Advertising

Executives from Facebook, Google and Twitter appeared on Capitol Hill for the first time on Oct 31 to publicly acknowledge their role in Russia’s influence on the presidential campaign, but offered little more than promises to do better. Their reluctance frustrated lawmakers who sought stronger evidence that American elections will be protected from foreign powers. The hearing, the first of three in two days for company executives, served as an initial public reckoning for the internet giants.

[Commentary] By the time you finish reading this article, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter will have made billions of decisions about what you and hundreds of millions of others will see next. Each time you log into a social media platform, its algorithms — sophisticated mathematical models designed by a few thousand engineers in Northern California — decide what information you should consume.

The Internet Association, a trade group representing internet platforms like Facebook and Google, outlined principles for what the industry would like to see in online ad disclosure legislation. The wish list includes oversight from the Federal Election Commission and a set of uniform rules applied to all websites equally.

The Campaign Legal Center is teaming up with a pro-Trump PAC to try and force the Federal Election Commission to establish strong online ad disclosure rules. CLC has teamed up with the Take Back Action Fund (TBAF) to file an advisory opinion request with the FEC that they say requires the commission to address the issue of online ad transparency by the end of 2017. They don't want a new election cycle to rev up without the protective gear of strong disclosure. By law the FEC must respond to the request within 60 days, they said.

Facebook, Google and Twitter are set to divulge new details showing that the scope of Russian-backed manipulation on their platforms before and after the US presidential election was far greater than previously disclosed, reaching an estimated 126 million people on Facebook alone, according to people familiar with the matter, prepared copies of their testimonies and a company statement. Facebook estimates that 470 Russian-backed accounts connected to a single pro-Kremlin firm, the Internet Research Agency, churned out 80,000 posts on Facebook between January 2015 and August 2017, the social

Facebook is trying to make it easier to identify political ads in your News Feed. The company announced it will soon require advertisers — especially political candidates — to disclose more information about their advertising efforts on the platform as the company seeks to temper concerns from the US Congress about Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.

Facebook’s new policies include labeling political ads so they’re easier to identify, and creating a catalogue of these and other ads so users can see how much advertisers are paying and who they are targeting. But many of the changes intended to create more transparency don’t appear to address the most problematic ads purchased in 2016 by Kremlin-backed, online trolls. These ads, referred to as "issue ads," sought to stir social and political unrest in the United States around issues like Black Lives Matter, not necessarily to promote candidates like Donald Trump. Still, the announcements come as Facebook prepares for what could be a brutal grilling before the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. The panels are investigating Russia’s suspected interference in the 2016 presidential election, and they’ll also hear from senior executives at Google and Twitter during back-to-back hearings on Nov. 1.

On Sept. 15, nine days before the elections in Germany, the Green party complained to Facebook about a popular series of attack ads deriding its stances on gender-neutral bathrooms, electric cars and other topics. The party accused the advertiser, Greenwatch, of providing false contact information on its Facebook page and blog, which would violate a German Media Authority regulation requiring accurate contact information. But Facebook didn’t take down the ads or trace their origins. And after the election, Greenwatch disappeared. Its website and Facebook page were deleted, leaving behind only the nine Greenwatch ads that were captured by ProPublica’s Political Ad Collector, a tool that enables Facebook users to collect political ads that target them.

The Greenwatch episode illustrates that ads of dubious provenance aren’t just aimed at Facebook users in the US, but in Europe as well. Facebook’s failure to confront the advertiser — despite repeated complaints — raises questions about whether and how the world’s largest social network will deliver on its promise to monitor political advertising aggressively on its platform.

Twitter has been lambasted by lawmakers for not doing enough to stop bots and anonymous ads from spreading propaganda and misinformation on its platform.

On Oct 24, Twitter announced it will launch what it’s calling an Advertising Transparency Center that will disclose for the first time a list of all ads running on Twitter to all users, details on how long each ad has been running for, other campaigns associated with any given ad, and which ads are being targeted at you. The disclosures go even further for political advertising, requiring the disclosure of who is paying for an ad, who it’s targeted toward, and historical data about electioneering ad spending by the advertiser. The move comes as pressure is growing from Washington to police social media companies such as Twitter and Facebook.

Republicans and the advertising industry at a hearing Oct 24 criticized proposals to expand disclosure rules on online political ads amid revelations Russian actors used social media platforms to influence the 2016 election.

Randall Rothenberg, president and CEO of the Interactive Advertising Bureau, told lawmakers on the House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Information Technology that new rules would unduly burden digital publishers. “One of the problems I have with the Honest Ads Act is its placing the burden on smaller publishers that don’t have the financial wherewithal to shoulder that burden,” he said, referring to legislation offered in the Senate that would impose new regulations on web companies. Rep Paul Mitchell (R-MI) blasted the idea of holding companies like Facebook and Google to the same rules as other media over political ads. “On the internet post, the provider, the intermediary is not responsible for it. They didn’t write it. They didn’t hire them, they didn’t determine who they are, yet you want to hold them to the same standard as your newspaper, which is an entirely different format,” he said. Rep Mitchell said new rules would infringe on free speech.

The head of the News Media Alliance, which represents almost 2,000 newspapers, told the House Oversight Committee Information Technology Subcommittee in a hearing on political ad laws that Google, Facebook and other edge players are news gatekeepers that have fueled fake news and "harmed the integrity of content and advertising." That is because the edge business model is based on "not exercising responsibility over the integrity of content of the advertising that sustains its foundation."

"It is now time that Google and Facebook be asked to make the same commitments as publishers and modernize their platforms to help stem the flow of misinformation—a problem that is largely of their own making," said David Chavern, NMA president. He said Federal Election Commission rules should require disclosures within internet ads, and that Google and Facebook should update their business models to elevate reputable content in search and news feeds.