Facebook has started 2020 — the year in which America will decide who its next president will be — on a controversial note. On Thursday, the social media giant said it would continue to allow political ads on its platforms, without fact-checking them, and also that it would not ban ads that are aimed at and shown to only certain groups of the electorate — so-called “microtargeting”.
From the New York Times, under the headline “Facebook Says It Won’t Back Down From Allowing Lies in Political Ads”:
Defying pressure from Congress, Facebook on Thursday said that it would continue to allow campaigns to use the site to target advertisements to particular slices of the electorate and that it would not police the truthfulness of the messages that they send out.
Facebook’s announcement (in which it also said, though this bit was not so widely reported on, that users would now be able to see fewer political ads if they wish, and that it would make its “ad library” easier to search) has provoked an outcry.
Renowned Facebook critic and Guardian journalist Carole Cadwalladr said Mark Zuckerberg had “taken his orders from Trump” in sanctioning “the delivery of toxic lies to voters in darkness”, while Bill Russo, campaign spokesman for Democratic hopeful Joe Biden, said it was “more window dressing around (Facebook’s) decision to allow paid misinformation”.
The announcement has also provoked a number of comparisons to other big tech companies — in particular Twitter, which banned all political advertising last year, and Google, which imposed some restrictions on political ads and has barred microtargeted ads.
The New York Times, for example, said:
The stance put Facebook, which is the most important digital platform for political ads, at odds with some of the other large tech companies, which have begun to put new limits on political ads . . .
Other social media companies have decided otherwise, and some had hoped Facebook would quietly follow their lead. In late October, Twitter’s chief executive, Jack Dorsey, banned all political advertising from his network, citing the challenges that novel digital systems present to civic discourse. Google quickly followed suit with limits on political ads across some of its properties, though narrower in scope.
Twitter and Google seem to be doing pretty well out of this story — there’s a lot of talk about Facebook “falling short” of the high standards that Twitter and Google have apparently set here. But how many times have you heard that Google and Twitter were responsible for Donald Trump’s 2016 election victory? Not very often, we would wager, as Facebook is by far the most important internet platform for political advertising. And that means political advertising is far more important to its business model.
Facebook relies much more on advertising than Twitter and Google (hence the company’s attempts to diversify by creating a global Federal Reserve equivalent, aka Libra). In 2018, 98 per cent of Facebook’s revenues came from advertising; for Twitter that number is around 86 per cent; while for Google, it’s only 70 per cent.
As Sam Jeffers, co-founder of Who Targets Me, a campaign group for transparency in online political advertising, told us:
It’s super convenient for each of these companies that the decisions they’re making don’t really affect their bottom line in any real sense. For every £10 spent on political ads Facebook, about £1 is spent on Google, and a few pennies are spent on Twitter . . .
These ad policies are basically commercial plays against each other. Google banning microtargeting costs Google nothing but is a direct attack on Facebook’s business model. It’s purely a strategic move that says that if Facebook now feels compelled to follow, and get rid of an audience-based targeting model, that starts to bleed into the rest of their targeting model, which costs them money, weakening them and strengthening us. Twitter banning political advertising costs them zero financially but heaps a lot of pressure elsewhere . . .
Also, if Facebook were to ban political ads, where would political parties and campaign groups advertise? The digital realm has become the key battleground in elections, with political parties pouring far more into ads on its platforms than elsewhere. And Facebook ads are much cheaper than TV ones, meaning that not only can Donald Trump reach voters, but so can smaller parties and groups that might not otherwise be able to.
Indeed, the fact that these ads can be targeted makes advertising spend can be more efficient. If a charity urgently needs to raise more money, for example, it can easily target Facebook users who are likely to donate — such as previous donors — without having to spend millions mounting a nationwide TV campaign.
One could argue, therefore, that Google’s decision to ban microtargeting might actually benefit the company, as potential advertisers won’t be able to limit their messages to particular slices of the population, so will have to spend more to send their ads out across the wider public.
And the company does not appear to be that committed to restricting tactics that are deliberately misleading. Ahead of December’s UK elections, the Tories paid Google enough so that the top result, when voters googled “Labour” ahead of and during the launch of the party’s manifesto, was the Tory-sponsored spoof website “labourmanifesto.co.uk”.
Twitter’s Dorsey, meanwhile, might well have cited “the challenges that novel digital systems present to civic discourse”, but anyone who’s spent any time on Twitter might reasonably wonder whether his business — with its echo chambers, bots, and its vicious ad-hominem attacks — might present some pretty strong challenges to civic discourse itself. And he might say he believes “political message reach should be earned, not bought” but anyone who’s spent any time on Twitter can see that reach is not earned by merit.
Donald Trump, with his 70m followers, doesn’t need to pay for exposure via Twitter — according to the Guardian, some four-fifths of the president’s tweets end up in news stories anyway. Again, not allowing paid-for political ads could well end up favouring incumbents and penalising smaller parties and groups.
So we should be careful not to imagine that Twitter’s and Google’s decisions to limit political ads show any kind of deep commitment to democratic ideals, or that they will help limit the spread of misinformation. Facebook may be the pantomime villain, but its supporting cast are hardly guilt-free.
- The Eurosystem might have a fatal flaw. But it’s not this
- Venture capital for the ‘forgotten’
- The troublesome Trump inside trading claim
- The US economy is not recession-proof
- Hedge fund bro gonna hedge fund bro
- What do women want? Some crypto flavoured mansplaining, apparently.
- The Fed’s wishful thinking on inflation
- Dalio and Diddy: when genius collides
- State-backed crypto is a contradiction
- Rejoice! Venture capital wants to pay for your holiday
- Are electric vehicles more damaging than diesel?
- The £3bn hole in the Tory manifesto
- ArtGo loses its marbles
- Are banks really magic money trees?
- Will Lagarde’s sneaky tweet change much?
- Can we all calm down about Apple Card’s “gender bias”
- UBS’ billionaire boondoggle
- When fast fashion jumps on the eco-wagon
- GenX will set central banks’ climate response
- The stablecoin anathema
- Masters of the universe, don’t be scared of Elizabeth Warren
- Missing: the GE short report
- The average lifespan of a fiat currency isn’t 27 years
- Lord King: Brexit is no big deal
- No inflation? Tell that to my landlord
- Today, in fintech marketing
- YouGov’s “blockchain-based” sell-your-own data platform makes no sense (*update)
- Presented without comment
- Block.one headed
- Ride-sharing apps can’t save the planet (obv)
- The WeWork bull case
- No deal Brexit is not a hedge fund conspiracy
- Europe’s digital infrastructure issue
- Let’s give a helping hand to Andrew Yang
- Anatomy of a malware scam
- ARK Invest’s Tesla model gathers dust
- A delirious defence of Uber
- WeLiquid: Adam Neumann pockets $700m
- Yesterday, in efficient markets
- The warm fuzzy feeling of indirectly owning Tencent
- The best of Morgan Stanley’s Adam Jonas
- Apple/Tesla: M&A and heartbreak
- Did Beyonce make $300m from Uber’s IPO?
- Bitcoin is the 10-year Treasury of our time
- High resolution music is a solution looking for a problem
- Amazon is furious about this negative review
- Missing: $500bn of American savings
- Blockchain for Brexit: a wonderfully terrible idea
- The Bank of Hodlers [sic] (sigh)
- Behind the curtain at China Ding Yi Feng
- An answer to Mark Cuban’s question
- Crumbs! It’s CRYPTO: the movie!
- National Beverage Corp loses its fizz, and its mind
- Amazon won’t spin-off Amazon Web Services
- Mensch! Dan McCrum is innocent, ok?
- Europe’s $1 trillion tax gap
- Why online propaganda mobs are an investment red flag
- Davos has produced an amazing new guide on precisely how not to think about risk
- When the public relations industry does PR for itself
- Who wants to be crippled by student debt?
- The bitcoin price is wrong
- The warm fuzzy feeling of Goldman debt
- “Cryptoassets” are crashing again. Is it time to start calling them cryptoliabilities instead?
- Puff the tragic cryptowagon smokes out the Mumsnet demographic
- Don’t write off the public sector
- Initiative Q: an elementary pyramid scheme with grandiose ideas [Update]
- Moral investments aren’t outperforming
- No one is killing it in crypto (not even Woz)
- Too smooth: the red flag at Patisserie Valerie which was missed
- No, the housing crisis will not be solved by building more homes
- Sorry Civil, ‘crypto-economics’ and ‘constitutions’ won’t save journalism
- ‘Short-termism’ isn’t a thing, say Fed economists
- Coinbase wants to be “too big to fail”, lol
- Regulation and innovation don’t have to be enemies
- Retailers get so lonely around the holidays
- Folli Follie: $1bn of fake sales, and what to learn from the debacle
- The new green evangelism
- Tilray, how low can it go?
- The ICO behind the tragic Everest stunt is now “airdropping” tokens from rockets
- Beware the Hindenburg Omen?
- The broken conversation about financial regulation
- The improbably profitable, loss-making Blue Prism
- The EM rout is not made in America
- Wages and growth and honestly we just give up
- Britain’s first blockchain-enabled co-working space isn’t blockchain-enabled
- There is a FIRE that never goes out
- The WeWork Garden of Eden
- IQE: lumpy ‘Apple’ sauce at the pricey Cardiff chip shop
- There’s only so much a central bank can do alone
- Eight questions every first-time buyer should ask
- MiFID II: not all doom and gloom
- Tesla: getting to Q3 profitability
- Turkey contagion fears are overblown [Update]
- The chance of an inflation shock may be higher than you think
- Sorry Tim, the humanity is not being drained out of music
- Digital crop circles
- What could go wrong here?
- Sirius Minerals: money for a hole in the ground
- The Bank of England has a strange idea of what QE achieved
- One for the ladies…
- ‘Of course, many ridiculous papers appeared’
- Is a change goin’ to come?
- The capacity’s not there yet (and probably never will be)
- Musk and Tesla are not inseparable
- Libraries, from Carnegie to Bezos
- Crypto & government: from anarchy to amity in the USA
- ‘I’m sorry Dave, I’m afraid I cannot sanction this Series B round’
- RBC, through the FANG barrier
- Self-help to buy
- CFA: Chartered crypto analysts — updated
- The Netflix dilemma — updated
- Fujitsu’s new blockchain offering: really cheap or really expensive?
- Nothing But the Shirt on Your Back
- Universities of Britain: cosying up to crypto is a bad look
- How to make a living in the cult of meritocracy
- Spotify: Drake-oil salesmen
- Oh, the digital humanity
- Sports are not markets, predictions ain’t investment
- Spot the difference, Steinhoff edition
- Larry Robbins, a cautionary tale
- The node to serfdom
- Carney is down with the crypto kids
- Samsonite: inventory, excess baggage, and unresolved questions
- It might be a long wait for “the equivalent alternative to ICOs”
- Don’t blame it on the sunshine
- In corporate America, brands develop you
- One in ten dollars of US housing were anonymous
- Should AT&T worry more about its debt?
- Who cares if Elon is incinerating capital?
- Let’s not try make ‘crypto chicks’ a thing
- Tokens all the way down
- Eight-dimensional chess with Elon Musk
- A lopsided trade is a good trade, Italian inflation edition
- How to buy Italian fire insurance
- Atlas bugged
- Inflating inflation
- Crypto’s most devout believers are suffering a crisis of faith
- Plus500: past performance is no guide to the future
- Noble rot in a shrinking Harbour
- In defence of ticket touts
- Please don’t tell individual investors to buy leveraged loans
- RIB Software: the unicorn rainy-day fund
- Retail is not dead
- Did Soros really give Tesla a “vote of confidence”?
- At a crypto conference in New York, it feels like 2017 all over again
- Egregious expectations – Intelsat edition
- Bitcoin cash is expanding into the void
- Stop getting The Flintstones wrong
- Bond investors do not care if Argentina is solvent in 100 years
- Ubiquiti Networks: of cash and borrowed time
- “We’re very disappointed in you, Spotify”
- ‘Sex redistribution’ and the means of reproduction
- Tesla probably needs to raise capital this year
- No entitlement crisis in America
- Free cash flow to whom?
- Hey crypto bros! Journalism ≠ advertising
- Human capital and the jobs guarantee
- This is a tech bubble, when’s the crash?
- The magic of adjustments: ebitla-dee-da
- FUD, inglorious FUD
- A complex analysis reaches same conclusion as simple one: hedge funds suck
- The jobs guarantee and human-capital “nationalisation”
- These hedge fund numbers can’t be right
- The Vomiting Camel has escaped from Bitcoin zoo
- Lies, damn lies, and charticles
- The world doesn’t need more Elon Musks
- No, Facebook should not become a nonprofit
- Sell all crypto and abandon all blockchain
- Immutable ledgers meet European data protection
- Amazon is not a bubble
- Japan’s economic miracle
- Have you ever meta crypto joke you didn’t like?
- Delaware should change its rules to let the light in
- Who needs the labels anyway?
- Baby Boomers want your family to finance a larger share of their retirement
- No, America would not benefit from authoritarian central planning
- No one needs to buy Tesla
- How to win a debate in the cult of meritocracy
- Steinhoff International and the case of Pepkor Global Sourcing
- Sorry Jack, Bitcoin will not become the global currency
- The “academic’s cryptocurrency” is an elegant waste of time
- Cigarettes are the vice America needs
- Well that’s one reason to buy yen…
- Musicians, don’t just blame the labels for your lack of dough
- Giving stock away to staff doesn’t absolve share buybacks
- A penny for Macpherson’s thoughts on the nominal anchor
- Monopoly and its discontents
- A State of Mind
- America is not the least protectionist country in the world
- This is nuts, when does Netflix crash?
- No Bloomberg, the world’s richest people did not lose $114bn…
- Someone is wrong on the internet, government employee pensions and passive investing edition
- Someone is wrong on the internet, possibly fragile
- Someone is wrong on the internet, consumer financial regulation edition
- Someone is wrong on the internet: tontine tokens [Update]
- Someone is wrong on the internet, road economics edition
- Someone is wrong on the internet, wages and the stock market edition