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."

Comments

And this is a problem why?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:And this is a problem why?

[Narcocide]

Yes, of course. But that's how it works. Interesting that in trying to bring up an inflammatory point to attempt to prove (perhaps more to yourself than anyone else) that there's some sort of "moral equivalence on both sides" you've latched onto an idea that nobody was even contesting. Yes, of course the anti-brexit ads were also the same sort of schadenfreude peddled by the exact same shills. That is how this works. They ramp up divisiveness by escalating irrational insecurities of every demographic with clever combinations of lies mixed with half-truths.

Re:And this is a problem why?

[AmiMoJo]

Numerous problems.

Many of the ads were not identified properly as ads, and didn't give an indication who paid for them.

They used deceptive competitions that users had no chance of winning (5 trillion to 1 odds) but which harvested their personal data. As you should know by now AggregateIQ is the same people as Cambridge Analytica.

The various Leave campaign groups colluded and over-spent, which is illegal and some of the key people have been referred to the police by the Electoral Omission.

Social media ads are not well regulated. For example, if the same ads had been shown on TV or on billboards they would likely have been blocked on the grounds that they were deceptive or outright lies. In the UK advertising must be truthful and not misleading, and there are additional requirements for political ads.

Kohath's credibility is in trouble.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

"has been linked"?

[superwiz]

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.

Re:give it a rest

[Zumbs]

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.

Re:And the BBC?

[serviscope_minor]

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"?