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."
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.
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.
The trouble with the you just lost argument is that in order for progressives, who have the greater good of the greatest number of people, as opposed to their opponents who are in favor of policies that tend to be for the greatest good of a small minority of lucky or wealthy (or both) people and necessarily and unavoidably to the DETRIMENT of the greatest number of people, to LOOSE, in a system like ours where, at least in theory, policy is made by people chosen by the GREATEST NUMBER OF PEOPLE, either the system is being rigged, (why would people vote AGAINST their own interests, unless they are crazy, or stupid or maybe both,) or... OR... they are loosing legitimately because... the greatest number of people have been conned, tricked, or duped into, yes, VOTING AGAINST THEIR OWN INTERESTS, which implies one or three disturbing possibilities:
The greatest number of people are A-crazy, B-stupid, or C-BOTH.
Hence our frustration with a system in which the right of the government to govern comes from the (alleged) consent of the people, and yet in election after election, they are somehow choosing, CHOOSING, to get bent over a barrel and screwed, forcibly, violently, without lubricant, or even the courtesy of wine, flowers, or a kiss first.
It is like watching a kid playing with matches, burning himself, dropping the still lit match into his own lap, crying, sucking his thumb, then realizing his dick is on fire, jumping up and running around and screaming, crying some more, sitting down, seeing the pack of matches, instantly forgetting what just happened, and pulling out another match and lighting it. You are watching this helplessly, are told you CANNOT take the matches away, the kid gets resentful if you call him a moron, calls you elitist if you tell him for his own sake to put the fucking matches away, and you know, sooner or later, he is going to burn the fucking house down.
The BBC gave more air-time to Remainers than it did to Brexiteers, and its editorial line was unashamedly anti-Brexit. Just because you evidently disagreed with Nigel Farage, his participation as the token Brexit voice on air, rudely interrupting your daily stream of EU propaganda, doesn't even bring the BBC's coverage closer to a neutral stance (from its clear Remain bias). If another referendum were held soon on Brexit, the vote would be confirmed, and the margin only widened. Bring it on, I say. Pro-EU supporters need another lesson in democracy, I think.
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.
What does 'SJW' have to do with this? If people all over the UK voted to exit the EU, a lot of these are also likely to be 'SJW's ... or is ACs claim that 'SJW' is actually just a bucket for 'people you don't like' (because you look to be a pro-Brexiter) actually an astute observation?
Disclaimer: I'm not a UK citizen, nor do I live there. So it is not up to me to decide on Brexit. I am, however, baffled at the incompetence of leading Tory politicians, regardless of their stance on Brexit.
The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
The BBC gave more air-time to Remainers than it did to Brexiteers, and its editorial line was unashamedly anti-Brexit.
I doubt the former. And it also uncritically repeated the Brexiter's outright lies, like the 350 million per week. The Brexit camp knew it was a lie, the BBC new it was a lie, but in the interests of "neutrality" they simply repeated the lie because that was what the Brexit campaign had.
Just because you evidently disagreed with Nigel Farage
Ah yes, pointing out obvious, well known lies is now merely "disagreeing". Right-o.
Pro-EU supporters need another lesson in democracy, I think.
That'll be why the exit campaign seems a little tied up in campaign fraud. Is that the lesson? That it doesn't matter if you win legally or not, the only thing that counts is winning?
Is that "brexit democracy"?
SJW n. One who posts facts.