startups

Google Changed Its Political Ad Policy. Will Facebook Be Next? – The New York Times


This was a bad week for the head of the Trump campaign, Brad Parscale, but not because of the blockbuster testimony of America’s ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, in the impeachment hearings linking his boss to the pay-for-play scheme in Ukraine.

Google announced on Wednesday that it would start to rein in its political advertising business. Mr. Parscale — an Olympic manipulator of digital information who specializes in creating disingenuous political ads filled with conspiracy theories — will now have one less weapon in his digital arsenal to wage his scorched-earth re-election campaign.

He responded to the news with typical pique, tweeting at Google: “Political elites & Big Tech want to rig elections — Dem primary & 2020 included. They’re targeting Trump because he’s the big dog, but they’re after Dems like Sanders & Warren. Won’t stop until they control all digital political speech.”

Google does not plan to completely ban political advertising. But the new policy will hinder many political campaign operatives — and Mr. Parscale most of all since he is the most deft user of tech tools in politics. The Trump campaign continues to outspend and outperform all the Democratic wannabes on digital combined.

Campaigns will still be able to target ads on Google based on users’ age, gender, location and the content of websites users have visited. But now they cannot direct their ads using several specific audience attributes, like political affiliation or public voting records. Campaigns will no longer be able to microtarget — tailoring ads to people’s specific data and behavior — which is the online equivalent of whispering millions of different messages into zillions of different ears for maximum effect and with minimum scrutiny.

And political organizations will no longer be able to reach “affinity audiences,” groups of users who are bundled according to similar habits. Google also clarified its rules around lack of truth advertising, banning ads with “demonstrably false claims that could significantly undermine participation or trust” in elections. And more: Campaigns cannot use specific names they have collected to target ads, and Google also disallowed “remarketing” to those who visit campaign web sites.

Twitter’s recent decision to get out of the political ad business altogether set this in motion. But Twitter’s move was mostly symbolic: Its political advertising business is small and not particularly critical for candidates, since they can continue to tweet to their heart’s delight.

Google — the search giant that also owns YouTube — is another story. Google and Facebook are the only two Big Tech players that matter in digital advertising, given the vast amounts of data they have sucked up on every aspect of the digital lives of billions of users.

In its public statements, Google sought to tie itself closely to old media, which has a lot of experience with political advertising. “This will align our approach to election ads with long-established practices in media such as TV, radio and print, and result in election ads being more widely seen and available for public discussion,” wrote a vice president for Google’s ads, Scott Spencer, sounding as if he were older and wiser than tech has been.

All eyes are now on Facebook. Google has largely skated clear of the mess around false political ads and disinformation, at least compared with Facebook, which has gotten the lion’s share of the complaints.

“Twitter fired the starting gun, and Google just cranked it up to 11,” said Eric Wilson, a Republican digital advertising strategist, in an interview with The New York Times. “Now the pressure is on Facebook — they’re going to have to act.”

Will Facebook finally get serious about the problems resulting from political advertising on its platform?

Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s chief executive, hasn’t yet budged on this: He recently said that the company would continue to allow politicians to lie in ads. And Facebook has decided not remove some of the more egregious examples of disinformation. “Drunk Nancy Pelosi” is one such case — and they keep coming.

Still, despite Mr. Zuckerberg’s recent pronouncements, there have been murmurs leaking out of Facebook about political ad changes of its own. Of course, any change of policy at Facebook lies with Mr. Zuckerberg, who has total control of the company and is often pushed to make policy shifts only after disasters stack up.

So Mr. Parscale tweeted this week to an audience of one, Mr. Zuckerberg, reacting to these numerous reports that Facebook is contemplating making its own changes: “@facebook wants to take important tools away from us for 2020. Tools that help reach more great Americans & lift voices the media & big tech choose to ignore!”

Translation: If Facebook imposes some reasonable new rules and restrictions on political advertising to make it more transparent and less easy to manipulate, however can we gin up the next Pizzagate?

Many campaigns are also worried about the Google restrictions — several Democrats and grass-roots organizations have noted they might hurt smaller organizations and their ability to find voters. But a Facebook limit on paid political ads would have much more impact on the whole presidential race.

So whether Google finally gives Facebook the courage — and cover — to make its own changes in its fruitful relationship with Mr. Trump, or stand pat, has all of Washington agog.

Mr. Sondland might be where the political drama was taking place, but make no mistake: The real show is here with Big Tech.



READ SOURCE

Leave a Reply

This website uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you accept our use of cookies.