Proposed Bill Would Ban Microtargeting of Political Advertisements (arstechnica.com) 120
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Internet-based advertising has been a boon for both political campaigns and disinformation campaigns, which love to take advantage of the ability to slice and dice the electorate into incredibly tiny and carefully targeted segments for their messaging. These ads -- which may or may not be truthful and are designed to play very specifically on tiny groups -- are incredibly difficult for regulators, researchers, and anyone else not in the targeted group to see, identify, analyze, and rebut. Google prohibits this kind of microtargeting for political ads, while Twitter tries not to allow any political advertising. Facebook, on the other hand, is happy to let politicians lie in their ads and continue microtargeting on its platform. Members of Congress have challenged Facebook and its CEO to explain this stance in the face of rampant disinformation campaigns, but to no avail.
Lawmakers now want to go further and make this kind of microtargeting for political advertising against the law. Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) today introduced a bill (PDF) that would amend federal election law to do just that. The proposed Banning Microtargeted Political Ads Act would do exactly what it says. Platforms and campaigns covered by the law, and their agents, would be prohibited from targeting "the dissemination of a political advertisement" to "an individual or specific group of individuals on any basis." The text includes a few exceptions. For example, geographic targeting -- aiming for people in a certain region, instead of matching a certain demographic profile -- would be fair game. But the proposed bill also includes a loophole you could fit the White House through: anyone who has provided "express affirmative consent" to receive microtargeted political advertising would be subject to it. In other words, anyone who ticks off a check box somewhere without actually reading the terms and conditions -- which is everyone -- could find themselves added to an "opt in" list.
Lawmakers now want to go further and make this kind of microtargeting for political advertising against the law. Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) today introduced a bill (PDF) that would amend federal election law to do just that. The proposed Banning Microtargeted Political Ads Act would do exactly what it says. Platforms and campaigns covered by the law, and their agents, would be prohibited from targeting "the dissemination of a political advertisement" to "an individual or specific group of individuals on any basis." The text includes a few exceptions. For example, geographic targeting -- aiming for people in a certain region, instead of matching a certain demographic profile -- would be fair game. But the proposed bill also includes a loophole you could fit the White House through: anyone who has provided "express affirmative consent" to receive microtargeted political advertising would be subject to it. In other words, anyone who ticks off a check box somewhere without actually reading the terms and conditions -- which is everyone -- could find themselves added to an "opt in" list.
Express Affirmative Consent (Score:2)
Would 'Express Affirmative Assent' include mindlessly clicking 'Ok' to accept default terms?
Re: (Score:3)
No. It means they have to leave it unchecked.
The First Amendment? (Score:5, Insightful)
This seems almost certain to violate the first Amendment, either from a free association or free speech angle. But, after two minutes of thought, I think compelled speech accompanying the message and disclosing 1) that the recipient is being microtargeted, and 2) the specific criteria used to microtarget them-- would have the almost same effect and has some support in existing political advertising law. I would also favor consumer protection policies that would probably make such targeting less micro.
No I did not RTFA
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Speech Act theory, also known as Utterance theory, essentially says people communicate with language for very particular purposes. In terms of proximate cause, the utterer wants your brain/mind to visit this concept (or referred to object or actor or situation aspect) followed by this one, followed by
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Happily, the username is even more relevant again nowadays.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps, perhaps not.
If you take the wide ranging view, there are already lots of laws in place which violate that - advertising cigarettes on TV, political ads, more. If you read the Constitution, it's free "speech" and "press". The Internet (and TV, and radio) is neither, it's an electronic medium which the founders never envisioned. It's not a Gutenberg press, and it's not someone speaking. So, it's not covered by a strict reading of the 1st A.
Re: (Score:2)
If you read the Constitution, it's free "speech" and "press".
And it's interpreted to mean the freedom of expression by, pretty much, every lawyer and court in the country. Therefore, it's extended to any medium that communicates such expression.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/co... [cornell.edu]
The Internet (and TV, and radio) is neither, it's an electronic medium which the founders never envisioned.
The founders didn't envision a lot. They knew things would change. That's why there's a provision to change the constitution if necessary.
If you disagree with that view, you also need to defend why the 2nd doesn't cover all firearms created since colonial muskets. Why are modern high speed printing presses or copiers different than automatic rifles in Constitutional terms?
An automatic rifle is a purchasable good, which the courts have ruled can be more regulated than speech. In any case, you can still buy fully automatic mach
Re: (Score:2)
It's good modern free speech ideas include the associated concepts of mass production and distribution (and your right to receive it) but that's no reason at all to disregard the printing press right as a separate right. Rather, this buttresses it.
These are all wins in a long, historical process. Never feel secure things couldn't roll back the other way if nobody pays attention.
Re: (Score:2)
We have, for example, at least one former Democratic candidate who wants laws to hurt companies that allow hate speech. And politicians line up on both sides to threaten 230 protections because the tech companies are self-censoring the wrong way.
Speech continues to be under assault from politicians. Do not let your guard down.
Re: (Score:2)
Whoosh. It says what it says. It also says "Congress shall make no law..." Congress is the feds, so the states are free to restrict speech and press all they want, and form religions, too. "Interpret" all you want, saying that red means green is disingenuous, just like saying growing corn in your garden is interstate commerce.
Re: (Score:2)
Whoosh. It says what it says.
It does. The bill of rights were never meant to be an exhaustive list of protections. See the eleventh amendment. The constitution didn't explicitly give you the right to drink alcohol, but it took a constitutional amendment to prohibit that right.
Re: (Score:2)
Whoosh. It says what it says. It also says "Congress shall make no law..." Congress is the feds, so the states are free to restrict speech and press all they want, and form religions, too.
If only there was something in the constitution to extend federally recognized rights to the state level. Oh, there is?
XIV: No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Re: (Score:2)
"This seems almost certain to violate the first Amendment" Perhaps, perhaps not. If you take the wide ranging view, there are already lots of laws in place which violate that - advertising cigarettes on TV, political ads, more. If you read the Constitution, it's free "speech" and "press". The Internet (and TV, and radio) is neither, it's an electronic medium which the founders never envisioned.
Dictionary definitions of both "speech" and "press" at the time covered any communication (both "speech" and "press").
It's not a Gutenberg press,
No, it's not. The "press" did, at that time, include people, unless you want to argue that "members of the press" means people are components of an actual mechanical machine.
and it's not someone speaking. So, it's not covered by a strict reading of the 1st A. If you disagree with that view, you also need to defend why the 2nd doesn't cover all firearms created since colonial muskets. Why are modern high speed printing presses or copiers different than automatic rifles in Constitutional terms?
Looks to me like you support this initiative that allows the government to approve what political messages are published; so, tell me, do you want Trump approving the messages you are allowed see, or do you want a Clinto
Re: (Score:2)
But, to continue the point - you want to extend "speech and press" unquestionably to encompass new media. Yet, there's an oft-heard argument that that since modern weapons didn't exist at the time, the 2nd A doesn't cover them.
Another commenter claimed that firearms could be regulated more than the Internet because they were "purchasable goods", ignoring that the Internet is entirely bits which flow over "purchasable goods." I wonder if they would acce
Re: (Score:2)
You've never heard of a "devil's advocate", have you? But, to continue the point - you want to extend "speech and press" unquestionably to encompass new media.
No. There is no extension. "Speech" and "Press" were words independent of communications medium. You are trying to sell the argument that the constitution authors meant "verbal expressions only" and "printed media only", but if they wanted to limit those freedoms to a particular medium then they could have.
They didn't specify freedom to use a medium, they specified freedom regardless of medium.
Yet, there's an oft-heard argument that that since modern weapons didn't exist at the time, the 2nd A doesn't cover them.
And that argument is equally baseless. If the authors wanted to limit "arms" to mean "these types of guns", they
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't seem like a 1A issue, there are already laws banning certain types of targeting for ads (e.g. excluding certain races) and on disclosure of the source of political advertising.
From what we know of what people like Cambridge Analytica did it was borderline psychological abuse. Find vulnerable victims and exploit their fears and insecurities directly.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't seem like a 1A issue, there are already laws banning certain types of targeting for ads (e.g. excluding certain races) and on disclosure of the source of political advertising.
From what we know of what people like Cambridge Analytica did it was borderline psychological abuse. Find vulnerable victims and exploit their fears and insecurities directly.
Good luck banning politics, because that's all it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, you don't need to ban politics, just collection of and abuse of marketing data. We already do that quite successfully in some other areas.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Deliberately taxing a right because you want to surpress it doesn't go down so well at the Supreme Court. One of those cake-making cases was tossed for exactly that reason, the officials were clearly espousing religious animus (surprise! Neither "side" gets to do that."
The only problem is lawyers will scour future official statements to hide it better.
Re:The law isn't meant to pass (Score:4, Informative)
I agree it's creepy as hell, but I remedy that issue by not using any of those platforms. Facebook can't serve me any ads when I don't use Facebook. Any ad on a website that targets me is one that somehow manages to get by my ad blocker. It most be even more sophisticated if it can managed to figure out where I'm actually from while I'm sitting behind a VPN. Good luck with that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have doubts about the practicality of banning microtargeting. Does PETA sell their mailing list? The NRA? If I'm running for Congress, my spindoctors are going to propagandize differently for those two audiences. Not to say Fox News watchers vs Washington Post readers. Until politicians are held to their promises, it doesn't matter what they say or who they say it to. And when they don't, they can always blame the previous administration.
Re: (Score:2)
That basic stuff isn't what is happening here. They are using metrics like gullibility, susceptibility to different kinds of lies, how easy someone can be manipulated using certain images etc.
It was the scummiest of the scummiest marking tactics turned up to 11 and mixed in with lies and some campaign rule violations.
Re: (Score:2)
> But lying is protected under the first amendment
And yet libel and slander are not. Nor is falsely yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater. There's clearly a lot of boundaries against destructive falsehood - and you don't get much more destructive that false political speech, even if the actual damage is often a degree or two of separation away.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The First Amendment? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with microtargetting is that there's no way to respond to it, since only the vulnerable ever know it exists. As such I see no way that it can be allowed in a healthy democracy, though I'm open to ideas.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought I was clear.
A macrotargetted ad can be responded to. You or your friends will hear about it, you can defend yourself, prove your innocence, and if it's bad enough the advertiser can even be charged with libel or slander and dragged through the courts.
If done properly, a microtargetted ad will never be seen by anyone who would be inclined to do either. I can tell gullible people you're a child-raping monster, cost you the election, even your career, and you'll never know I said a thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To a very large degree, yes.
>If it's searchable by search engine..
Most of the internet isn't, despite the best attempts of Google and others. And even if you could find microtargetted propaganda campaigns with a search engine - you'd have to know they existed before you would have any chance of doing so.
>Even if it's on just a few pages...
A social media ad campaign isn't. Much of the worst propaganda never appears anywhere except in your browser while the ad is being served - even you can't go back
Re: (Score:2)
At some point, ads to you over normal TV will be targeted to your house, or even individual viewer, based on viewing habit fingerprints. Based on your web surfing.
This already happens on web site ads. I once searched for leather sandals, and for six months that's all that popped up. Another time, clicked on a women's dress ad because the supermodel was pretty, and suddenly some computer thought I must be really interested in dresses.
Re: (Score:2)
SC? Been there, done that. In politics, even lies are protected, lest the government become the self-appointed arbiter of truth.
This isn't some esoteric academic issue. We are watching politicians call for twitter to censor the president based on truthiness, and now both sides are deafening in their screetches to repeal 230 if the companies do what the other side wants.
First Amendment Violation (Score:1, Troll)
Micro-targeting is a fancy word for going from door to door and campaigning for a particular candidate.
Not sure why people would want to regulate free speech, let's see ... D-Calif. ... that explains it.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not like going door to door.
Re: First Amendment Violation (Score:2)
Because "it's just like door to door... but in the cloud!"
Re: First Amendment Violation (Score:5, Insightful)
Micro-targeting allows political campaigns to run deceitful ads to targeted audiences, hiding their activities from the general public. Without micro-targeting, outlandish ads are seen by everyone and can be debated publicly. You can't have public debate in microcosms and that's a huge problem with Facebook today.
Re: (Score:2)
If I have a list of people in my area known to be in a particular party and I knock only on those doors how is that different than online micro targeting? Because "it's just like door to door... but in the cloud!"
No.
You have a list of immigrants living in your area which hate X (f.e. a particular type of foreigners), you send them a message which says "Joe Bloggs will prohibit import of those and allow you to import more of your relatives".
You at the same time target the natives with a message of "Joe Bloggs will prohibit import of all foreigners period"
Example from UK with actual messaging used in the BrExit campaign: https://www.theguardian.com/co... [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Micro-targeting is a fancy word for going from door to door and campaigning for a particular candidate.
Microtargeting is the exact OPPOSITE of going door to door.
It is the ability to go to *specific* doors of your choosing.
Say, you want to spread disinformation to Trump supports, you can target ads to people who have recently bought MAGA caps, been to specific conference center at a specific time (who happened to had a Trump rally at that time). By targeting those ads to only specific audience, you effectively hide them from enquiring minds that could have exposed your lies.
That's not bad enough? How about
Re: (Score:2)
It's too powerful, as it allows customized messaging. Now that Republicans have caught up on social media engagement, it's no longer a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
It's too powerful, as it allows customized messaging. Now that Republicans have caught up on social media engagement, it's no longer a good thing.
That does seem to be the issue, doesn't it? "It was fantastic in 2008 and 2012, but in 2016 the wrong candidate won, so we need to do something about this."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Talking to people about their biggest concerns is a failure of democracy? If anything, it's a failure of unlimited democracy and the unjustified idea government is there to address every single little itch someone has.
Microtargeting (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
LOL! Grandpa, you are completely not comprehending what they know about your interests.
For example, every single purchase with a credit card you ever made. And try renting a hotel, or a car, or buying an airplane ticket with cash. Fill out a form, like at the DMV that becomes public record.
The tracking part is pervasive. They know everything about your interests already. This has nothing to do with divulging interests.
And the main point of the proposed law is prevent demographic targeting, it has nothing to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't comprehend it.
You don't have to intentionally share anything for them to know about it. They have all the records. All the records. Of anything. Stored anywhere. You think they don't have all your data. You think they don't know what TP you buy, what porn you watch, where you vacation, where you wish you vacation, where that thing you don't like to talk about happened, they know all the stuff already. They already have it all.
You're not a fucking unicorn, you're a moron.
Re: (Score:2)
They can analyze words and pictures on every page you visit and feed it into an AI-generated profile of a virtual person they assign to you, and they have experiments on what sells to people like you and know what you might buy better than you do. It's like the pre-crime of Minority Report, except they stick to where the real money is.
Micro-targeting is just the ass-end of all this, the advertiser's dream for optimizing the punch of advertising dollars.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of it isn't divulged, it's inferred. Those Facebook like and share buttons you see everywhere are actually tracking people and adding that information to their profiles.
If you live in the GDPR zone try sending some Subject Access Requests to Facebook or marketing companies like Experian. You will be surprised how much they know despite you not telling them. Don't forget to ask for a list of companies that they share with and receive information from, and then enact your right to a permanent opt-out.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't see the problem with the dumbest of people most susceptible to advertisement being advertised to specifically for political gain?
These people vote.
Re: (Score:2)
Political advertising to dumb people should be limited to large, loud generalizations and promises!
Cemented, Facebook are absolute scumbags (Score:2)
Can people just ditch this shithole now?
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt it, most of them aren't even wise enough to install an ad blocker.
Re: (Score:2)
Or perhaps they realize that if everyone installed an ad blocker, most of the internet would disappear almost overnight - it costs money to produce and serve content, a LOT of money for polished content or popular sites. And for now, ads are usually the best and easiest way to pass that cost on to the people consuming the content.
Nah, who am I kidding, most people don't care, and would probably horrible malware by mistake if they tried to block ads.
Now trackers on the other hand - %$#@ that $#@!. Quite a
Re: (Score:2)
That's not true, the internet wouldn't disappear. They'd either sell slashdot for $5k, or the users would migrate to another site. That would have the same users.
The idea that we have the internet because of advertising is just a malicious lie, that is ignorant both of history, and of the range of content available now.
Re: (Score:2)
So, who pays the bills then? Hosting and managinga website isn't free. Much less producing content
Without advertising we'd have business and university sites, personal vanity sites paid for out of pocket (so long as they don't get so popular that hosting costs overwhelm their owner), and whatever collaborative sites can collect enough donations or subscriptions to pay the bills. Just as we did back in the 90s before advertising took off.
Youtube wouldn't exist. Slashdot might - Soylent manages okay on don
Re: (Score:2)
That's not even your concern unless it is your website.
Know that advertising is not the only source on income on planet Earth. Know that there are lots of other reasons that people make websites. Know that people already thought about that part, you fucking dumb ass, jebus.
Re: (Score:2)
It is my concern if I want the internet to continue to exist as a platform for the middle and lower classes to express themselves.
As for all these other great ways to fund a website - please, name a few. Preferably with examples of sites currently using them. I'm sure there's thousands of popular ones out there, right? What with them being so effective and all?
Re: (Score:2)
Why would the lower classes need commercial pap?
Why wouldn't they be better served by community-driven sites?
You just wave your hands and assume these media companies are good for everybody, even for people who might not want them.
Re: (Score:2)
Who said anything about commercial pap? Anything run for commercial purposes would be fine, aside from those whose only purpose for existing is generating ad revenue.
If a community-driven site is popular it's going to generate a lot of traffic, which means large hosting bills. Who's going to pay those bills? You planning to make regular donations to every site you frequently visit? You expect everyone else to as well? There are success stories there, but there's a lot more failures. Ads are a convenien
Re: (Score:2)
In principle, absolutely. In practice...given the number of sites that cut me off for using "ad blockers"? Not nearly so much as I'd like.
But I do my part to support those sites that don't rely on privacy violating ads to fund their expenses. The rest? Well, that's their choice. I'm perfectly willing to avoid them entirely if they demand to track me, just as I am if the quantity of ads outweigh the quality of content.
Pointless (Score:2)
If political ads are spreading some kind of truly serious lie we already have a court system for dealing with defamation. Of c
Re: (Score:2)
I think that the Facebook approach is fine, as long as in order to qualify as a political advertisement which cannot be censored, the ad should *explicitly* state which organization or person is sponsoring it, and that Facebook is at least able to easily verify that the information in the ad about who was sponsoring it is accurate (presumably the source that Facebook got the ad from). The veracity of any other content should be irrelevant.
I'm a hundred percent for allowing people to make up their own
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with your initial all-or-none opinion, but unfortunately the court system is slow enough to be worthless for most political purposes, and even if it was instant, it's still worthless if you don't even know that a deceitful microtargetted ad is being run in the first place, so I think "none" is the only reasonable option.
It seems to me that a total ban on micro-targetted ads is probably the best (legislative) approach. All of them - who gets to decide whether they're political or not? Given the in-d
So a politician cannot speak to anyone? (Score:2)
Ban Microtargeting of Political Advertisements
How does this not essentially ban speaking to individuals.
Why on earth would anyone even propose this ban? Do they seriously think it will stop a politician from promising different small groups opposing things?
The most Karen bill evar.
Re: (Score:2)
Ban Microtargeting of Political Advertisements
How does this not essentially ban speaking to individuals.
Because they will write it using words, and their words won't be that stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Money (Score:2)
Facebook wants more of it, and political campaigns spend a lot of it - in recent elections they want to spend a lot on microtargeted campaigns, because they only want to spend money on the gullible monkeys (err.. swayable/undecided).
The end.
So, about those robo-calls? (Score:3)
Ban Microtargeting? Why on Earth? (Score:3)
Hell, they've already fscked me over, I might as well get SOME satisfaction from it.
Fuck off! (Score:1)
1st Amendment!
pretty sure Facebook's position is the correct one (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
>Disallowing lying in political ads would open Facebook to the type of nitpicking that would *effectively* disallow all political ads.
Sounds like a total win to me, *especially* if you believe all politicians are professional liars.
Personally I'd love to see any public lying by politicians (or political action committees) automatically classified as treason and eligible for the death penalty if proven - it is after all a direct attack on the integrity of democracy, and thus on the country. Corruption to
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect that would have an immensely positive effect on the quality of political discourse.
It wouldn't be political discourse. It would be academic discourse or maybe even scientific discourse. Political speech, at its core, is an attempt to persuade. This is as true in Democracies as it is in the staunchest of dictatorships. What you are proposing amount to a ban on all political discourse. Worse yet, you are proposing a death penalty for the "crimes" of omitting facts from oratory presentations despite the fact that all oratory is constrained by limited time and must be narrow in scope. R
Re: (Score:2)
Or here's a thought - don't lie. Persuasion does not require lying - lying just makes it easier, especially if you're trying to persuade people to let you screw them over.
Lets take the current COVID situation - there's lots of completely honest, compelling arguments to be made both for and against opening things up. There's also an onslaught of lies around it that contribute nothing to making a well informed decision. Would anything of value really be lost if we dropped the lies from the conversation?
As
Re: (Score:2)
Persuasion does not require lying - lying just makes it easier, especially if you're trying to persuade people to let you screw them over.
Yes and no. Consider the fact that an adequate description of any scenario requires omitting details which are unimportant. Trying to list all the details would effectively require one to describe the whole state of the world because everything is somehow interconnected. But the same details could be important to someone with different considerations. From the perspective of that person, the omitted details would amount to lying by omission.
As for elections - they have nothing whatsoever to do with reducing lying in politics - quite the opposite in fact.
As I tried to show in the paragraph above, showing a different
Re: (Score:2)
A simple solution would be to allow lies of omission, trusting "the other side" to bring up those details, and restrict treason to direct falsehoods - which would at least prevent the "omission liar" from denying those points when they are brought up and creating a "reality gap".
Politician 1: A, B, and C, so we must X!
Politician 2: But you're ignoring D and E, which mean that Xing will cause Y, to devastating effect!
Today P1 is free to say D and E are lies, or that Xing will not cause Y, even in the face o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, you need to cite a reputable source for your "alternative facts". If you can't make a credible claim to truth, you're lying. If you claim a near-empty courtyard is fuller than ever before, you're lying. If your "facts" are actually opinions without a basis in evidence, you've failed to do your due diligence, and are lying.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you claim a near-empty courtyard is fuller than ever before, you're lying.
I hope you realize that from the perspective of a person who thinks that the statement was made about overall viewership, this attribution (that you just made) is a lie. I do get that it's a hypothetical and was merely a suggestion, but this is not the only perspective. And there *is* a perspective from which this statement is a lie and, by the standard you suggest, it would qualify you for the death penalty. Which, I hope you agree, makes no sense.
Control all the things (Score:3)
Karens everywhere demand it.
Sigh (Score:2)
Will be crushed 9-0 by the Supreme Court. It singles out political ads, the most-protected of all speech.
I guess it's the thought that counts, if your thoughts run to government restricting talk about its composition and who gets elected.
You know who else liked restricting speech about himself in government? Sorry, there's only a 500 gigabyte post limit.
Re: (Score:2)
Targeting (Score:2)
Sometimes I think "targeted advertising" is just a scam to take money from advertisers.
It seems like the "targeting" algorithms are at best performing on the level of simple key word searches, and often much more poorly. I can't remember the last time I saw an ad that actually promoted something I would have any interest in. The political ads that I see clearly demonstrate a complete lack of insight into my political preferences (probably because I am profoundly disappointed in all politicians).
I think I actually agree with the Republicans (Score:2, Interesting)
These platforms are publishers, they should be treated as such. I have no issue whatsoever with Facebook, Google or Twitter putting rules and regulations around what they allow. They are private companies, they should be free to determine what kind of environment they want to create, what kind of actions and behaviours they want to support. They are not obliged to support some misguided notion of free speech where everyone gets to say whatever nonsense they like and be treated equally. But they can't then t
Re: (Score:2)
They are publishers? Try publishing a comic book extolling how much better off we'd be if Hitler or Stalin had taken over the world.
"False claims" - that's the hard part. You can cherrypick data to prove just about anything. There are racists, flat-earthers, antiVaxxers and celltower burners to show it.
Re: (Score:2)
It still breaks my brain that people use Google, Twitter or Facebook and don't understand that their data is being collected and shared.
I don't know about Facebook or Twitter, but Google doesn't share data. You don't sell a goose that lays golden eggs. Much more profitable to keep the data and sell targeted ad space/clicks.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, I didn't get that quite right. Google sells a specific way to use your data in the ability to target you based on certain factors.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, I didn't get that quite right. Google sells a specific way to use your data in the ability to target you based on certain factors.
Sort of. Advertisers don't really get to specify that much about their targeting goals. A little, but not much, because Google is better at figuring out how to do the targeting than they are.
Why? (Score:2)
The summary doesn't bother to explain what the problem is with targeted political ads. Why would that be a problem?
They're not concerned with the fact that political ads lie, but they want to make sure the lies go to everyone?
Re: (Score:2)
Brexit (Score:2)
Just no chance (Score:2)
There is absolutely no chance this is going to go anywhere since it would hurt both parties by removing tools they use to reach their core constituencies. It also makes it prohibitively expensive to advertise to anything but the largest demographics, meaning that issues that concern minorities (racial and demographic) will be ignored.
Also I think it's fascinating how these things seem to focus on the person providing the service, not the person procuring it. I imagine this is wrapped up in a free speech ar
Perhaps All Targeted Advertising Should Be Banned (Score:3)