Digital Content

Pandering to the base is a tradition as old as politics itself. But in the social media age, it’s easier than ever for politicians to take those tailored messages—the kind they might not like to share with the whole world—and disseminate them only to the people who are most likely to agree. And targeting allows campaigns to silo thousands of possible audiences with just a click, making it harder than ever to hold politicians accountable for all of it.

Some have taken to calling this type of ad a “dark post,” an overly nefarious name for what is, in actuality, just the way digital ads operate today. Technically speaking, Trump's ad buy works the same as one for the pair of Zappos shoes that somehow follows you around the internet. You’re seeing those shoes because Facebook thinks you're in the market for shoes. But President Trump isn’t running a shoe store; still less than a year into his term, he's already running a reelection campaign. And when the president sends one subset of the population a message that the rest of the population can’t see—especially one that's at odds with reality—it feels like a fundamental failure of government transparency.

After years of largely avoiding regulation, businesses like Facebook, Google and Amazon are a focus of lawmakers, some of whom are criticizing the expanding power of big tech companies and their role in the 2016 election.

The attacks cover a smattering of issues as diverse as antitrust, privacy and public disclosure. They also come from both sides, from people like Stephen Bannon, President Trump’s former chief strategist, as well as Sen Elizabeth Warren (D-MA). Many of the issues, like revising antitrust laws, have a slim chance of producing new laws soon. But they have become popular talking points nonetheless, amplified by a series of missteps and disclosures by the companies. The companies, recognizing the new environment in Washington, have started to fortify their lobbying forces and recalibrate their positions.

A group of House and Senate Democrats are calling on the US government to issue new “guidance” to stop foreign advertisers from spending money on Facebook, Google and other web platforms in a bid to influence American elections.

Federal law already bars that sort of political spending, but lawmakers — including Rep. John Sarbanes (D-MD) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) — stress in a letter to the Federal Elections Commission that countries like Russia “have routinely deployed sophisticated tactics in making political expenditures to evade detection.” To that end, the Democrats are asking the FEC — which oversees campaign finance —to offer suggestions for how to crack down on “loopholes” that allow foreign entities to use “corporate or nonprofit designations to evade disclosure.” And they want to help tech companies harden their own platforms to prevent that spending in the first place.

For now, though, the Democrats are asking the watchdog agency to issue a timeline for action and respond to their questions no later than Oct. 4.

At a time when scientific information is increasingly at the center of public divides, most Americans say they get science news no more than a couple of times per month, and when they do, most say it is by happenstance rather than intentionally, according to a new study by Pew Research Center.

Overall, about a third, 36 percent, of Americans get science news at least a few times a week, three-in-ten actively seek it out, and a smaller portion, 17 percent, do both. And while Americans are most likely to get their science news from general news outlets and say the news media overall do a good job covering science, they consider a handful of specialty sources – documentaries, science magazines, and science and technology museums – as more likely to get the science facts right.

At first glance, Freeway looks like a good app. Through partnerships with content providers and mobile networks, Freeway can let users on limited wireless rate plans use services like YouTube, Facebook, and Spotify without eating into their precious data allowance. In return, Freeway charges a couple bucks per month through a mobile app, and also leverages sponsorships. In theory, it’s a neat way to help consumers access services without paying for an unlimited data plan or massive overage fees. But in practice, it creates the exact kind of anti-competitive environment net neutrality advocates are so afraid of.

Freeway has a couple different packages and tiers, all with different pricing that varies by carrier:

• Basic Bundle: YouTube, Facebook, Instagram and Spotify
• “Headphones In”: Amazon Music, iHeart Radio, Pandora, Spotify, and SoundCloud
• “Data Defense”: Sports bundle with ESPN, Facebook, LiveScore, MLB.com Ballpark, MLS, NBA, NBC Sports, Twitter, and Yahoo! Fantasy Sports
• “Study Break”: Bumble, HBO Now, Instagram, Lyft, Spotify, Starbucks, Tinder, Twitter, Venmo, and YouTube
• “Backseat Drivers”: “Cut the Rope: Magic,” Disney Junior, Nick Junior, PBS Kids Video, YouTube Kids

Two things stand out about the packages: they sound a lot like cable bundles; and they’re comprised only of brands you’ve heard of. That’s because Freeway is essentially pay-to-play: only the big companies are worth partnering with (or can afford to sponsor data), so you’re only going to see big names on there.

Apparently, Alphabet’s Google has proposed overhauling its shopping search results so that rivals can bid for space to display products for sale, as part of the company's efforts to comply with the European Union’s antitrust order. Under the proposal, Google would bid against rivals to display products for sale in the space above its general search results, apparently. Google would set itself a price cap that it wouldn’t be able to bid above, but competitors could do so if they wished. Rival shopping sites have hit back, saying an auction-based remedy wouldn’t assuage the EU regulator’s demands that the company treat its competitors’ offerings and its own shopping service equally.

[Commentary] Every day a new front emerges in Big Tech’s battle against fake news. Signs of trouble reared their head during the election, when hyper-partisan misinformation began materializing on Facebook. Months later it became known that many of these sites had been weaponized in a larger misinformation campaign spearheaded by external players, including the Russian government.

While they make head nods toward trying to fix the misinformation problem, the tech giants refuse to own up to these issues–citing the privacy of their clients and their own proprietary ad systems. While it may seem noble that the big tech companies are taking up the charge, their current attempts will likely produce little effect. The problem rests in the very advertising systems these companies created. No amount of content tagging or ad category de-incentivizing is going to stop the beast unless a bigger upheaval begins to take root.

[Cale is a Brooklyn-based reporter.]

The South Dakota Supreme Court has ruled that the state cannot force out-of-state retailers to collect sales tax, setting up a possible appeal to the US Supreme Court that will have national implications. The court issued its ruling just two weeks after hearing the case brought by Internet retailers Wayfair, Overstock and Newegg. Lawmakers in 2016 passed a bill requiring Internet companies with more than $100,000 in annual sales or 200 transactions to remit sales taxes to the state. The law directly conflicted with a 1992 US Supreme Court ruling, Quill v. North Dakota, that held retailers don't have to collect sales taxes in states where they don't have a physical presence.

The geeks are raiding their digital vaults to transform themselves into lords of entertainment – or at least owners of content – and in the process shape what we watch and how we watch. Traditional broadcast and cable networks, giants which for decades shaped popular culture, are scrambling to keep up.

For traditional broadcast and cable networks it’s no longer enough to make hit shows. They must make them available for streaming and downloading on multiple platforms or risk losing advertising and subscription revenues. And to grab a share of those revenues, and to differentiate their products and services, technology companies must own content – either by buying or making it.

A group of digital advertising and marketing organizations has come together to condemn Apple for what the coalition says is a “unilateral and heavy-handed approach” to user privacy on Mac. The group fears that Apple, which has started taking more extreme measures to reduce ad tracking on both the mobile and now desktop versions of Safari, is unfairly exercising its muscle in a way that could snuff out an entire segment of the ad industry.

The open letter, published by six leading advertising trade groups, is in response to a new macOS feature Apple calls Intelligent Tracking Prevention, or ITP. Introduced back at WWDC in June, ITP uses machine learning algorithms to identify tracking behavior on the company’s Safari browser, like the presence of persistent cookies from third-party ad networks, and imposes a strict 24-hour time limit on those tracking tools’ lifespans. Apple unveiled the new feature by saying, “It’s not about blocking ads, but your privacy is protected.”