
Facebook to publish data on Irish abortion referendum ads - AnatMl2
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/20/facebook-publish-data-irish-abortion-referendum-ad-spending-targeting-voters
======
JeanMarcS
Despite the fact that transparency is a good thing, what will happen now ?
Every time someone loose an election the will blame Facebook (or Google or
anyone) ?

I understand that when the result are tight it’s important to be fully
transparent, but the election looser always have an excuse (It’s FB, it was
too sunny so people went picnic, etc...)

I’m speaking generally, not on this specific election. Just wondering what
future elections result will be

~~~
Gwafa_Hazid
There's a quote in the article from the leader of the Irish green party, Eamon
Ryan, that to me underlines why this is important, "We want transparency about
online political advertising so hidden funding does not distort the democratic
process."

It's that hidden funding that scares me. Whether it's massive spending by
mega-corporations or targeted ads by foreign intelligence agencies. We can't
understand how our democracy is being affected unless we know who is behind
the money.

~~~
yellowcherry
I'd take this concern seriously if we weren't 50 years or more into carefully
chosen and promoted intentionally divisive issues shaping what everyone thinks
of politics.

~~~
duxup
What does that mean?

~~~
Retric
Abortion is exactly the kind of issue that has zero impact on those in power,
who can always go to another country, but influences elections.

In terms of shaping views, welfare was designed to allow single mothers to
stay home and raise their kids. Yet by twisting the issue people no longer
support the idea.

Unions are no longer seen as something that helps 'you', they now help 'other'
people.

~~~
duxup
Are you saying they don't actually care about the issue?

~~~
Retric
Clearly some people care about the issue and many say they care about it. But
in terms of overall importance the tax bill for example got vastly more
support. So, I suspect actual support is rather low.

In other words people might vote yes, yet at the same time prefer it not come
up for a vote.

~~~
duxup
I'm not sure I get where you are going. It might be a divisive issue but
saying that simply because it comes up and you think something else is more
important doesn't mean it is being used just to be divisive.

~~~
yellowcherry
It doesn't "simply come up"

Tens of millions of dollars keep it in the forefront of your brain. There is
no accident here. There is no "simply comes up"

~~~
duxup
So the amount of money spent means people don't really care or it's an
illegitimate topic or something?

I'm suspicious of some topics and the support they get myself, but your
approach here seems much too fast to dismiss a topic that maybe you don't
like. It's way too easy to just say something is not organic or illegitimate
when the issue is unpleasant rather than really deal with it. I don't know if
anyone has a good way of getting their finger on legitimate, or topics that
are more "important" than others in a democracy.

~~~
yellowcherry
I couldn't care less about abortion on a personal level. It has zero impact on
my life and never will.

But it's very clear to me that it's an artificially promoted issue that plays
on people's emotions.

Divisive issues are not accidents. They're focusgrouped and marketed with
extreme care.

~~~
duxup
>Divisive issues are not accidents.

I don't think I understand what you're saying. There can't be divisive issues?

------
iandioch
This is great news. However, I saw the most ads on Youtube; it would be great
if Google followed suit and released similar data.

I hope this sets a precedent for publishing ad spending in future referenda
too.

~~~
mattmanser
It says in the article:

 _Under pressure from Irish politicians and activists, including the non-
partisan Transparent Referendum Institute, Google banned all referendum-linked
advertising on its sites._

Did this only happen part way through? Or were people still advertising,
Google just claimed they weren't?

~~~
ploika
It happened about a week or two out from the vote, in a campaign that had been
officially been running for a couple of months (I can't remember how long
exactly), and had seen low-key unofficial campaigning for easily a couple of
years at that point.

~~~
rusk
I think really there's been a lot of campaigning going on since it was first
enacted back in 1983. Even the Attorney General warned of unintended
consequences.

The supporters of the 8th are highly organised, and motivated (as anyone would
be if in their head they actually equated any and all abortion to killing of
actual babies), and any revisitation had been continuously thwarted.

However, it's really in the last 5 years since the Death of Savita
Halappanavar [0] that the issue took hold in the public consciousness, and
campaigning really began in earnest.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar)

------
kanox
Using the banner of "transparency" to stifle political advertising is just
censorship through other means.

We should instead explicitly allow and protect unlimited anonymous political
messaging.

~~~
phonebucket
"We should instead explicitly allow and protect unlimited anonymous political
messaging."

Richest party wins? Is that how democracy should work?

~~~
gedy
Well "democracy" already has a problem if voters are so vacuous and easily
swayed by paid advertising.

~~~
CodeCube
There's a reason that advertising works ... they tap into the deepest human
instincts and urges. As much as anyone wants to believe they are too smart to
be swayed by advertising, it's only hubris.

~~~
d0lph
Any data/citations on this? I feel like myself and most people would not
change their views(especially on abortion) based on a few seconds looking at
an ad on facebook.

~~~
CodeCube
With regards to political views, the point isn't in any way to _change_ your
view, it's to _use_ your view. By taking out ads that stoke someone's feelings
about abortions, they can get them to follow a FB page, which can then in the
future be used to promote other things (like specific political candidates),
or to spread propaganda (like, "hey look at this fake news over here").

And thus, by association ... your views can certainly change.

> "If this person/page that I agree with so strongly on abortion (or whatever)
> has this other opinion over here, I should probably give that a second
> consideration"

------
Shivetya
as long as it remains anonymized I see no problem with revealing the money. it
is when it becomes public who donated that issues arise. at most I could see
revealing country of origin

------
dfxm12
I wonder if this is going to be a one-off, or if perhaps this is a test for
larger elections/referendums to come.

