Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Placing Election Ads On Google Will Require a Government ID (gizmodo.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the new-guidelines dept.

Google announced new policies Friday that will require advertisers to prove they are a U.S. citizen or permanent resident when buying election ads. "Under the new guidelines, Google will ask advertisers -- be they individuals, organizations, or political action committees -- to prove they are who they claim to be," reports Gizmodo. "It will also require the ads to include a clear disclosure of who is paying for it." From the report: The change comes after Google and other social media companies revealed their advertising platforms were abused by foreign actors, including the Russian government-backed troll farm Internet Research Agency, during the 2016 U.S. presidential election. It also places Google's policies in line with U.S. laws for traditional media that restrict foreign entities from running election ads. Where Google's effort falls short, at least in its current iteration, is the new policies only cover ads featuring candidates running for office. So-called "issue ads" that advocate a certain point of view on hot-button topics are not covered in Google's policies.

16 of 227 comments (clear)

  1. Surprised it wasn't already a requirement by kronix1986 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Seems perfectly reasonable to only allow citizens of a country to buy political adverts in that country during an election cycle.

    Can't wait to see how some people slam this new regulation as an attack on the free speech of Russians...

    1. Re:Surprised it wasn't already a requirement by Brett+Buck · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unfortunately, they can still *vote* in many areas, legally or not, and many proposals to require ID have been rejected.

    2. Re:Surprised it wasn't already a requirement by alvinrod · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Can't wait to see how some people slam this new regulation as an attack on the free speech of Russians...

      I'm not going to slam this as I believe that Google is free to do as it likes as a private company, but what I will say is that I find it humorous that the people most likely to be in favor of this move are probably also the same people who are most likely to disapprove of any laws requiring a valid government ID to actually vote in an election.

    3. Re:Surprised it wasn't already a requirement by Ayano · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Then those states need to remove the 'poll tax' of the cost of an ID. Everyone seems to say 'but it's as easy as a driver's license' but not everyone has a car, you'd be surprised by the numbers.

      Make the IDs free, quick, and easily replaced, and you'd see more motion in this regard, but you don't. There's always a cost for IDs for some reason and when you put a cost on anything, there will be people who cannot afford it. And the moment you say "oh those poor people don't deserve to vote then" is the moment you cease being a true American.

      --
      I don't read AC
    4. Re:Surprised it wasn't already a requirement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Then those states need to remove the 'poll tax' of the cost of an ID. Everyone seems to say 'but it's as easy as a driver's license' but not everyone has a car, you'd be surprised by the numbers.

      Make the IDs free, quick, and easily replaced, and you'd see more motion in this regard, but you don't. There's always a cost for IDs for some reason and when you put a cost on anything, there will be people who cannot afford it. And the moment you say "oh those poor people don't deserve to vote then" is the moment you cease being a true American.

      BULLSHIT.

      Texas did just that:

      Texas voter ID law can go into effect, appeals court panel rules

      And it still wasn't enough to satisfy "progressives".

      Why, you'd almost think the goal of "progressives" in fighting voter ID was to do things like allow illegal immigrants to commit vote fraud.

      "There's no vote fraud!"

      Again, BULLSHIT. How can you tell if there's vote fraud if you don't ID the voter? You can't.

    5. Re:Surprised it wasn't already a requirement by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Make the IDs free, quick, and easily replaced, and you'd see more motion in this regard, but you don't. There's always a cost for IDs for some reason and when you put a cost on anything,

      It's not just the cost. In Texas, as soon as they passed voter ID laws, they closed a bunch of the State Safety offices where you obtain a state ID. But just in the minority areas of course.

      State voter ID laws always come as part of a suite of new laws designed to disenfranchise people who might not vote Republican.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    6. Re:Surprised it wasn't already a requirement by superwiz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'll be the 1st. This does not attack the free speech of Russians. But attacking free speech of Russians in general is not better than attacking free speech of US citizens in particular. Free speech is afforded to all persons -- not all citizens. It is one of the moment important tenants of our society. And it is far, far, far better to allow speech to more people than to restrict in a way which does not allow trolls to troll. Hate speech should be legal. Offensive speech must be legal. Political speech should be legal for all (even for convicted felons). And if you don't like it, you are the one trying to undermine our Democracy.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    7. Re:Surprised it wasn't already a requirement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Actually, they disbanded it because none of the Democrat run states would give them any data - even the publicly available voter rolls they sell to every campaign - and would not allow them to investigate tax records, jury duty records, or anything else that would help reveal voter fraud.

      This is the same way Democrats prevent voter fraud from being found in every other attempt. Don't give any data, then claim that because nothing was found, no one should be allowed to look.

    8. Re:Surprised it wasn't already a requirement by king+neckbeard · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because voter impersonation is mathematically the dumbest way to rig an election. It's high risk for low reward, and the risk grows exponentially, so you couldn't rig an election for dogcatcher without getting caught. Any other method, including legitimate campaigns, would be a much more effective strategy.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    9. Re: Surprised it wasn't already a requirement by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Of course, the state government championing voter fraud deliberately blocked the commission. You left that part out, didn't you.

      Would you give over your citizens personal data to a committee run by a guy who has so little respect for the rule of law that he's found in contempt of court (and then tried to use state funds to pay the fine)?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    10. Re: Surprised it wasn't already a requirement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Did he ever say First Amendment? Repeat after me: the first amendment is not free speech, free speech is not the first amendment. The first amendment enshrines free speech in the Constitution; but the concept of free speech exists independently of the First Amendment.

    11. Re:Surprised it wasn't already a requirement by Raenex · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The US borders have become a joke. Illegal immigrants live here openly, waving Mexican flags, and making demands. It's not "high risk" when there is no serious effort to make sure illegals aren't voting.

      Democrats oppose voter ID because they have become the party of illegal immigration. This was made patently clear when adding the question of citizenship status to the US Census elicited howls from the Left -- because it would discourage illegals from being counted in a census used to determine numbers of Congressman and votes in the Electoral College.

    12. Re:Surprised it wasn't already a requirement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Make the IDs free, quick, and easily replaced, and you'd see more motion in this regard, but you don't. There's always a cost for IDs for some reason and when you put a cost on anything,

      It's not just the cost. In Texas, as soon as they passed voter ID laws, they closed a bunch of the State Safety offices where you obtain a state ID. But just in the minority areas of course.

      State voter ID laws always come as part of a suite of new laws designed to disenfranchise people who might not vote Republican.

      I love the racist idea that somehow minorities are incapable of obtaining ID.

    13. Re:Surprised it wasn't already a requirement by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "There's no vote fraud!"

      Again, BULLSHIT. How can you tell if there's vote fraud if you don't ID the voter? You can't.

      Republicans know there is voter fraud. In the first person. https://www.denverpost.com/201...

      http://occupydemocrats.com/201...

      http://www.bradblog.com/?p=946...

      http://nhpr.org/post/mancheste...

      https://www.arktimes.com/arkan...

      http://archive.jsonline.com/ne...

      https://talkingpointsmemo.com/...

      https://www.nytimes.com/2012/0...

      Yesiree, Republicans know full well that there is voter fraud, and that is because so much Votter Fraud is performed by Republicans - highly ranked ones even - And your wet dream of a voter ID is going to do nothing, not one thing but eliminate a trite old chestnut of a talking point.

      Personally, I'm in favor of voter ID - but given that Republicans bring it up every election cycle like it is the cure blessed by God himself for them thar godless commiecrats and their letting them chocolate people - who always commit fraud, amirite? - is just Bullshit - to use your term.

      Phase it in, make it free ( hey, maybe we can get that Russian Oligarch who funnels money to Republicans through the NRA to chip in ) and start long before elections.

      But how is that going to actually stop Republican election fraud? Or is that Okay because the Republican party has shown it has a lock on the moral high ground?

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  2. How about just banning all election Ads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Election Ads are generally just plain wrong.

    It at most allow candidates to get through a simple black or white stance on issues rather than allowing people to understand the candidateâ(TM)s ideas, reasons, moral standing, motivations etc.

    Election Ads are mostly fake news anyway even if itâ(TM)s by US citizens.

    We should set a limit on campaign spending and have more robust debates rather than fucking Ads.....

  3. Re: US ID by CoolDiscoRex · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Anyone think this would be happening if Hilary had won?