Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Twitter Says It Will Comply With Honest Ads Act To Combat Russia Social Media Meddling (theverge.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the cause-and-effect dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Twitter today pledged to support a proposed Senate bill that would require technology platforms that sell advertising space to disclose the source of and amount of money paid for political ads. Called the Honest Ads Act, the bipartisan bill was first introduced back in October by Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). As part of its transparency efforts, Twitter says it's launched a new platform called the Ads Transparency Center, or ATC, that will "go beyond the requirements of the Honest Ads Act and eventually provide increased transparency to all advertisements on Twitter." Twitter says the platform will increase transparency for political and so-called issue ads, which target specific topics like immigration and gun control, by providing even more information on the origin of an ad that is required by the Honest Ads Act. "We have a dedicated team that is fully resourced to implementing the ATC and are committed to launching it this summer," the company states. "Twitter is moving forward on our commitment to providing transparency for online ads. We believe the Honest Ads Act provides an appropriate framework for such ads and look forward to working with bill sponsors and others to continue to refine and advance this important proposal."

47 comments

  1. And this will work! by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because we all know that no Russian (or Republican or Democrat, for that matter) would ever LIE about who was behind a political ad....

    Note that there is plenty of room for a First Amendment challenge to this as well. It's been established for a long time that ANONYMOUS political speech is protected by the First....

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    1. Re:And this will work! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Death to personal responsibility! - Liberal Ludite

    2. Re:And this will work! by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      Some people will find new ways to evade existing laws, and thus existing laws will have to be amended or new laws passed - Actual Real Logic

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:And this will work! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You lost your own argument. Laws are there to provide a way to force people to take responsibility because there are too many people who won't without society forcing them to.

    4. Re:And this will work! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That isn't liberal logic at all. That is more with the authoritarian portion of the left, moderate, and conservative. Those that are in the authoritarian half of the political spectrum tend to keep adding laws. If a law doesn't work instead of see why it doesn't work they make a newer, tougher law to combat the problem the old law was supposed to address, without regard to liberties that is spelled out in the constitution (war on drugs, war against racism, war on terror, war on poverty). Libertarians or those that are on the libertarian half of the political spectrum tend to refrain from enacting new laws that violate the constitution. They realize some problems either cannot be solved without going full authoritarian, which goes against the spirit of the constitution. Some can be but most don't care unless it is the authoritarian that loses their rights.

      ---------
      A vote against a libertarian candidate is
      a vote to abolish the constitution itself.

    5. Re: And this will work! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. People will still ignore existing laws. When enough voters get mad, politicians will appease them with news laws and more empty promises.

      Not logic. Historical fact.

    6. Re: And this will work! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to believe in Libertarianism. Until one day I realized Libertarians we're all looks who swung way left field. Which seems counterintuitive to me. Libertarians we're hijacked with socialist idiots, just like the neo-democratic party was hijacked.

    7. Re:And this will work! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some people will break the law, therefore we should have no laws - Conservative Clown

      "People will dope on heroin, therefore we should make heroin legal" - yeah, I hear that stuff from conservatives like every day.

      </sarcasm>

    8. Re:And this will work! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some people will find ways around the wall, therefore we should have no wall.

    9. Re:And this will work! by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · Score: 2

      Some people will find new ways to evade existing laws, and thus existing laws will have to be amended or new laws passed - Actual Real Logic

      A friend of mine (Hi Lisa!) almost became a corporate lawyer for just this effect.

      She wasn't trying to keep the company "honest" or follow the rules, she wanted to "bend the existing rules to her will" so that the company could do as they wanted while still following the letter of the law.

      And I'm sorry, that's exactly right -- if you make a law, then you describe exactly how it works. Tell me what I can and can't do. If you then botch describing things somehow, it's not THEIR problem. And if new ideas and technology starts to outdate and outrun your law, then you'd better update it, huh? (Much better than making NEW laws, fix the ones we already have.)

      --
      If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
    10. Re:And this will work! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Twitter is a private company and can place any restrictions they want when it comes to accepting advertisements. If someone doesn't like the restrictions they can chose not to use the service. All the big social media companies have been pushed into censoring the content passing through it's servers. This has progressed to the point where censors have a free hand on determining what is and what is not hate speech. And this nebulous concept of "hate speech" includes everything from direct calls for mass murder to speech that hurts some ones feeling and fragile sensibilities. So the social warriors looking for 1st Amendment violations would be better served concentrating on the censorship the huddled masses are yearning for instead of worrying about whether or not the Kremlin can buy political advertising. Personally I don't think the US needs to worry about any more Russia meddling for a while since the guy they purported supported is currently bleeding them dry through the harshest sanctions since the good ole days of the cold war. Plus the US public are perfectly capable of fucking up their own elections and hardly require help from offshore.

      There is no First Amendment issue in this case. All of the enumerated rights listed in the Constitution are for interactions between the government and the private citizens.

    11. Re:And this will work! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe actually learn the law and how it works first BEFORE trying to tell other people.

    12. Re:And this will work! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      And I'm sorry, that's exactly right -- if you make a law, then you describe exactly how it works. Tell me what I can and can't do. If you then botch describing things somehow, it's not THEIR problem.

      That's completely impractical and most legal systems don't work that way.

      Take fraud. It often involves elaborate schemes and deceptions. If you want a precise definition then you either have to enumerate every possible malicious action, every possible scam or lie or misdirection, or you have to enumerate all possible acceptable behaviours. I don't think either of those is practical or acceptable.

      That's why sensible laws set out principals and then allow courts to apply them to specific cases.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    13. Re:And this will work! by fuzznutz · · Score: 1

      You lost your own argument. Laws are there to provide a way to force people to take responsibility because there are too many people who won't without society forcing them to.

      Sorry, but you lost the argument because you were too stupid to recognize what the argument was even about. Here's a hint:

      It's been established for a long time that ANONYMOUS political speech is protected by the First....

      The respondent thinks that is an irresponsible "conservative" position. Fascists with a pro-censorship agenda think people are too stupid and vulnerable to be exposed to anything not explicitly approved by the Ministry of Propaganda.

  2. Will Twitter censor Trump's Bullshit ads? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or just let them flow freely, as if they are actual facts?

    1. Re:Will Twitter censor Trump's Bullshit ads? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well the did show a lot of stuff from the Democrats, and that was all bullshit, so I think yes they will.

      But then Jack Dorsey is a whore, and Twitter is a sewer, so it's a perfect environment for Democrats and Republicans.

  3. "Combat Russia" by Mr307 · · Score: 2

    If they intend to be truly transparent (doubt it), wouldn't' it be funny if it becomes apparent that the most advertising/content 'meddling' was something other than the evil Russians, and could reveal more than intended?

    Wouldn't be the first time.

    1. Re:"Combat Russia" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would they censor any DNC ad stating Obamacare reduced healthcare costs as being untrue?
      Or is it more likely they will censor any ads explaining how healthcare costs skyrocketed because of Obamacare because it doesn't fit the Twitter narrative?

      Who decides what is true, because I'm pretty sure I can find fact checkers that lie. Will the penalties be similar to how the FBI/DOJ are currently run, where a D can obstruct justice, lie under oath, and destroy massive amounts of subpoenaed evidence, while an R who did nothing wrong has his personal attrourney's office raided because a special council wasn't able to find any evidence of actual wrongdoing.

      DC has become Shithole #1. Any law like this is just more attempts to oppress citizens, like Facebook does to black people.

    2. Re:"Combat Russia" by Dutchmaan · · Score: 1

      ..or will they censor Fox for pretty much everything Fox says...?

  4. Absurd by wyattstorch516 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The 100K worth of Russian ads supposedly decided a multi-billion dollar election? Maybe Clinton's problem was Clinton.

    1. Re:Absurd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you honestly believe that only 100K was spent influencing voters using social media? Only an idiot would believe that...

    2. Re: Absurd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No he doesn't. Anyone who plays down Russian spending on the US election is likely one of Putin's paid cheerleaders, or at least is being disingenuous. The narrative used to be "No Russian interference, where's the evidence?", now that's no longer tenable they pick a tiny amount and imply it had no effect.

      Any real American patriot would be outraged by the thought of another state interfering secretly is US elections.

    3. Re:Absurd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you honestly believe that only 100K was spent influencing voters using social media?

      Of course not. Hillary spent millions on social media. But she still lost. Then the donations from foreign governments to the Clinton Foundation dried up.

    4. Re: Absurd by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      Any real American patriot would be outraged by the thought of another state interfering secretly is US elections.

      I take it for granted that all sorts of actors, foreign and domestic, will try to "influence" our elections.

      American voters are expected to evaluate what they see and hear, and decide what to give credence to, and importance to, themselves.

      (Yes, that's scary, blah blah. It's the worst form of government, except for all the others.)

      It's the whole basis of democracy in the first place. If we're going to have gatekeepers decide what we can see and hear, and what we're allowed to think about it, then we may as well give up the whole idea now.

    5. Re:Absurd by thesupraman · · Score: 1

      but.. but.. tell me it isnt so!
      Surely, as we were assured to strongly, because those contributions were NEVER political in nature, then they must be flowing as fast as always.
      Right?

      https://labor.ny.gov/app/warn/details.asp?id=5801
      (TL;DR, thats a none news, official source documenting the layoff of 22 workers at the Clinton foundation because they shut down their global initiative project.)

    6. Re:Absurd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do. After 14 months of a special investigation (at $10 million a year cost) and nearly a year long FBI/DOJ investigation before that, that is all I have seen evidence shown.

      Actually I haven't even seen the evidence of the $50k (the number I saw reported) either. You would think with how much "investigation" and how frequently it happened I would have seen SOMETHING. Instead they are looking at a lawyer paying a prostitute, because evidence of Russian interference is so easy to find.

      DC has become a shithole.

    7. Re:Absurd by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      That's the beauty of social media. Unlike the election campaigning that the candidates were legally allowed to do, it's unregulated.

      That election was also a time when people were turning away from traditional media and were very much in the post-truth all-politicians-lie-all-the-time frame of mind. They were looking to social media, people who they thought were real and like them.

      That meant that social media was incredibly powerful. Memes were incredibly powerful. And they could say anything, pretend to be anything. And a lot of it was Americans, the Russians only needed to stoke the fires that were already burning and amplify those messages.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re:Absurd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still can't figure that one out. When did paying a prostitute hush money become a crime? Well maybe it is a crime, but it would have been committed by the prostitute and be called blackmail.
      Always said Slick Willie's mistake was not telling congress, "Yeah I stooped her. So What?" It's not like adultery is a High Crime or Misdemeanor as defied in constitutional law.
      So what's going on is that Mueller is going for the perjury conviction. Talk to someone under oath long enough and they will perjure themselves, because no one has perfect memory and the questioner has all the facts written down and can structure their questions in a way as to make it more likely the witness will mis-remeber a fact.

  5. ...as opposed to not complying? by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 2

    Is that how laws work now? We can which ones we want to comply with and which we don't or does that only work for large corporations?

    1. Re:...as opposed to not complying? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Ship has sailed. Everybody's a felon.

      Once you accept it, your free again. Laws, schmaws.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  6. This is dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I dont understand what you Americans want? Thermonuclear exchange with Russia? You have allowed your leaders to racially divide your country by using immigration reform as a political foot ball for DECADES .....the left wanted votes....the right wanted cheap labor......you have totally screwed the vast middle of the country...you told the brown people they are oppressed while allowing them to stream across the border and told the white people not to complain about it cause they have privilege and then you sent their jobs to china......Now your geopolitical rivals use the internet to poke at these divisions that YOU HAVE CREATED in your own backyard and by the way thats exactly what your CIA has been doing in foreign elections all along.......THERE WILL BE CIVIL WAR IN YOUR COUNTRY AND YOU DESERVE IT.

    1. Re:This is dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      >Thermonuclear exchange with Russia?
      No, we don't want that

      >You have allowed your leaders to racially divide your country by using immigration reform as a political foot ball for DECADES .....
      We have a public discourse on controversial topics - as a people we are ashamed of racism but old habits die hard. We have come a long way and have a long way to go.

      >the left wanted votes....the right wanted cheap labor......
      All politicians want votes. If by "The Right" you mean politicians that serve business interests yes. So what. Everybody wants something.

      >you have totally screwed the vast middle of the country...
      Being a middle class U.S. citizen is still pretty awesome.

      >you told the brown people they are oppressed while allowing them to stream across the border and told the white people not to complain about it cause they have privilege and then you sent their jobs to china...
      The U.S. has always embraced immigration to varying extents. The current administration's views don't necessarily reflect that of the average american and I think you'll see changes in the next few years. The U.S. essentially has full employment. We like stuff and we have the money to pay for it. If we stop buying products from China, we'll build robots for that instead.
      ...
      >Now your geopolitical rivals use the internet to poke at these divisions that YOU HAVE CREATED in your own backyard
      We have freedom of speech. Technology has amplified speech. We are assessing how to protect ourselves from foreign bad actors while maintaining our cherished freedoms. This will not be an easy problem to resolve.

      >and by the way thats exactly what your CIA has been doing in foreign elections all along.......
      I hate to admit this could be true, and for that we are ashamed. I for one don't believe the end justifies the means, but sometimes its hard to argue that some things must be done for the greater good.

      >THERE WILL BE CIVIL WAR IN YOUR COUNTRY AND YOU DESERVE IT.
      While it wouldn't be the first time, its exceedingly unlikely.

      The United States is a very large powerful country. We are sick and tired of getting screwed by countries that apply trade barriers to our products and complain when we respond in kind. Trust me when I tell you that the rest of the world would be royally screwed if we decided to stop foreign trade - we have far less to lose than any of our trading partners .

      We are sick and tired of despots who gas old men, women and children and insult our intelligence by denying responsibility. At least we honor our neighbors borders.

      Go troll somebody else's country. Your days of doing that here are numbered.

  7. Combat Russia--yuri can't be serious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Russia says,But you're Twitter; wake me up when you've invaded some country, or invite the Bolshoi Ballet over for a command performance, or something.

  8. It will absolutely work! by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 2

    Because we all know that no Russian (or Republican or Democrat, for that matter) would ever LIE about who was behind a political ad....

    Note that there is plenty of room for a First Amendment challenge to this as well. It's been established for a long time that ANONYMOUS political speech is protected by the First....

    Firstly, it's not only political ads, but "issue" ads. IOW, they have license to determine that *anything* at *any* time is an issue and requires separate scrutiny.

    Secondly, they will claim that you must identify yourself and not lie in order to purchase these sorts of ads, and if they suspect that you are lying in any details they can pull your ads. IOW, they can pull ads at any time and require you to send proof of identity; for example: a utility bill for the registered address plus driver's license.

    So they can take any subject and suddenly decide that it's a political "issue" and yank ads promoting one side until people can positively identify.

    And the left will point out that they are not the government, are not bound by the first amendment, and they can run their business any way they want to. If you don't like their services, you don't have to advertise on twitter.

    (Violent opinions against straights/males/white will be allowed because "diversity", while gun opinions and anti-trans discussion will be suppressed because "we need you to identify yourself before posting ads about these issues".)

    It'll work perfectly, just not in the way they are describing it.

    Gab just today sent this E-mail:

    In light of Facebook’s data scandal that exposed the data of 87 million users [...] Gab is ad-free and supported by our GabPro customers with no need for mass data collection.

    Gab also unveiled their user-data management panel where you can delete older posts by date range, and other good stuff.

    1. Re:It will absolutely work! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      And the left will point out that they are not the government, are not bound by the first amendment, and they can run their business any way they want to. If you don't like their services, you don't have to advertise on twitter.

      What is your alternative? Heavy regulation that forces them to publish any and all political ads? Or just any ads that someone can afford?

      And does this extend to other private entities, like TV stations or magazines or billboard owners? What about your house, will people have to right to use your exterior walls to project advertising messages on?

      I'm not trying to imply that the situation is black and white. Lots of private property is regulated, such as vehicles and radio transmitters. What I'm asking is where you personally draw the line and what justification you have for forcing Twitter and others to accept your judgement.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:It will absolutely work! by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Here is the text of the bill https://www.congress.gov/115/b.... Talk about propaganda the bill is just chock a block full of it (that just had to fill it full of Russia propaganda, lame, really lame).

      Even the title is bull puckey, the ads don't have to be honest in the slightest, it just has to be stated somewhere in it, that is was a paid political advertisement. Although I find the description of a paid ad as a qualified ad to be some what disturbing.

      Of course paid political commentators, corporate stink tanks (more stink than think), in fact nearly any commentator what so ever, need declare nothing. Sort of tied to a person or entity spending more than $500 on ads and what is or is not a political ad and when that content is and is not a political ad (context counts).

      Is it too much to ask the US government to quit it with the bullshit double speak, The honest ad Act, should bloody force honest ad content, doesn't matter who paid for what as long as it is bloody honest. The act as it stands, does not care one whit about honesty or the truth and place dishonest ads placed properly above honest ads placed improperly and the properness being very interpretive.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  9. Red Scare 2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fucking Russia-Russia-Russia all day every day.

    Was this what it was like in the 60s?

  10. What's so special about "political" ads? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not extend the provision to all ads? What would be the harm?

    Otherwise you're just setting the scene for endless haggling over precisely when an ad becomes "political".

  11. Question ? by Archfeld · · Score: 1

    Who tracks the source of funds for super PAC's.
    What is to stop a foreign entity from incorporating and then donating to or utilizing a Super PAC as a front ?

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
  12. Because the lies about Sanders and Trump... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    during the election have to be covered over by a vague, never ending investigation into how $1 billion of Clinton tax haven money might of failed to beat $100,000 of advertising no one can prove occurred, so the left leaning billionaire donors, headquartered in and around the gay capital of the USA, who want the working class to shut up while they outsource labor to kids and slaves in Asia, wonder why no one likes them.

  13. Don't believe them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Facebook are traitorous criminal scum who sold out their customers and their country for a quick bug. Don't believe them. We hang spies. Why should Facebook get away with it? Seize control and break them up and prosecute their executives.

  14. So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So Hillary spent BILLIONS and lost bigly.

    Russia spent hundreds of thousands and got the Orange Guy elected?

    Haaaaaaaa!

  15. Hide source by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    Is there anything that prevents ad buying by a company registered in some fiscal paradise, where the identity of the true business owner will be hidden?