
Facebook Considering Political Ad Blackout Before US Election - atlasunshrugged
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-07-10/facebook-considers-political-ad-blackout-ahead-of-u-s-election
======
rhyswallace
Interested to see the graph of political ad spend on Facebook in the final
days leading up to election day in 2016.

Some countries, like France, already ban political advertising in the few last
days before election day, in efforts to avoid last-ditch misinformation
campaigns at the last moment. They also ban political advertising on social
media in general though, so not exactly pommes to apples.

~~~
atlasunshrugged
Me too, I know Acronym tracks this week by week now but I haven't seen
historical data ([https://www.anotheracronym.org/newsletter/fwiw-voter-
registr...](https://www.anotheracronym.org/newsletter/fwiw-voter-registration-
in-crisis/) from their newsletter this AM).

They do ban it, although I'd be curious to see if the parties here actually
abide by the ban

------
jmole
Why don't FCC/FEC rules that apply to television election ads apply to
Facebook ads? Or if they do, then what's the difference?

~~~
anon776
FEC is unable to do anything right now because they do not have enough
appointees. Jon Oliver did a great episode on it.

------
ben7799
Seems pointless unless they start vetting every ad to ensure it's not
political.

It's amazing they don't vet ads to begin with since it does sound like they
have those armies of contractors checking every post... but the posts aren't
paid...

~~~
justaguy88
those armies of contractors only check the posts that are reported

------
atlasunshrugged
Interesting thread from the CTO of the DNC on the potential ban

[https://twitter.com/nellwyn/status/1281673596767805447](https://twitter.com/nellwyn/status/1281673596767805447)

------
jonplackett
> considering imposing a ban on political ads on its social network in the
> _days_ leading up to the U.S. election in November

Try months, or at least weeks.

------
op03
Kanye does not need Facebook.

------
julianeon
There's an interesting shift that seems to be happening at FaceBook. The logic
is basically:

If Trump loses the election, we should be out in front of any changes the new
adminstration would consider. If we can do an easy layup, we should take it.

Remember, FaceBook is famously numbers-driven. They, probably more than anyone
else, believe in the power of numbers and algorithms. They probably even have
insight into political groups and grass-roots trends that we don't have. But
all the public data we know about is leaning away from Trump, at the moment.

So they could aggressively back a loser, and then get punched in the face if,
as expected, he loses. (Sure, they'd be better off if he wins - but the
numbers must bear that out).

Or they could make a couple of tactical adjustments now, and if the political
tide turns against them, they could truthfully claim, oh we've been moving in
this direction for a while now - glad you noticed!

It seems like an increasing number of FaceBook executive decisions are
unfavorable to Trump these days. I don't believe that's entirely based on
principles or lofty abstractions - I think it's smart positioning, based on
the data.

The data is pointing away from Trump, and FaceBook is adjusting.

~~~
Aperocky
The whole premise of your article is that by taking ad money facebook will
face either administrative or voluntary backlash, which I don't think will
happen.

Political ads are airing every day on radios and youtube, and you don't hear
it as much. Just like Google getting hate for _attempting_ a search engine in
China while Bing has _always_ been there. You can't predict the outrage
machine because it is never fair.

~~~
julianeon
I think people have read my comment as though I hate Trump and I'm gloating
that FaceBook is turning against him. But I don't think that's a fair reading.

I am trying to describe what "is" and not "what ought to be."

In this instance I am making a point that I believe is underexamined: if you
look at FaceBook through the lens of political positioning, it can be very
powerful.

If it was the case today that Democrats had been in power for decades and
there was some kind of realignment towards Republicans (as happened in the
90's), I think you'd see the reverse of this: FaceBook elevating conservative
voices to moderation positions, or advancing a message of pure neutrality.

I've worked at Bay Area tech companies. They are usually very attuned to the
climate they're in, and maneuvering to be in a better position.

The average person can be like bah, who cares? I'd rather live my life, enjoy
my freedom. But a tech company has a lot more on the line.

And, in my experience, companies like FaceBook have even more to gain, or to
lose. Millions of dollars, even hundreds of millions. Possible anti-
competitive lawsuits and actions.

So, for them, a defeatist attitude of "it's all unfair so why bother" isn't
good enough. Some ambitious lawyer or exec will advocate "I can do better than
that - here's how" and lead their company in a different direction - and
that's true for FaceBook also.

I'd also make the observation that FaceBook is trying to get regulatory
approval for a cryptocurrency, and that's a delicate thing. For that, being
viewed favorably, even by individual politicians, matters.

So for all those reasons (and please don't view it as a criticism of
FaceBook), I think it makes sense that some of the things issuing out of HQ
now are motivated by the political climate we find ourselves in.

Remember, FaceBook is a famously future-facing company. They invested in
WhatsApp years before social was dominant, seeing the future 10 years in
advance. And people believe they're not paying close attention to the next 3
months?

It's in their DNA. It's part of how they grew to be such a giant, successful
company. And if you examine their actions, fairly but objectively, the
evidence is there to see.

------
nkingsy
I remember reading a story on here of a former Mormon who advertised only to
the email addresses of their still-Mormon family.

This kind of power has some scary implications, and it is precisely what made
Facebook turn into an advertising giant.

The fact that they’ve left these systems largely in place after watching the
damage they’ve caused means facebook execs think changing these systems would
be a financial disaster.

Edit: changed ambiguous wording.

~~~
mikeshank
Would anyone really assume these systems wouldn't be left in place by an
advertising monster?

