SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the a-step-in-the-right-direction dept.
Google bans microtargeting and "false claims" in political ads
The country's largest digital advertising platform is trying to take a stand heading into the 2020 election this week, as it both limits the targeting of political ads and warns would-be political advertisers about making false claims.
On Wednesday, Google made an announcement "clarifying" its advertising policy for political ads, making it clear that outright lies are theoretically not welcome. "Whether you're running for office or selling office furniture, we apply the same ads policies to everyone; there are no carve-outs," the company said, adding:
It's against our policies for any advertiser to make a false claim—whether it's a claim about the price of a chair or a claim that you can vote by text message, that election day is postponed, or that a candidate has died.
To make this more explicit, we're clarifying our ads policies and adding examples to show how our policies prohibit things like "deep fakes" (doctored and manipulated media), misleading claims about the census process, and ads or destinations making demonstrably false claims that could significantly undermine participation or trust in an electoral or democratic process.
That said, the company adds, they can't judge "every political claim, counterclaim, and insinuation," so they expect the number of ads they block to be low.
Those ads will also have to be aimed at a comparatively broad segment of the population, Google said, to the dismay of campaigns on both the left and the right. While the company will allow political ads to be targeted to users based on age, gender, and postal code, it will not allow more narrow "microtargeting" to highly segmented, granular audiences such as those based on public voter records or political affiliation.
Back to you, Facebook
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday November 25 2019, @02:16PM (13 children)
Sillycone Valley has been the default gatekeeper for over a decade now. Here, Google is flexing it's muscles, to see how far they can push the concept. They will be the arbiters in determining what is "true" and what is "factual".
A hotly contested election in Louisiana just finished, and one of the main messages concerned just how corrupt the incumbent is. So, uhhh, if Google doesn't agree that the incumbent is corrupt, they refuse the ads? Or, if Google agrees that the incumbent is corrupt, but one of the bullet points in the ad can't be corroborated, the ad is refused? Likewise, the mayor of Houston. He made billions disappear, but it can't be proved in court that he skimmed off the top, any ads concerning that misappropriation will be refused? Similarly, that same mayor has an "intern" who was paid $90,000/year with a nice apartment, transportation, and travel expenses. Any ad that implies the "intern" was the mayor's gay lover will be refused?
The gatekeepers need to be brought down. I don't think there need to be gatekeepers at all. Put the data out there, and let the voters decide.
Someone will disagree with me here. I ask that someone(s) how you would react if the Catholic Church were to volunteer to perform the same functions that Google is performing here. The Church will do all the "fact-checking", and decide whether a political ad should be accepted.
Oh, great. I hear the damned fool Catholics cheering for that idea. Let's put those shoes on the other foot. Let's put a Council of Muslim Imams in charge of the gate.
Do we get the idea yet that gate keepers are unwanted, unneeded, surplus, and worse.
“Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.”
― Pravin Lal
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 25 2019, @02:41PM (2 children)
Just don't use Google or look at their ads.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday November 25 2019, @03:14PM (1 child)
Sounds good. Except, it seems other search engines rely on Google, to greater or lesser extents.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 25 2019, @05:33PM
Which is why I only use Archie [wikipedia.org] and Veronica [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 4, Informative) by Immerman on Monday November 25 2019, @02:58PM (8 children)
>“Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.”
Oh certainly. But we're talking declining to run ads here - that's not cutting off your flow of information to you, it's cutting off the distribution channel by which you are delivered to propaganda artists.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by ThatIrritatingGuy on Tuesday November 26 2019, @04:29AM (7 children)
> But we're talking declining to run ads here
We are talking deciding to run SELECT ads here. I am all for removing all ads, but when an entity decides which ones to let through and which ones not, they are in fact deciding which information you have access to.
Switching to propaganda in this context does not change much either, as they are deciding which propaganda gets to be promoted (I think that's even worse).
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday November 26 2019, @06:32AM (6 children)
You do realize you've just described basically every media company since the dawn of politics, right?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday November 26 2019, @09:06AM (4 children)
Mostly true. Pravda would never have published a single word, that didn't glorify the Party, and in the process, Glorious Leaders. North Korea media doesn't worry about any Party, instead concentrating on glorifying Illustrious Leader directly. From that starting point, there is a spectrum, and near the other end of that spectrum, you'll find US law concerning equal access, and equal time. Of course, I'm unfamiliar with other nations and their legalities, customs, or whatever regarding "fair" reporting and advertising. But, obviously, there is a spectrum. In some countries, the media is blatantly a propaganda tool serving the government, while in other countries, the media serves it's own goals.
In the US today, we have an unholy union between one party, and the majority of mainstream media. The two share a narrative. The majority of our big tech companies have bought into that same narrative. Together, they put on a more-or-less united front, that I find repulsive. It's difficult to say whether that united front is better, or worse, than old timey Pravda.
I will point out that Pravda had much more justification than today's united front. Russia had recently fought an existential war, in which she lost a significant portion of her population. More, the Soviet had recently absorbed populations that were formerly hostile to Russia. There was a necessity to unite those populations, or the nation would tear itself apart. Hindsight informs us that the Soviet, Russia, and Pravda ultimately failed - but in that day and age, it all looked good, from the inside.
Today's united front of Dems, MSM, and high tech? Utter bullshit, and I generally fail to express the proper contempt for it.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday November 26 2019, @03:09PM (3 children)
>Today's united front of Dems, MSM, and high tech? Utter bullshit, and I generally fail to express the proper contempt for it.
You think it's that much worse than the science-denying unholy union between Republicans, religion, and mega-corporations?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday November 26 2019, @11:08PM (2 children)
No matter what you do, people are going to worship some god or another. So, what are you going to do? Shoot them? Somehow, not even the Soviet could shoot enough people to wipe out religion. Be happy that Gubbermint can't get away with establishing a state religion. Be happy that Gubbermint can make no laws respecing religion. If they could, there wouldn't be a lot of difference between the US and the UK. You would almost certainly attend the Church of 'Murica, of for no other reason than to be eligible for promotions at work. And, of course, scholarships would be gobbled up by children who attend the Church of 'Murica. Your kid didn't get one? Sux2BU, maybe you should join the Church!
When I hear people whining about the church and state, in this country, I know damned well they have never imagined how bad things could be. Some random representative is overheard saying "God bless you!" after someone sneezes, and a whole lot of panties get wadded up.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday November 27 2019, @04:02AM (1 child)
To the contrary I'm *very* aware of how bad it could be - which is exactly why I'm so worried about how bad it has become. We've got almost half the politicians in this country routinely calling for laws to be passed on religious grounds. That's worrying. That's one good rigged election away from Christian Sharia Law.
I have no problem with people worshiping - I do so myself. I do however have a *huge* problem when the politicians and clergy start making common cause - that rarely bodes well for anyone else.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday November 27 2019, @07:18AM
Christian Sharia is not happening. The greatest threat of that happening, is the Latin invasion, but that ain't happening either. Mexico especially has an active anti-Christian underground, or counter culture. The gangs and cartels like having the general population subservient to the Catholic Church, but they don't follow the teachings of the Church. Every saint has his/her anti-saint in Mexican culture.
The US is not moving back toward the Puritan days, but is moving toward Mexican and Latin American culture. Religion will pose a threat to the "liberal" party in the future, but not in the way you seem to think.
Note that the Latin population was responsible for passing Proposition 8 in California. The one-man-one-woman-marriage constitutional amendment. It took an activist judge to shoot down Prop 8, and they couldn't find another judge with the seniority and the balls to overrule the activist judge.
(Score: 1) by ThatIrritatingGuy on Tuesday November 26 2019, @04:22PM
How is this related to your previous comment?
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 25 2019, @03:53PM
It's not that simple.
First they need to see a news article saying it's a fake right-wing conspiracy, written by a journalist who used to be a Democratic Party activist and published in a newspaper run by a Democratic Party donor. Groups like Journolist can have such articles published in twenty such newspapers on the same day. It'll be funded by the State Department [federaltimes.com] under a project for fighting fake news.
They are. Where do you think "Social Justice" comes from? It's a Jesuit ideology bankrolled by the keepers of the Vatican treasury, the Rothschild family.
It's called the Muslim Public Affairs Council and they are also part of the group that Google uses to decide what's true or false. DHS/NSC had an "Inclusive America Project" to place MPAC/ISNA/CAIR political officers into high positions of power because Social Justice says you need Diversity! You might have heard of it when the Muslims in charge of Microsoft, under Suhail Khan, were caught monopolizing the game industry press a few years ago. War authority was used to stop anyone from complaining about it and to send all their identities to Qatar.