Restricting Political Ads on Social Media Misses the Point

Recently, Twitter and Google have announced new limits on political advertising, which have in large part been welcomed with applause by journalists and the public. While placing restrictions on these types of ads may appear to be a solution on the surface, these moves are merely cosmetic changes that do nothing to address the foundational problems. Data harvesting and targeted ads of any kind by web/social media companies are the real threat to democracies worldwide. Let me explain how bad actors will easily subvert these superficial new restrictions.

Following Facebook’s controversial policy, announced on September 24, that it will stop fact-checking political ads, the backlash has been swift and widespread. Harsh criticism has been leveled against Facebook by journalists, presidential candidates, and even comedian Sacha Baron Cohen who delivered a viral takedown of Facebook during his November 21 speech before the Anti-Defamation League. Seen by many as a direct rebuke to Facebook, Twitter announced on October 30 that it will ban all political ads on its platform, releasing its policy framework on November 15. On November 20, Google announced it will limit political ads that target people based on their inferred interests from their search or web browsing histories. As the pressure on Facebook has mounted, it’s been reported that even Facebook is now weighing implementing some restrictions on highly targeted political ads.

The tech giants have claimed that their new limits on political ads are intended to protect voters from targeted political disinformation in order to defend the integrity of our democratic elections. The reality is that the recent policy changes by these companies are merely superficial efforts calculated to garner positive PR, while doing little damage to their bottom lines. These companies will continue to cause severe damage to democracies worldwide because they have only one objective: increasing profits — and there are plenty of profits to be had. According to the consulting firm Borrell Associates Inc., the total spending on digital political ads in the U.S. is expected to reach $2.9 billion in 2020, increased from $1.4 billion in 2016.

If these companies were truly interested in securing our elections and democracies, they would put an end to data harvesting and microtargeted ads altogether. They won’t do that, of course, because that would mean upending their entire business model. These giants all employ the business model known as surveillance capitalism, in which they collect our personal data and then share/sell it to advertisers, political operatives, governments and other entities who use it to covertly manipulate our decisions to their own benefit. As long as these companies continue to engage in surveillance capitalism, democratic societies worldwide are in danger.

Even Twitter, which has gone the furthest by banning all political ads, has done nothing to address the core problem. Twitter’s new policy mandates that it will ban all ads referencing candidates, political parties, elections or legislation. Banning these types of ads does nothing to stop political operatives, governments and countless types of entities and individuals from paying to target mass numbers of people and select constituencies with disinformation that can affect opinions and elections. As we saw in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, the Brexit Referendum and other elections worldwide, Russia and other bad actors routinely use social media to sow discord, spread disinformation and exacerbate divisiveness in democratic societies, often without referencing any particular candidates or legislation.

These new policy changes also do nothing to address the algorithmic manipulation employed by all of the current mainstream social giants, which is yet another tool in the toolkit used by bad actors to meddle in our elections. All of these giants have business models that rely on advertising and manipulate the newsfeeds of their users in order to increase engagement because that earns them more money from advertisers. In a 2017 interview, Twitter co-founder Evan Williams described how the algorithms of Twitter, Facebook and the other current social media giants “reward extremes” and amplify content akin to “car crashes” because it drives higher engagement. The content that is most outrageous, distressing and polarizing gets boosted and grows the most widespread on these social networks. Russia and other bad actors have been shown to take advantage of this system by creating bot armies that Like and Retweet “organic” divisive political posts en masse, gaming the algorithms of these social networks in order to amplify such posts and reach millions of people without creating actual “ads.”

Until Facebook, Google, Twitter and the other current tech giants end their practice of surveillance capitalism and algorithmic manipulation, the problem of election meddling by bad actors will not go away. It will only grow more pervasive. Limiting or even banning political ads is nothing more than a façade by these companies in order to gain positive publicity and temporarily pacify the public. Don’t buy into this latest smokescreen. People worldwide are growing increasingly concerned about social media’s role interfering in our elections, and for good reason.

Mark Weinstein is a world-renowned privacy expert and the CEO of MeWe, the award-winning social network with a Privacy Bill of Rights and the №1 Trending Social Site.

📝 Read this story later in Journal.

👩‍💻 Wake up every Sunday morning to the week’s most noteworthy stories in Tech waiting in your inbox. Read the Noteworthy in Tech newsletter.