Facebook tweaks ad policy but still allows political lies in U.S. campaign 2020

[webfact]

Facebook tweaks ad policy but still allows political lies in U.S. campaign 2020

By Katie Paul

 

FILE PHOTO: Facebook Chairman and CEO Mark Zuckerberg testifies at a House Financial Services Committee hearing in Washington, U.S., October 23, 2019. REUTERS/Erin Scott/File Photo

 

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Facebook Inc announced limited changes on Thursday to its approach to political ads, including allowing users to turn off certain ad-targeting tools, but defied critics' demands that it bar politicians from using its ads system to spread lies.

 

Ahead of the U.S. presidential election in November 2020, the world's biggest social network has vowed to curb political manipulation of its platform.

 

Facebook failed to counter Russian interference in the 2016 election and allowed misuse of user data by defunct political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica. Now, it faces intense criticism of its relatively hands-off ads policies, especially after exempting politicians' ads from fact-checking standards applied to other content.

 

Facebook said it and its photo-sharing app Instagram will soon have a tool enabling individual users to choose to see fewer political and social issue ads, and will make more ad audience data publicly available.

 

In contrast, Twitter Inc banned political ads in October, while Alphabet Inc's Google said it would stop letting advertisers target election ads using data such as public voter records and general political affiliations. Online platforms Spotify, Pinterest and TikTok have also issued bans.

 

A spokesman for the re-election campaign of President Donald Trump, which has spent more on Facebook ads than any other candidate, said the company's approach to political messages is better than those from Twitter and Google as it "encourages more Americans to be involved in the process."

 

U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren, a leading Democratic presidential candidate, condemned the company on Twitter for "standing their ground on letting political figures lie to you." She has called for Facebook's breakup on antitrust grounds.

 

In a blog post, Facebook's director of product management Rob Leathern said the company considered imposing limits like Google's, but decided against them as internal data indicated most ads run by U.S. presidential candidates are broadly targeted, at audiences larger than 250,000 people.

 

Leathern wrote Facebook's polices are based "on the principle that people should be able to hear from those who wish to lead them, warts and all."

 

Facebook will roll out the expanded audience data features in the first quarter and plans to deploy the political ads control starting in the United States this summer, eventually expanding this setting to more locations.

 

CUSTOM AUDIENCES

Vivian Schiller, a news executive who has joined former tech employees and investors advocating for changes around the companies' handling of political advertising, took issue with Leathern's stance.

 

"Allowing the targeting of political messages to narrow slivers of the electorate is the opposite of enabling public debate," said Schiller, who briefly headed the news unit at Twitter in 2014. "It's akin to shadowboxing."

 

She said that once Facebook users share advertisements on their own feeds, the "paid post" labelling vanishes along with disclosures of who funded the messages.

 

Another change Facebook is introducing will be to allow users to choose to stop seeing ads based on an advertiser's "Custom Audience" and that will apply to all types of advertising, not only political ads.

 

The "Custom Audiences" feature lets advertisers upload lists of personal data they maintain, like email addresses and phone numbers. Facebook then matches that information to user accounts and shows the advertiser's content to those people.

 

However, Facebook will not give users a blanket option to turn off the feature, meaning they must opt out of ads for each advertiser one by one, a spokesman told Reuters.

 

The change will also not affect ad targeting via Facebook's Lookalike Audiences tool, which uses the same uploads of personal data to direct ads at people with similar characteristics to those on the lists, the spokesman said.

 

Leathern said in the post the company would make new information publicly available about the audience size of political ads in its Ad Library, showing approximately how many people the advertisers aimed to reach.

 

The changes followed a New York Times report this week of an internal memo by senior Facebook executive Andrew Bosworth, who told employees the company had a duty not to tilt the scales against U.S. President Donald Trump's re-election campaign.

 

Bosworth, a close confidant of Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg, subsequently made his post public. He wrote that he believed Facebook was responsible for Trump's election in 2016, but not because of misinformation or Trump's work with Cambridge Analytica.

 

Rather, he said, the Trump campaign used Facebook's advertising tools most effectively.

 

(Reporting by Katie Paul; Additional reporting by Amanda Becker and Steve Holland; Editing by Edwina Gibbs and David Gregorio)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-01-10

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[Cryingdick]

If political ads containing lies were prohibited they wouldn't be allowed on TV, in magazines, online or anywhere. FB is correct to stay out of it and collect the money. Otherwise they will be accused of being on one side or the other etc. 

 

As a shareholder I think this is the right decision. It would be almost criminal to turn down all of that sweet sweet campaign season money. Especially with the likes of Steyer and  Bloomberg spending so big. Here is an amusing piece on how Trump won using FB last time. The shareholders like it stock is up bigly lately. We are getting tired of all this winning.

 

https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/7/21055348/facebook-trump-election-2020-leaked-memo-bosworth

 

“So was Facebook responsible for Donald Trump getting elected?” Bosworth writes. “I think the answer is yes, but not for the reasons anyone thinks. He didn’t get elected because of Russia or misinformation or Cambridge Analytica. He got elected because he ran the single best digital ad campaign I’ve ever seen from any advertiser. Period.”

[OneMoreFarang]

All this would be a lot easier if voters would think before believing anything.

Why do they believe what is shown in facebook or somewhere else? Because their "friends" liked it? 

Why do they believe politicians who lie constantly?

Why do they vote for serial liars?

It's time that voters wake up and behave like adults.

Democracy does not work with people who don't care. Only thinking and informed voters can make educated decisions.

 

So far the theory. Somehow I doubt things will change to the better anytime soon.

[Lungstib]

1 hour ago, webfact said:

after exempting politicians' ads from fact-checking standards applied to other content.

Which is totally outrageous. The 'double standards' that is creeping into every aspect of life, a different rule for the rich and powerful, especially those that are paying to tell us their lies.

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, Cryingdick said:

If political ads containing lies were prohibited they wouldn't be allowed on TV, in magazines, online or anywhere. FB is correct to stay out of it and collect the money. Otherwise they will be accused of being on one side or the other etc. 

 

As a shareholder I think this is the right decision. It would be almost criminal to turn down all of that sweet sweet campaign season money. Especially with the likes of Steyer and  Bloomberg spending so big. Here is an amusing piece on how Trump won using FB last time. The shareholders like it stock is up bigly lately. We are getting tired of all this winning.

 

https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/7/21055348/facebook-trump-election-2020-leaked-memo-bosworth

 

“So was Facebook responsible for Donald Trump getting elected?” Bosworth writes. “I think the answer is yes, but not for the reasons anyone thinks. He didn’t get elected because of Russia or misinformation or Cambridge Analytica. He got elected because he ran the single best digital ad campaign I’ve ever seen from any advertiser. Period.”

Yes, it's all about the money.

[Cryingdick]

14 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Yes, it's all about the money.

 

Do you really want FB deciding for you what the truth is or isn't? It's not their role. 

[stevenl]

14 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Do you really want FB deciding for you what the truth is or isn't? It's not their role. 

The people clearly can't.

 

But as I said after reading your post, it is all about the money.

[legend49]

1 hour ago, OneMoreFarang said:

All this would be a lot easier if voters would think before believing anything.

Why do they believe what is shown in facebook or somewhere else? Because their "friends" liked it? 

Why do they believe politicians who lie constantly?

Why do they vote for serial liars?

It's time that voters wake up and behave like adults.

Democracy does not work with people who don't care. Only thinking and informed voters can make educated decisions.

 

So far the theory. Somehow I doubt things will change to the better anytime soon.

Agreed but people are slaves to their smart phone and media on it. Imagine if the WIFI system in Thailand crashed the nation would stop.

[OneMoreFarang]

5 minutes ago, legend49 said:

Agreed but people are slaves to their smart phone and media on it. Imagine if the WIFI system in Thailand crashed the nation would stop.

Not only in Thailand...

[atyclb]

2 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Do you really want FB deciding for you what the truth is or isn't? It's not their role. 

 

such a basic, concise and easily understandable concept. hard to imagine anyone being confused as such.

[OneMoreFarang]

1 hour ago, elmrfudd said:

7 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

All this would be a lot easier if voters would think before believing anything.

Why do they believe what is shown in facebook or somewhere else? Because their "friends" liked it? 

Why do they believe politicians who lie constantly?

Why do they vote for serial liars?

It's time that voters wake up and behave like adults.

Democracy does not work with people who don't care. Only thinking and informed voters can make educated decisions.

 

So far the theory. Somehow I doubt things will change to the better anytime soon.

Translation of this:

 

Only the liberals are informed voters and if you disagree you are stupid. 

 

Cmon, man.... As quid pro Joe would say... 

That's and interesting comment and interesting thinking from your side.

Please read my comment again. Which part applies only to liberals? Thinking? Not trusting serial liars? Behaving like adults? Informed and educated voters? 

[Sujo]

8 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

If political ads containing lies were prohibited they wouldn't be allowed on TV, in magazines, online or anywhere. FB is correct to stay out of it and collect the money. Otherwise they will be accused of being on one side or the other etc. 

How can they be accused of being on one side or the other if all political lies are banned.

 

Seems you are suggesting repub ads lie more. True that.

 

I get it that when money is involved you love fake news.

[moose7117]

Facebook is Garbage !

[stevenl]

8 minutes ago, moose7117 said:

Facebook is Garbage !

Thanks for a constructive post. Very helpful.

[Bluespunk]

Zuckerburg’s monster cares about profits only. 
 

The truth is irrelevant. 

[tgw]

Facebook is not in a position to tell what's a lie and what not, and should not be put into that position.

 

Platforms like Facebook have no responsibility to factcheck ads beyond what's obviously false, misleading or illegal. that's the role of courts after someone started a lawsuit because of an ad.

 

Asking platforms to decide what's lie and what not opens the door to massive political manipulation and more political monoculture than even now.

 

It's better for freedom of thought when everybody can publish falsehoods rather than some being able to and others not.

 

 

[mogandave]

The issue isn’t with factual lies that are easily checked, but rather lies of omission and mischaracterizations. 
 

I read what I consider lies all the time that others read as fact. 

[moose7117]

On 1/10/2020 at 11:13 PM, stevenl said:

Thanks for a constructive post. Very helpful.

Glad to be of service.