Facebook Finally Discloses Pro-Brexit Ads (techcrunch.com) 165
"The UK parliament has provided another telling glimpse behind the curtain of Facebook's unregulated ad platform by publishing data on scores of pro-Brexit adverts..." reports TechCrunch, adding that the 2016 ads "were run prior to Facebook having any disclosure rules for political ads. So there was no way for anyone other than each target recipient to know a particular ad existed or who it was being targeted at." An anonymous reader quotes their report:
The targeting of the ads was carried out on Facebook's platform by AggregateIQ, a Canadian data firm that has been linked to Cambridge Analytica/SCL... [I]t's not clear how many ad impressions they racked up in all. But total impressions look very sizable. While some of what runs to many thousands of distinctly targeted ads which AIQ distributed via Facebook's platform are listed as only garnering between 0-999 impressions apiece, according to Facebook's data, others racked up far more views. Commonly listed ranges include 50,000 to 99,999 and 100,000 to 199,999 -- with even higher ranges like 2M-4.9M and 5M-9.9M also listed....
The publication of the Brexit ads is, above all, a reminder that online political advertising has been allowed to be a blackhole -- and at times a cesspit -- because cash-rich entities have been able to unaccountably exploit the obscurity of Facebook's systemically dark ad targeting tools for their own ends, and operate in a darkness where only Facebook had oversight (and wasn't exercising any), leaving the public no right of objection let alone reply, despite it being people's lives that are indelibly affected by political outcomes.... The company has been making some voluntary changes to offer a degree of political ad disclosure, as it seeks to stave off regulatory rule. Whether its changes -- which at best offer partial visibility -- will go far enough remains to be seen.
Earlier this month the UK's data watchdog released a report titled "Democracy disrupted?" in which the UK's Information Commissioner recommends an "ethical pause" of political advertising on social media to allow key players "to reflect on their responsibilities in respect to the use of personal data..." And this weekend an interim report from the House of Commons' media committee "said democracy is facing a crisis because the combination of data analysis and social media allows campaigns to target voters with messages of hate without their consent," according to the Associated Press.
"Tech giants like Facebook, which operate in a largely unregulated environment, are complicit because they haven't done enough to protect personal information and remove harmful content, the committee said."
The publication of the Brexit ads is, above all, a reminder that online political advertising has been allowed to be a blackhole -- and at times a cesspit -- because cash-rich entities have been able to unaccountably exploit the obscurity of Facebook's systemically dark ad targeting tools for their own ends, and operate in a darkness where only Facebook had oversight (and wasn't exercising any), leaving the public no right of objection let alone reply, despite it being people's lives that are indelibly affected by political outcomes.... The company has been making some voluntary changes to offer a degree of political ad disclosure, as it seeks to stave off regulatory rule. Whether its changes -- which at best offer partial visibility -- will go far enough remains to be seen.
Earlier this month the UK's data watchdog released a report titled "Democracy disrupted?" in which the UK's Information Commissioner recommends an "ethical pause" of political advertising on social media to allow key players "to reflect on their responsibilities in respect to the use of personal data..." And this weekend an interim report from the House of Commons' media committee "said democracy is facing a crisis because the combination of data analysis and social media allows campaigns to target voters with messages of hate without their consent," according to the Associated Press.
"Tech giants like Facebook, which operate in a largely unregulated environment, are complicit because they haven't done enough to protect personal information and remove harmful content, the committee said."
Re: (Score:1)
I'm glad to see that like your wank-fantasty leader, you are big on projection. In this case, every sin you ascribe to the Iranians applies to the Russians too:
- fucking hate us -- yup
- want us dead -- from downing civilian airliners to poisoning Brits with novichok, yup
- execute homosexuals and uppity women -- not so much executions, as allowing and sometimes committing hate crimes including murder on a huge scale, yup
- and are the largest sponsor of terrorism around the world -- Putin has the dripping blo
Re: (Score:1)
Russia isn't the enemy of the US after the cold war, but warmongers like Hillary seem to forget that and threatened to start WW3 in Syria. Fortunartely she was not elected and the world survived.
Re: (Score:1)
Hillary tried to eat my hamster but she nearly choked in her false teeth.
And this is a problem why? (Score:4, Insightful)
If they paid for the ads, then they should be able to run them. The only thing is that they shouldn't be just given personal information by third parties. People should be paid for having their information disclosed and agree with whom it is disclosed exactly. I'm getting really tired of the lefts' compulsion to censor their political opponents. You will be punished.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And this is a problem why?
Because they were a tissue of lies and half-truths.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, of course. But that's how it works. Interesting that in trying to bring up an inflammatory point to attempt to prove (perhaps more to yourself than anyone else) that there's some sort of "moral equivalence on both sides" you've latched onto an idea that nobody was even contesting. Yes, of course the anti-brexit ads were also the same sort of schadenfreude peddled by the exact same shills. That is how this works. They ramp up divisiveness by escalating irrational insecurities of every demographic w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why should *they*, the Russians, be allowed to interfere in democracy without repercussions?
Because the alternative — not "allowing" the Russians or anyone else to do "ads" for one reason or another — means that every platform has to be policed by minders from end to end, and those minders will have the means to persecute whomever exhibits sufficient wrongthink when they advertise their views. You're turning all discourse, legitimate or otherwise, into a minefield for anyone that doesn't have an establishment escort, all because you think you lost something in an election.
I get it
No, you don'
Re: (Score:3)
Shorter you: "The world isn't perfect, so don't take any steps to improve anything. (Because the cheaters were on my side, so ha-ha)"
Not impressed.
Re: (Score:3)
Depending on the stakes of he game, some issues will have an absurd amount of money being used to "campaign" for one side or the other. The amount of money spent "campaigning" is a good proxy for the stakes of the game.
If a h
Re: (Score:2)
People should be paid for having their information disclosed and agree with whom it is disclosed exactly.
Such a legislation is in as big a denial of reality as the copyright folks are.
Information cannot be contained by mere legislation. The old saying, "information wants to be free", is more or less true. Collecting and Copying information costs so little, and it can be done so casually. Even if there was draconian legislation with totalitarian general writs, what you are trying to stop wouldn't be stopped.
The genie was never in the bottle.
Re:And this is a problem why? (Score:4, Informative)
Numerous problems.
Many of the ads were not identified properly as ads, and didn't give an indication who paid for them.
They used deceptive competitions that users had no chance of winning (5 trillion to 1 odds) but which harvested their personal data. As you should know by now AggregateIQ is the same people as Cambridge Analytica.
The various Leave campaign groups colluded and over-spent, which is illegal and some of the key people have been referred to the police by the Electoral Omission.
Social media ads are not well regulated. For example, if the same ads had been shown on TV or on billboards they would likely have been blocked on the grounds that they were deceptive or outright lies. In the UK advertising must be truthful and not misleading, and there are additional requirements for political ads.
Facebook is in trouble (Score:2, Insightful)
Because elites didn't get what they wanted in an election. We must immediately go back to centralized control of media, so elites can regain control of the information everyone has. The present situation is too democratic for them.
Kohath's credibility is in trouble. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah not because of Cambridge Analytica and Russian collusion, because of your "elites" bullshit theory and pizzagate, cuz you say so? Kohath has zero credibility from now on, noted.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's pretty much factual that one side had overwhelming amount of elites in that negotiation, while other had barely any.
This is evident in the fact that aristocratic class can afford to maintain the Project Fear to this day, and effectively took over the Brexit negotiations process entirely to provide a "Brexit without exiting EU" which is what May appears to be working toward. If balance within the aristocratic class on each side was even roughly even, such blatantly undemocratic action would have never b
Re: (Score:2)
"Project Fear" is widely accepted name for the remain campaign, as it was pointedly all about spreading unsubstantiated fear about Brexit consequences, none of which have come to pass.
The rest of your argument is literally "aristocracy is better than democracy because side I like lost the democratic vote, but is widely supported by aristocracy". In this regard, you completely reinforce my point.
Re: (Score:2)
You cannot have problems understanding it, because I pre-emptively removed this potential for misunderstanding by providing specific and accurate definitions for the terminology.
It was also a trap for ideological trolling. Which you nicely fell into.
Re: (Score:2)
And now that you're unmasked, you just go full retard. Nice.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that, of course, Project Fear made wide sweeping claims of immediate consequences upon just getting the Brexit voting result.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't be silly. Posts on message boards don't have credibility. Never did, never will.
Re: (Score:2)
Posts on message boards don't have credibility. Never did, never will.
Your posts, sure. Just because you have no credibility doesn't mean no one else does, though.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Obama using social media in 2012? Groundbreaking and innovative https://www.theguardian.com/wo... [theguardian.com]
Trump doing the same thing in 2016? Congressional hearings!
Re: (Score:3)
Would have been okay if it had actually been Trump. It's the fact that Russia was campaigning on his behalf that is the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Because elites didn't get what they wanted in an election.
Jacob Reese-Mogg (Eaton then Oxford), owns an investment company (now HQ'd in Eurpoe post Article 51), worth about 50 million GBP. Not an elite.
Boris Johnson (Eton the Oxford), rich enough to consider a 250,000GPB salary as "chicken feed". Not an elite.
If you think the people running the Brexit shit-show are not elites then I have a bridge to sell you.
We must immediately go back to centralized control of media, so elites can regain control of the in
give it a rest (Score:2, Troll)
Yes, every single political development that "progressives' don't like is actually caused by nefarious activities (which noted reactionaries like tech executives of course happily signed on to).
You could never, you know, just lose ...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
F*ucking slave owners, without them there would not be so many blacks in the western countries.
Re: (Score:2)
How can an open and free vote be "deceiving" AC? People all over the UK went to vote and the vote result was to not stay in the EU.
Re "voting opposite to your constituents' wishes"
The democratic vote count as a result was to "exit" the EU AC.
Re: (Score:2)
AC re "consequences of leaving" Not stating in the UK was the result people voted for.
AC "not democracy" Getting to vote on an issue is a "democracy" AC.
Re: give it a rest (Score:1)
False. Not all UK residents could vote, including my wife. Literally millions (more than the percentage required to swing the vote to remain) of UK residents could not vote on the referendum as they were not UK citizens. Roughly one million hard working UK residents are EU citizens from countries like Poland, France, Germany, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:give it a rest (Score:4, Insightful)
What does 'SJW' have to do with this? If people all over the UK voted to exit the EU, a lot of these are also likely to be 'SJW's ... or is ACs claim that 'SJW' is actually just a bucket for 'people you don't like' (because you look to be a pro-Brexiter) actually an astute observation?
Disclaimer: I'm not a UK citizen, nor do I live there. So it is not up to me to decide on Brexit. I am, however, baffled at the incompetence of leading Tory politicians, regardless of their stance on Brexit.
Re: (Score:2)
And the BBC? (Score:3)
Has the BBC (funded by a mandatory TV license) been a neutral news source during and since the Brexit campaign?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The BBC gave more air-time to Remainers than it did to Brexiteers, and its editorial line was unashamedly anti-Brexit. Just because you evidently disagreed with Nigel Farage, his participation as the token Brexit voice on air, rudely interrupting your daily stream of EU propaganda, doesn't even bring the BBC's coverage closer to a neutral stance (from its clear Remain bias). If another referendum were held soon on Brexit, the vote would be confirmed, and the margin only widened. Bring it on, I say. Pro-EU s
Re: (Score:2)
Problem being that it would only deepen their anti-democratic tendencies which are already clearly pronounced. Considering the cultural fracturing going on in UK right now, it would be extremely dangerous to push yet another large voting block to cement their clear anti-democratic biases.
Re:And the BBC? (Score:5, Insightful)
The BBC gave more air-time to Remainers than it did to Brexiteers, and its editorial line was unashamedly anti-Brexit.
I doubt the former. And it also uncritically repeated the Brexiter's outright lies, like the 350 million per week. The Brexit camp knew it was a lie, the BBC new it was a lie, but in the interests of "neutrality" they simply repeated the lie because that was what the Brexit campaign had.
Just because you evidently disagreed with Nigel Farage
Ah yes, pointing out obvious, well known lies is now merely "disagreeing". Right-o.
Pro-EU supporters need another lesson in democracy, I think.
That'll be why the exit campaign seems a little tied up in campaign fraud. Is that the lesson? That it doesn't matter if you win legally or not, the only thing that counts is winning?
Is that "brexit democracy"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Do you have any idea how many times Nigel Farage has been on Question Time? It's more than his fair share.
Actually your comment reminds me of an audience member on QT, who was complaining that the BBC only shows dumb people supporting leave and it makes them all look like delusional idiots. Once he heard himself say it out loud even he couldn't help laughing.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
I haven't seen any evidence that they weren't, why?
What makes you think they weren't.
Re: (Score:3)
Some people regard not fully supporting Brexit and whatever half baked, competent mess the government is doing this week as literal treason for which people should be prosecuted.
Given that, merely reporting factual information or offering a balanced view on Brexit equates to far leftist bias from the BBC.
The funny thing is that there is actually a lot of criticism of the BBC from the left, particularly certain interviewers who don't really hold government ministers to account, e.g. John Humphries.
Re: And the BBC? (Score:1)
Excellent question. The BBC seems to swing towards whatever government and policies are more powerful at the time, before brexit the remain vote was expected to win so the BBC was pro-remain but after the decision to leave was a surprise vote, it's taken time to shift to giving more air-time to promoting leaving the EU as a positive move. Hard brexit is a hard sell though so they're easing the population into it by pushing a soft-brexit success for May and her cronies.
Re: (Score:2)
No. and its very sad that a one great institution should fall so far.
The BBC news used to be incredibly anal about being strictly impartial and just reporting facts, These days, even the news has become very clearly left-leaning and have anti-brexit tendencies. They've also replaced reporting facts and leaving the listener to decide, with editorials and opinion pieces wherever they can cram them in. VERY troubling.
"has been linked"? (Score:4, Interesting)
Seriously, this "has been linked" nonsense has to end. Largest investment banks are "linked" to the SEC because the professionals who understand banking well-enough to regulate banks have a very high chance of having worked for some of the banks. The mathematicians and other analysts who work for data analysis companies do change jobs. And this produces links between different data analytics firms.
It doesn't matter that you don't like what one of them has done. All firms within all professions, which require narrow expertise, are linked because people switch jobs.
What's the alternative? Top experts at the top firms becoming unemployable? Shall we just revert to cast system? How would news organizations like it if it was done to them? They are doing it to everyone else.
Let's give it a try. CNN, which is linked to Fox News, has reported that blah, blah, blah.
Re: (Score:2)
Every single news agency on the planet is linked to IS, and their torture and murder of civilians.
When measuring stick produces outcomes this absurd when applied universally, said measuring stick is useless.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, this "has been linked" nonsense has to end.
This is called a "summary". It's a short description of the more detailed findings. If you want to know the exact nature of the link, you should read the reports.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Just in time (Score:1)
...right before they start having an impact. Thanks for being on the ball everyone
less than average intelligence (Score:2, Insightful)
People seem to be forgetting that by definition half the population has below average intelligence. Studies show that people with below average intelligence have greater difficulty researching the truth of any statement and are more susceptible to misinformation. Given this it only makes sense to regulate the presentation of ads, which by definition are designed to sway opinion by appealing to biases at least half the population doesn't know they have.
It's still happening... (Score:2)
tsunami in a teacup (Score:1)
There's really no excuse for Vote Leave to target Facebook users during Brexit...
It's actually unbelievable how anyone could think they had a right to get their message out there to the people, especially in such a modern democratic society with an allowance for a multitude of different viewpoints...oh wait
Re: (Score:1)
Noone critizes a political campaign involving social media.
What's at the center of those investigations is, that those ads weren't declared as political ads and they were filled with lies
I'll leave this here for the grown-ups... (Score:1)
...who are actually interested in hearing the other side of the argument. Fortunately, British politics isn't quite as exciting as the OP sets out. Some relevant info on:
The pro-Remain journalist spearheading the investigation into the Leave campaign [order-order.com] The pro-Remain MP in charge of the DCMS committee [order-order.com] Evidence of the Remain campaign doing exactly what the Leave campaign have been accused of, only to a much greater extent [order-order.com] The government body in charge of regulating elections and referenda [order-order.com] The guy [dominiccummings.com]
CAn someone please explain (Score:2)
What actually is wrong with pro-Brexit ads?
As I recall there were also plenty of remain ad campaigns, yet apparently no-one is complaining about those.
Why the double-standard and why the incorrect presumption that anything pro-brexit somehow self-evidently justifies being stifled?
Cambridge Anal-ytica is dead... (Score:2)
...long live Oxford Vaginal-ytica