Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Finally Discloses Pro-Brexit Ads (techcrunch.com)
"The UK parliament has provided another telling glimpse behind the curtain of Facebook's unregulated ad platform by publishing data on scores of pro-Brexit adverts..." reports TechCrunch, adding that the 2016 ads "were run prior to Facebook having any disclosure rules for political ads. So there was no way for anyone other than each target recipient to know a particular ad existed or who it was being targeted at." An anonymous reader quotes their report:
The targeting of the ads was carried out on Facebook's platform by AggregateIQ, a Canadian data firm that has been linked to Cambridge Analytica/SCL... [I]t's not clear how many ad impressions they racked up in all. But total impressions look very sizable. While some of what runs to many thousands of distinctly targeted ads which AIQ distributed via Facebook's platform are listed as only garnering between 0-999 impressions apiece, according to Facebook's data, others racked up far more views. Commonly listed ranges include 50,000 to 99,999 and 100,000 to 199,999 -- with even higher ranges like 2M-4.9M and 5M-9.9M also listed....
The publication of the Brexit ads is, above all, a reminder that online political advertising has been allowed to be a blackhole -- and at times a cesspit -- because cash-rich entities have been able to unaccountably exploit the obscurity of Facebook's systemically dark ad targeting tools for their own ends, and operate in a darkness where only Facebook had oversight (and wasn't exercising any), leaving the public no right of objection let alone reply, despite it being people's lives that are indelibly affected by political outcomes.... The company has been making some voluntary changes to offer a degree of political ad disclosure, as it seeks to stave off regulatory rule. Whether its changes -- which at best offer partial visibility -- will go far enough remains to be seen.
Earlier this month the UK's data watchdog released a report titled "Democracy disrupted?" in which the UK's Information Commissioner recommends an "ethical pause" of political advertising on social media to allow key players "to reflect on their responsibilities in respect to the use of personal data..." And this weekend an interim report from the House of Commons' media committee "said democracy is facing a crisis because the combination of data analysis and social media allows campaigns to target voters with messages of hate without their consent," according to the Associated Press.
"Tech giants like Facebook, which operate in a largely unregulated environment, are complicit because they haven't done enough to protect personal information and remove harmful content, the committee said."
The publication of the Brexit ads is, above all, a reminder that online political advertising has been allowed to be a blackhole -- and at times a cesspit -- because cash-rich entities have been able to unaccountably exploit the obscurity of Facebook's systemically dark ad targeting tools for their own ends, and operate in a darkness where only Facebook had oversight (and wasn't exercising any), leaving the public no right of objection let alone reply, despite it being people's lives that are indelibly affected by political outcomes.... The company has been making some voluntary changes to offer a degree of political ad disclosure, as it seeks to stave off regulatory rule. Whether its changes -- which at best offer partial visibility -- will go far enough remains to be seen.
Earlier this month the UK's data watchdog released a report titled "Democracy disrupted?" in which the UK's Information Commissioner recommends an "ethical pause" of political advertising on social media to allow key players "to reflect on their responsibilities in respect to the use of personal data..." And this weekend an interim report from the House of Commons' media committee "said democracy is facing a crisis because the combination of data analysis and social media allows campaigns to target voters with messages of hate without their consent," according to the Associated Press.
"Tech giants like Facebook, which operate in a largely unregulated environment, are complicit because they haven't done enough to protect personal information and remove harmful content, the committee said."
Bonjour m'ladies
French toast
Brexit weakens the UK/Euro almost as much as Trump did himself - all of this means May is correct in her approach to staunch the damage, and Nigel and Trump both deserve summary execution by firing squad as nothing more than traitors.
We all want to get rich, because only the rich get richer.
Also, then you can influence the plebes.
If they paid for the ads, then they should be able to run them. The only thing is that they shouldn't be just given personal information by third parties. People should be paid for having their information disclosed and agree with whom it is disclosed exactly. I'm getting really tired of the lefts' compulsion to censor their political opponents. You will be punished.
Because elites didn't get what they wanted in an election. We must immediately go back to centralized control of media, so elites can regain control of the information everyone has. The present situation is too democratic for them.
Yes, every single political development that "progressives' don't like is actually caused by nefarious activities (which noted reactionaries like tech executives of course happily signed on to).
You could never, you know, just lose ...
Has the BBC (funded by a mandatory TV license) been a neutral news source during and since the Brexit campaign?
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
Yeah not because of Cambridge Analytica and Russian collusion, because of your "elites" bullshit theory and pizzagate, cuz you say so? Kohath has zero credibility from now on, noted.
Seriously, this "has been linked" nonsense has to end. Largest investment banks are "linked" to the SEC because the professionals who understand banking well-enough to regulate banks have a very high chance of having worked for some of the banks. The mathematicians and other analysts who work for data analysis companies do change jobs. And this produces links between different data analytics firms.
It doesn't matter that you don't like what one of them has done. All firms within all professions, which require narrow expertise, are linked because people switch jobs.
What's the alternative? Top experts at the top firms becoming unemployable? Shall we just revert to cast system? How would news organizations like it if it was done to them? They are doing it to everyone else.
Let's give it a try. CNN, which is linked to Fox News, has reported that blah, blah, blah.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
So these elections were interferred with via Facebook because parasites like Facebook were happy to be bought and sold. Time to begin slinging anti-democratic facists like Zukerburg in jail - where they belong.
...right before they start having an impact. Thanks for being on the ball everyone
Google was recently fined $5B by the EU over its anti-competitive practices in Android, namely forcing OEMs to use Google search and Google apps and not allowing them to fork Android.
What Facebook (et al.) did was far, far more dangerous. Facebook's damage was not just preventing other companies from profiting; rather, Facebook damaged voters from making informed decisions. Both in Brexit and in the US Trump election. Both of those elections may have had different results if not for Facebook's wrongdoings.
Facebook needs to be broken up. Or at least fined out of existence. Mark Zuckerberg is the worst.
*They* in this case is "The Internet Research Agency", a Russian troll factory intended to disrupt democracies and place puppet candidates in power. Why should *they*, the Russians, be allowed to interfere in democracy without repercussions?
When a candidate visits Russia, asks his Russian friends for help in his election bid, and then a lot of electronic chatter over the plans for that help are recorded. He then later goes on to announce his bid, and his Russian friends hack and troll and leverage Facebook against its users, then why should that be OK?
I get it, he's your guy. You're either a far right nutter or a Russian troll. He's collectively "your" guy. And when US troops are put under Russian Generals, you'll tell yourself its only the 'left' that object to this. Or your Russian boss will tell you to tweet that.
Brexit poll was supposed to be decided by Brits. Not Russians. It's not whether *Russia* thinks its in *Russia's* best interests for Britain to leave the EU, its for *Brits* to decide if Britain's best interests are for Britain to leave the EU.
Likewise, it's not for Russia to decide that Trump would be the President who best serves Russia's agenda, it's for Americans.
And for parties to seek help from Russia to rig elections, hack voting machines, hack emails of opponents, that's treason.
People seem to be forgetting that by definition half the population has below average intelligence. Studies show that people with below average intelligence have greater difficulty researching the truth of any statement and are more susceptible to misinformation. Given this it only makes sense to regulate the presentation of ads, which by definition are designed to sway opinion by appealing to biases at least half the population doesn't know they have.
And why would the elites want Europe divided? They're spending everything they've got on pushing their one-world-government agenda, but somehow they'd want to undo that? Makes no sense.
Russia won the cold war. They seized power over the keystone democracy, USA, using the division, and the help of a few traitors.
They divided Europe with the help of a few traitors and an adds platform that's been busy selling everyone's secrets to Putin's troll factory.
Is this "progressives" that object to this? Or is it "patriots"?
Do you defend your country, or do you sell it out for short term help in a vote?
I am still getting links to "Financial experts agree that the Euro may crash in months", "Analysts say EU likely do break up on the next decade", and stuff like that. No citations, no experts that I've ever heard of. And why are they targeting a strong European like me with this junk? unless they are sending it to everyone.
There's really no excuse for Vote Leave to target Facebook users during Brexit...
It's actually unbelievable how anyone could think they had a right to get their message out there to the people, especially in such a modern democratic society with an allowance for a multitude of different viewpoints...oh wait
wait to watch the biased media!
But Trump will hang for treason either way.
The call to nationalism and protectionism is that of the fascists and authoritarians, who thrive on fear and hatred, and prey on black and white thinking. They blame all woes on "outsiders", and call those who oppose them "elites". This cycle has happened before, and it will happen again.
F*ucking slave owners, without them there would not be so many blacks in the western countries.
That may be a consequence of individualism and a rather undeveloped country back then. Had they had a collective solution to blacks employment i.e. prison camps and gulags rather than ownership by individual masters, then they would have had to close the gulag and when you close the gulag sometimes you dismantle everything in it, carefully raze it so that there is nothing left, and no one left.
...who are actually interested in hearing the other side of the argument. Fortunately, British politics isn't quite as exciting as the OP sets out. Some relevant info on:
The pro-Remain journalist spearheading the investigation into the Leave campaign The pro-Remain MP in charge of the DCMS committee Evidence of the Remain campaign doing exactly what the Leave campaign have been accused of, only to a much greater extent The government body in charge of regulating elections and referenda The guy in charge of the Leave campaign
For those less inclined towards actually verifying facts, the TLDR:
Not just political advertisement, but all advertisement should be carefully monitored and regulated. People have a right to know of the mass disinformation that routinely passes as advertisement.
What actually is wrong with pro-Brexit ads?
As I recall there were also plenty of remain ad campaigns, yet apparently no-one is complaining about those.
Why the double-standard and why the incorrect presumption that anything pro-brexit somehow self-evidently justifies being stifled?
Besides the obvious privacy-breaching and general creepiness of it all, what's the political advantage?
I've always seen targeted advertising as a waste of money.
If you target people who are most likely to support you, all you accomplish is reaffirming decisions the people were already going to make before you advertised to them. In other words, you're preaching to the choir. What value is there in that?
If you target people who are least likely to support you, all you accomplish is annoying the people who already hated you before you shoved an ad in their face. In other words, you're attempting to sell condoms to priests. What value is there in that?
I don't see how targeting pro-Brexiters with pro-Brexit ads is changing anything at all on the political landscape. I also don't imagine any anti-Brexiters would change their mind based off a Facebook advertisement. You'd think it would take a LOT more than just that to change a person's mind once it's already been made up.
All I see is big companies pissing away money because they don't have anything better to do with it. Could a marketing or psychology expert maybe fill in the blanks for me, because I feel like I'm missing something critical, here.
...long live Oxford Vaginal-ytica
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user