesky kids from 4chan and their cartoon frog.

      The most hilarious thing was pepe. Even the hillary loving pundits in Canada went on and on about how stupid she was trying to make it into something.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    3. Re:Podesta's leaked emails proved Facebook... by cmseagle · · Score: 2

      So now we're supposed to believe that about $50k worth of Facebook ads tilted the election to Trump

      No. No one (reasonable) is pointing to this specific $50,000 ad buy as the reason Hilary lost. This is evidence see that a foreign power attempted to influence an American election by exploiting racial divides. The natural follow-up question, then, is did that foreign power do so in collusion with the candidate they were assisting?

  6. Re:always fight rules like that by Brett+Buck · · Score: 2

    I am sure that they would welcome that, if they though they could get away with it.

  7. Shocked by Bodhammer · · Score: 3, Funny

    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."
  8. Truepundit is a conspiracy-pseudoscience site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  9. Ad spending by foreign governments is a crisis? by zerofoo · · Score: 2

    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?