Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Facebook Demands ID Verifications For Big Pages, 'Issue' Ad Buyers (techcrunch.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the take-that-Russia dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: Facebook is looking to self-police by implementing parts of the proposed Honest Ads Act before the government tries to regulate it. To fight fake news and election interference, Facebook will require the admins of popular Facebook Pages and advertisers buying political or "issue" ads on "debated topics of national legislative importance" like education or abortion to verify their identity and location. Those that refuse, are found to be fraudulent or are trying to influence foreign elections will have their Pages prevented from posting to the News Feed or their ads blocked. Meanwhile, Facebook plans to use this information to append a "Political Ad" label and "Paid for by" information to all election, politics and issue ads. Users can report any ads they think are missing the label, and Facebook will show if a Page has changed its name to thwart deception. Facebook started the verification process this week; users in the U.S. will start seeing the labels and buyer info later this spring, and Facebook will expand the effort to ads around the world in the coming months.

15 of 20 comments (clear)

  1. Bad actors... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 5, Informative

    Because the real bad actors can't register a PO Box, shell company, and Photoshop a fake ID? We're talking about intelligence agencies messing around with elections.

    This will likely censor smaller entities with politically unpopular views -- e.g. anti-war or anti-military organizations.

    1. Re:Bad actors... by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This will likely censor smaller entities with politically unpopular views...

      ...Which is exactly what they want. Mission accomplished.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    2. Re:Bad actors... by fafalone · · Score: 1

      So they get to send the message that they're doing something even though it won't actually do anything AND stomp on the smaller entity with unpopular views? Win Win.

    3. Re:Bad actors... by gatfirls · · Score: 1

      That's like bemoaning bike locks because someone could just use bolt cutters.

      It's about adding layers of security. Someone will always find a way around it but at least they are leaving it as easy as a few mouse clicks.

    4. Re:Bad actors... by gatfirls · · Score: 1

      "aren't leaving it as easy as a few mouse clicks" is what I meant.

    5. Re:Bad actors... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      I'm bemoaning this because I see it as part of a larger long-term trend to require a real identity on the Internet -- requiring an identity will stifle a lot of unpopular political speech, if only because an employer could Google it using an employee's real name. And politics are not a protected class under US law, so people can lose their jobs for political views.

    6. Re:Bad actors... by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Nations, brands and their lawyers will just use fronts in the USA to present their issues as ads.
      All state and federal laws will be covered as part of the ad buy.
      Need some US id to get the ads working? Thats all part of the service.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    7. Re:Bad actors... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      This will likely censor smaller entities with politically unpopular views...

      ...Which is exactly what they want. Mission accomplished.

      Facebook just wants to go back to 6 months ago when it was just the place 2 billion people spent most of their lives looking at ads. They don't want to censor shit, because unpopular views are good clickbait. But they will to avoid being hit by the government. And the politicians don't want to censor unpopular views because they can point at the "other" as a reason to vote for them

      The only views worth censoring are popular views that threaten the censors.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    8. Re:Bad actors... by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Put simply, Facebook will only accept recognised establishment propagandists, all others will be banned. So the reason for going to Facebook, to escape the recognised establishment propagandists, now an excercise in futility. Not that I am a member, gave it a miss a long time ago, could never understand why people got hooked when it was so visibly manipulative. I guess sheeple will be sheeple. There is a counter, any commercial entity who uses Facebook, avoid them and tell them you avoid them because they serve and promote a propaganda network, Facebook.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    9. Re:Bad actors... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Because the real bad actors can't register a PO Box, shell company, and Photoshop a fake ID? We're talking about intelligence agencies messing around with elections.

      Guess then we'll figure out what Intelligence agency is running what ad then. If the front facing trail suddenly goes dark, it tells you just as much as putting an intel org's name on it.

      This isn't like present day US campaign funding where dark money is the norm. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/new...

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    10. Re:Bad actors... by Muros · · Score: 1

      ...Which is exactly what they want. Mission accomplished.

      I dunno, this mission sounds impossible.

  2. Love the Freudian Slip by Zurkeyon3733 · · Score: 1

    Deception... Good Stuff ;-P

  3. Re:Why abortion? by reboot246 · · Score: 1

    A future Supreme Court could always reverse the decision. Supreme Courts have a history of reversing previous decisions. Rights granted by government can be taken away by government. I prefer my rights be ones I was born with - natural rights.

    And nobody has a right to kill. Period. End of discussion.

  4. Re:Why abortion? by Luckyo · · Score: 1

    I assume you advocate taking a risk of dying over killing someone in self defence so you can be consistent in "nobody has right to kill" complaint to include all situations?

  5. No no no by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

    This is completely worthless. Given their 'requirements', who couldn't fake an identity well enough to get a Facebook page?

    It's ridiculous, just more security theater to try and placate people (including the government who might step in and regulate them).

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...