Slashdot Mirror
Senators Announce New Bill That Would Regulate Online Political Ads (theverge.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: As tech companies face continued scrutiny over Russian activity on their ad platforms, Senators today announced legislation meant to regulate political ads on the internet. The new bill, called the Honest Ads Act, would require companies like Facebook and Google to keep copies of political ads and make them publicly available. Under the act, the companies would also be required to release information on who those ads were targeted to, as well as information on the buyer and the rates charged for the ads. The new rules would bring disclosure rules more in line with how political ads are regulated in mediums like print and TV, and apply to any platform with more than 50 million monthly viewers. The companies would be required to keep and release data on anyone spending more than $500 on political ads in a year. It's unclear how well the bill will fare. Companies like Facebook have been successfully fighting regulations for years. But this latest attempt has some bipartisan support: the act, sponsored by Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) is also co-sponsored by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). "Americans deserve to know who's paying for the online ads," Klobuchar said at a press conference announcing the legislation.
All this for 100K of Russian ads?
There is definitely a need to balance free speech with anonymity. Placing political ads should should require some amount of disclosure. What will be interesting will be to see how the big tech companies, who tend to be pretty vocal supporters of lots of Democrat politicians, will react to this. It is easy to fight against something supported by your ideological opponents, but what about when it is the people who you just helped win elections?
That said, two Democrats and John McCain hardly qualifies as "bipartisan." I'm just saying.
But this latest attempt has some bipartisan support: the act, sponsored by Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) is also co-sponsored by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ).
If it were bi-partisan, wouldn't it have some Republican support as well?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The CU doesn't mention nationality. In fact, it did not overturn existing laws banning foreign campaign expenditures. And, it has specific language about transparency in campaign spending. In the majority opinion, Justice Scalia specifically said that Congress needed to pass laws requiring that all campaign expenditures should be transparent.
All this new bill does is codify what the Supreme Court decided in Citizens United.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Knowing the buyer of an advert doesn't matter if you can't get any info about the buyer's doners... basically, all this will do is move the needle to anonymous superpacs... "this ad is brought to you by [insert name of superpac]". We need legislation that let's us know who donates to these pacs to begin to understand their agendas... no anonymous donations - could Be out shortly argued as being akin to the "no mask" laws that already exist in several states.
You can't fight in here! This is the war room!
-- From Dr. Strangelove
"Americans deserve to know who's paying for the online ads," Klobuchar said at a press conference announcing the legislation.
Americans deserve to know who's paying (off) our Representatives and deserve to have those representatives and the others running our government to work for the benefit of ALL the people as a whole and not just the rich and powerful. </rant>
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
The ad's were to suck folks in. It was the barrage of interactive trolling that sealed the deal. Propaganda works.
--
"No Branch!" -- Poppi
and laughing and laughing and laughing............
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
So, if I spend $501 running ads that say things like, "Hey, internal combustion engines really aren't so bad. Firefighters need them!" or "Really, we need to be careful with our H1-B visa program" or "We need leaders that only want peace, non-GMO corn, and no guns" ... which politician or party just benefited from my spending? If I spend $501 on fancy printed signs and march around downtown proclaiming the same things, how is that different?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
This has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
Bullcrap. If the government was not trying to control speech, then there would be no reason for these laws.
This merely brings in line the regulations around internet ads to be similar to TV and print.
We should be removing restrictions, not extending them.
Any legislation called the "Honest Ads Act" is questionable. Just like "Citizens United" really should have been named "Citizens Divided."
And why is this happening? I thought we had too much regulation.
An effective "democracy" creates the illusion the people have a say in their government.
BS yourself.
Requiring disclosure of who paid for the ads != free speech violation.
Controlling means content.
This has nothing to do with content.
This has nothing to do with restricting speech.
All this does is bring online political ads to the same standard that already exists for all other forms of political advertising (print, radio, tv, etc).
You once again are miscomprehending and misrepresenting the issue.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
This would basically mean the end of political speech for individuals, because anybody who publishes a controversial ad as an individual will be torn apart by "activists" from the opposing political party.
It's also unlikely to survive legal scrutiny, since SCOTUS has repeatedly affirmed the right to anonymous free speech; this isn't the first time politicians have tried to restrict it after all.
And applied in reverse, it interferes with poor America's ability to use foreign advertising to spread information about the US, democracy, etc. And it interferes with the ability of Americans to hear foreign viewpoints
If you think that American voters are dumb enough that they can be swayed by $50000 in false Russian advertising, then you obviously don't believe in representative government or democracy; why even pretend to defend democracy and liberty?
This bill wouldn't have had any effect at all on the ads in question.
This bill is a straightforward extension of the existing Federal Election Campaign Act so it also covers internet advertising. That's fine and is good. It says that any "qualified political advertisement" must be disclosed. A qualified political advertisement is defined as one which (1) refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office, (2) is targeted to the relevant electorate.
The ads in question? They weren't qualified political advertisements. They weren't geared towards any one political candidate. They were general sowing of division and antipathy between groups. "Some of the ads supported Black Lives Matter and other groups bringing attention to the tense relationship between law enforcement and people of color. Yet other ads painted these activist organizations as a rising political threat." (article1). "Some championed activist groups like Black Lives Matter, while others portrayed them as existential threats. Others aimed to split opinions through hot-button issues like Islam, LGBT rights, gun rights and immigration." -- (article2).
So this bill is fine and good and just makes sense. But if there were indeed Russian ads as described in the past electoral cycle, then their propaganda is years ahead of our own legislators.
PS. Here's the full text of the proposed "Honest Ads Act": https://coffman.house.gov/uplo...
And here's the relevant federal law which it amends: https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
It's interesting that much of the "fake news" circulating today is, at its core, designed to balkanize national populations, increase factional friction and reduce cohesiveness of organizations such as NATO and the EU. It's time to ask who would benefit most from such a move? "The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas." -- Carl Sagan
If the idea is to identify Psy Ops performed by the Russkies then indeed this bill is missing the forest for the trees. Just think Pizzagate - no one in their right mind would consider that a political ad. Still, it played a part in discrediting the Democrats and the Clinton campaign. I still think it's a good bill though - online political ads should be treated no differently than tv ads. Just don't miss the forest for the trees..
No, the law is clear here. While you have the right to speak, the first amendment doesn't give you the right to speak anonymously. The courts have been clear that speakers can be required to identify themselves, since that's a crucial element in letting the listener judge whether the speaker can be trusted. Also, the right to free speech is not absolute. The example first year law students all learn is that you can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater, because that poses a clear and present danger to the public.
The entire premise of freedom is that you must be "free" to exercise your rights. You are free to kneel during the anthem, and I think it appropriate that the employer should not be able to fire them for doing so. However, if the employer has to look at cutting budget due to a downturn in viewership, and the action has a direct correlation with said downturn, then performers have just denied themselves a job. Interestingly, refer to Dolly Parton's opinion on this matter. She's friends with Lily Tomlin and other hard core libs but she doesn't express her opinions in a venue where it will affect her work. Smart.
However, due to the stupidity of equating words and opinions with violence we now can legitimately express concern regarding people expressing their opinion and having violent jackasses show up at their door or their place of work. Representative governments only work when civility is applied from both sides. Expressing an opinion is a far different thing than attempting to destroy the proponent of a view that you do not hold. In that climate, the eventual result is mob mentality, then violence (St Louis), then more restrictive reactionary government. Laws like this are the ropes of the Lilliputians attempting to tie Gulliver down, but, in this case, Gulliver will not negotiate.
This law in particular is taking rights away from people passively and setting us down the road toward places like the UK, where you can now be jailed for viewing "subversive" material. Is that really where we want to be? Some of us, those that cannot think that they will ever be on the receiving end will answer yes. Personally, I use this as an empathy test. If a person cannot imagine being oppressed in the future, then their current outrage is simply an expression of desire to belong or have power, rather than an interest in building a society in which no one need fear the government.
Just because jackbooted thugs wandering the streets are enforcing the desires of a totalitarian government rather than people dressed in fatigues does not make the government less oppressive. To avoid Godwin's law, I will instead invoke early Soviet Bolshevism or populist violence associated with Cromwell. Notice in both instances the violence of the people led to more power and oppression by the government.
Amen Brother.
Funny how people get all interested in civil liberties when it is their liberties being infringed upon. Yet somehow when people they find distasteful are having their liberties run over, they are not really so worried about it. In fact, they often seem to be cheerleading the steamrolling.