Slashdot Mirror
Reporters Posed as 100 Senators To Run Ads on Facebook. Facebook Approved All of Them. (vice.com)
William Turton, reporting for Vice News: One of Facebook's major efforts to add transparency to political advertisements is a required "Paid for by" disclosure at the top of each ad supposedly telling users who is paying for political ads that show up in their news feeds. But on the eve of the 2018 midterm elections, a VICE News investigation found the "Paid for by" feature is easily manipulated and appears to allow anyone to lie about who is paying for a political ad, or to pose as someone paying for the ad. To test it, VICE News applied to buy fake ads on behalf of all 100 sitting U.S. senators, including ads "Paid for by" by Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer. Facebook's approvals were bipartisan: All 100 sailed through the system, indicating that just about anyone can buy an ad identified as "Paid for by" by a major U.S. politician. What's more, all of these approvals were granted to be shared from pages for fake political groups such as "Cookies for Political Transparency" and "Ninja Turtles PAC." VICE News did not buy any Facebook ads as part of the test; rather, we received approval to include "Paid for by" disclosures for potential ads.
Given how easily the Russian Trolls descended upon Social Media and went largely undetected, it comes to no surprise to me that ads are not screened. All About Money. Nothing to see new and inventive here.
It's good to know that our elected representatives can be bought and paid for on Facebook.
I am confused. It looks like an entity said if I prove to be X, would you run ads specifying > with X as sponsor?” and Facebook said if you prove to be X, sure!”.
Isn't it how it's actually supposed to be working?
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
Broadcasters can't censor political ads, and there's no rules covering "political truth", so it's now anything goes.
Also, the limits on PAC spending have been removed, so these ads are showing up everywhere
I'm seeing and hearing outrageous and obvious lies in this recent run. Thanks Trump!
This is even more reason to delete Facebook. Facebook is ultimately a failed social experiment. Here's to hoping it continues a decline in popularity.
Facebook has become an national security risk at this point. Since they refuse to fix it, it's time for the government to get involved. We don't need more congressional testimony from Fuckerberg. They are a clear and present danger. Shut them down until they "get it".
They are not going to turn away money at the end of the day unless they are legally required to do so.
Do think any bars would card if the force of law did not obligate them to it? I doubt many would. I am sure a little human decency would stop most from selling liquor to children; but few would turn away teens.
facebook is in the same boat here. Yes its illegal for a political campaign to take foreign money. In a lot of cases its illegal for them to coordinate efforts with foreign actors.
I have yet to see anyone point a law that specifically prevents 99% of those face book ads from being underwritten by foreign persons. The only political speech foreigners are bared from AFAICT is explicit campaign activities IE running an ad advocating voting for or against a specific candidate. They can run issues ads all day long. Its not even clear its illegal for them to suggest a candidate is a criminal, or a Nazi, or whatever if they stop short of saying "vote no.." etc.
IMHO facebook did nothing wrong - they sold ad space. The people crying about Russian interference are sore loosers. The problem is not the American electorate being exposed to facebook ads, the problem is that they are easily swayed by facebook ads. This is the inevitable result of years and years of "everyone should vote" propaganda. No! Everyone should not vote; the right of everyone to vote should be protected strongly but people who don't take the time to study politics and the issues have no damn business at the polls. Voting is right! not a responsibility. If you don't want to put the effort in there should be no shame in that but at the same time its irresponsible to weigh in at all if the totality of information behind your opinion is a facebook meme.
The correct answer is to start educating people what voting is for and what its not for. Its for allowing those who want to take the time to contribute to informed policy making access to do so; its not for choosing the "Next top President" or electing "The first XXXXXX"
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Is it illegal to use a false identity to post an ad. No doubt it is against Facebooks Terms and Services- but could one be arrested for posting a fake ad on Facebook? What charge?
I have no intention of posting fake ads myself, but would there be repercussions if an individual on these shores posted a fake ad and got caught?
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
the Ninja Turtles are going to throw in with Mitch McConnell. What I want to know is where does the Shredder stand on today's issues?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
They can never be to blame. Its ALL western lies! BIGLY.
Facebook has a lot of mess, but the *government*? You figure getting Donald Trump, Duncan Hunter, and Nancy Pelosi in control of it will make it better?!
Maybe Shaun Brown is gonna fix everything? Really?
Or are you saying it's beyond salvaging, so it should be demolished in a spectacular Mythbusters-style fashion by sending in Claire McCaskill? McCaskill sure can destroy things!
Seriously, it's time to move on -- or just leave 'social media' behind. Facebook is a gigantic, cancerous tumor, and it needs to be allowed to die.
"But ultimately no business can entirely prevent fraud,"
They care about preventing the kind of fraud where they don't get their money.
This is not that kind of fraud and so they don't give a shit.
On the internet, no one knows you're a dog
Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
When your ad approval office is outsourced to folks that barely speak English, how are those employees supposed to know that "Cookies for Political Transparency, paid for by Chuck Schumer" is a fake ad?
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
But ultimately no business can entirely prevent fraud
But they sure can be held to a much higher standard than Facebook currently is. I work at a financial institution and our fraud prevention techniques are certainly not foolproof. Although if we ever found out that one group attempted to receive distributions for 100 of our clients, while contacting us with the email address 'youreasucker@cantbelievethisworks.com', and we were willing to give them our clients money, we would and should be shut down.
I'm not saying Facebook should be held to the same standard as a hospital or bank, but it is bullshit to hide behind the argument that no one can prevent all fraud. It is a straw-man argument.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
There is a difference between not being able to prevent all fraud and making no real effort to prevent ANY fraud.
Know your customer.
Do people even read the post they reply to any more?
they should at least make fraud hard. But ultimately no business can entirely prevent fraud
I'm not saying Facebook should be held to the same standard as a hospital or bank, but it is bullshit to hide behind the argument that no one can prevent all fraud. It is a straw-man argument.
Yeah, there is certainly a strawman here.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
I guess it is if Facebook is taking no measures at all: they should at least make fraud hard. But ultimately no business can entirely prevent fraud
There is a difference between not being able to prevent all fraud and making no real effort to prevent ANY fraud
Why did you reply to my post to sat the same thing I said, in almost the same words?
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Although if we ever found out that one group attempted to receive distributions for 100 of our clients, while contacting us with the email address 'youreasucker@cantbelievethisworks.com', and we were willing to give them our clients money, we would and should be shut down.
Fraud requires some potential benefit to the perpetrator or damage to the victim. YOU giving someone other people's money meets both standards. FB approving an ad has neither.
YOU also have a bit more capability to determine identity than Facebook has. YOU have access to SSN, for example, gathered when people opened the accounts. FB does not, or at least, should not.
But ultimately no business can entirely prevent fraud
But they sure can be held to a much higher standard than Facebook currently is. I work at a financial institution and our fraud prevention techniques are certainly not foolproof. Although if we ever found out that one group attempted to receive distributions for 100 of our clients, while contacting us with the email address 'youreasucker@cantbelievethisworks.com', and we were willing to give them our clients money, we would and should be shut down.
I'm not saying Facebook should be held to the same standard as a hospital or bank, but it is bullshit to hide behind the argument that no one can prevent all fraud. It is a straw-man argument.
You might not give someone's money without careful authorization, but you would certainly take money on someones behalf.. say making a payment on a loan? No problem and no questions asked, right? Your vaunted fraud prevention wouldn't prevent that. See the difference?
"You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
Fraud requires some potential benefit to the perpetrator or damage to the victim. YOU giving someone other people's money meets both standards. FB approving an ad has neither.
YOU also have a bit more capability to determine identity than Facebook has. YOU have access to SSN, for example, gathered when people opened the accounts. FB does not, or at least, should not.
It could certainly cause harm to accept false adds:
Imagine an add that says "Lets cut the heads off of all the immigrant children, and then rape their corpses! -Paid for by Senator whomever."
Most adds falsely placed for political shit-stirring would probably be less extreme, but you see my point.
Facebook should certainly implement some verification step before allowing adds to go live. Perhaps they have -the journalists above did not actually pay for and place any adds, they just performed a single step of the process of signing up to place adds one hundred times.
"You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
It could certainly cause harm to accept false adds:
What harm was caused by Facebook approving the 100 ads?
Most adds falsely placed for political shit-stirring would probably be less extreme, but you see my point.
No, I don't. Where was the harm? What is your point?