
Facebook and Google Helped Anti-Refugee Campaign in Swing States - JumpCrisscross
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-18/facebook-and-google-helped-anti-refugee-campaign-in-swing-states
======
iMerNibor
> “It’s a tricky issue,” she says, because once the companies decide they’ll
> do hands-on work for political groups, “it’s hard for them to say we’ll help
> these groups, but not others.”

Exactly this, if you help one you gotta help all of them unless it's against
the law for them do to so (banned parties).

Stop with the stupid policing of "hate speech", this will just lead to
anything even remotely questionable getting deleted/flagged (see current
youtube ad issues, where basically everything gets demonetized and you have to
appeal that to maybe get it back)

> The issue gets thornier when it comes to working with groups on the fringes
> of the political spectrum.

NO it does not get thornier/worse or anything like that, just let the parties
advertise like any other party would be able to. Voters will decide if they
want that party to represent them - that's not up to media or other any
entity.

Edit: formatting, clarification

~~~
Cenk
As someone who grew up in Germany I can tell you that banning some hate speech
does most certainly _not_ lead to "anything remotely questionable getting
deleted/flagged". Holocaust denial and racism are not normal political views,
and pretending otherwise is disingenuous.

~~~
axaxs
While I agree with your sentiment -now-, it is a slippery slope. As recent as
what...50 or so years ago, racism was a 'normal political view' so to speak,
in USA at least...depending on your definition of normal. What's to say that
someone in 2070 saying 'Speaking out against communism and AI leadership are
not normal political views'. Normal is always going to be a 'moving target',
and banning everything outside of 'normal' doesn't seem conducive to a free
environment.

~~~
Cenk
But nobody is suggesting banning "everything outside of normal". This is not
an all-or-nothing proposition, there’s no reason for the slope to be slippery.
You can ban holocaust denial and nothing else, or ban hate speech that fits a
very specific set of criteria.

Did banning shouting "Fire!" in a movie theatre lead to all speech being
banned in all movie theatres?

~~~
VMG
> Did banning shouting "Fire!" in a movie theatre lead to all speech being
> banned in all movie theatres?

No, it led to people calling for the resistance to the WWI draft being
imprisoned:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States),
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater)

------
dvdcxn
Bit of a non story - they offer the same services to any well funded ad agency
regardless of political leaning. What would have been more concerning is if
they rejected the agency - as this would show that google exercise political
bias in who it chooses to collaborate with and target ads for.

~~~
empath75
It’s a non story legally but I’m sure a lot of people will rethink whether
they want to continue to contribute to facebook’s bottom line by remaining on
the service.

~~~
iMerNibor
I would prefer if facebook/google would not decide which political party is
worthy to advertise on their services or not.

Once they start policing that it'll lower the bar for further blocking and we
might end up with personal taste playing a role down the line.

------
aluhut
There was a thread yesterday (on working at google) where one former google
employee commented on how some google leader got on stage and cried about the
election result.

How does this fit all together?!

~~~
AJ007
Google publicaly claims to penalize invasive and annoying ads such as
interstitial ads while also encouraging their ad platform users to enable them
on their sites. Google is large enough of an organization now that it can no
longer coordinate a cohesive strategy.

I can’t speak for Facebook, but given the bad and deceptive advice Google’s ad
representatives give, perhaps this story should be applauded.

------
jnty
Surely isn't so much an issue of political bias, but the fact they happily
helped circulate an ad designed to provoke hatred and fear through clear
falsehoods.

~~~
thriftwy
What are falsehoods here? Is "in 30 years our country will be changed for
worse with global warming unless we change" non-falsehood, while "in 30 years
our country will be changed for worse with muslim influx unless we change"
falsehood? Say who?

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _What are falsehoods here?_

>> “French schoolchildren were being trained to fight for the caliphate,
jihadi fighters were celebrated at the Arc de Triomphe, and the ‘Mona Lisa’
was covered in a burka” [1].

[1] TFA

~~~
thriftwy
Isn't that a glimpse in hypothetical future of France?

Don't say you can't imagine global warming clip where Arc de Triomphe will be
a partially submerged pagoda and Mona Lisa is accessible by gondola

and "French schoolchildren were being trained to fight for the caliphate" \- I
bet _some_ of them already are. Where else ISIS fighters from EU countries
come from?

~~~
lumberjack
> Isn't that a glimpse in hypothetical future of France?

No.

------
h0l0cube
Campaigns shouldn't be discriminated on their political leaning, but there
certainly is a responsibility for Facebook to moderate content that is
patently false (e.g. the Islamic take-over of France) or could lead to the
harm of others (e.g. hate speech). All sides of politics are guilty of
sensationalism and distortion, but that's distinct from outright lies.

Facebook and Google could be forgiven for not having their eyes on all content
that goes through their systems, but in this case they've actively assisted
and paid special attention to questionable content. Microtargeting is a
relatively nascent form of political persuasion and has it's own unique
problems, foremostly that is largely opaque. It stands in contrast to the
national conversation playing out on just a handful of television and radio
stations. There's no easy way to police the integrity of political campaigning
when no one can see the larger picture.

There needs to be protections by the law, or perhaps clever hacker
technologies, to protect people from being relegated to their own cul-de-sacs.
For instance, there's no way for me to know for sure that everyone who visits
this comments section is able to see what I've written. This is a fundamental
problem that the internet is facing and we all should be worried.

~~~
briantakita
> patently false (e.g. the Islamic take-over of France) or could lead to the
> harm of others (e.g. hate speech)

"Islam take-over of France" & "hate speech" are both conceptual
interpretations & difficult to claim as false or true, other than through the
lens of an ideological system. Many people disagree with Sharia Law & it's
relationship with non-believers; seeing it as a threat to their own culture &
even to their safety.

Claiming that this is a false threat is akin to telling a woman that a seedy
man cat calling her is not threatening, as most men who cat-call do not
physically harm women on the street.

Humans have a finely tuned sense of what is threatening regardless of the
reported statistics (also subject to interpretation & modeling errors); it's
what has kept us alive.

There's also an integrity problem with media. Many people simply do not
believe what is being reported to them, depending on the source. This happens
on all sides. What we are seeing is a bifurcation of reality, leading to
different notions of true & false; even different interpretation of facts as
the definition of "fact" is loosely used.

> There needs to be protections by the law, or perhaps clever hacker
> technologies, to protect people from being relegated to their own cul-de-
> sacs

This is a tough problem as it's in nature, a cultural & biological problem,
subject to interpretation. Making somebody open-minded toward a worldview that
is in opposition (incompatible) of one's own is not necessarily something that
would be desirable; as in the case of "Stockholm Syndrome".

~~~
h0l0cube
> "Islam take-over of France" & "hate speech" are both conceptual
> interpretations & difficult to claim as false or true, other than through
> the lens of an ideological system. Many people disagree with Sharia Law &
> it's relationship with non-believers; seeing it as a threat to their own
> culture & even to their safety.

Look at the article. Watch the video. Tell me what's _not_ false:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=41&v=xIJVoumWYtQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=41&v=xIJVoumWYtQ)

> This is a tough problem as it's in nature, a cultural & biological problem,
> subject to interpretation. Making somebody open-minded toward a worldview
> that is in opposition (incompatible) of one's own is not necessarily
> something that would be desirable; as in the case of "Stockholm Syndrome".

As far as I'm aware, even if you want to opt-in to non-targeted advertising,
you can't do that. Simply having that option would be a simple start.

~~~
briantakita
> Look at the article. Watch the video. Tell me what's not false:

It's art. Parody. You may not like it, but I can guarantee to you that some of
the art & parody that you like is not liked by other people. The question is,
are you going to act like a fundamentalist for you belief & demand that this
"sacrilege" be censored? If yes, then will things that others find offensive
that you don't be censored as well? Where does it end?

That aside, maybe you missing/ignoring the frequent attacks by
Islamists/Migrants or large parts of Paris becoming non-French & non-Western.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1Js8wntdk4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1Js8wntdk4)

Demanding that all nations become "multi-cultural" is xenophobic against the
host nations. See the definition of Colonialism...

> As far as I'm aware, even if you want to opt-in to non-targeted advertising,
> you can't do that. Simply having that option would be a simple start.

Are you talking about ads over the internet? I'm talking about life in
general. You can't ignore or target certain things like who your neighbors are
& if your worldviews are compatible with your neighbors. You also can't ignore
the weakening of culture & families in favor of a nihilistic prevailing
culture. The people are unhappy with the trend. You can opt-out of the
information or pay attention...

~~~
h0l0cube
> It's art. Parody.

> That aside, maybe you missing/ignoring the frequent attacks by
> Islamists/Migrants or large parts of Paris becoming non-French & non-
> Western.

This video in question was being shown in the US. It's a blatant stereo-type I
use, but one that has been tested time and again, but the typical U.S. citizen
is naive to the rest of the world, and it would be fair to say that the
average person in any western nation outside Europe has little conception of
what Paris is meant to look like. My parents, who are elderly and not well-
travelled would easily be convinced.

Given this, it's not hard to see how people encountering this video in their
Facebook feed might be confused for thinking aspects of it are real. And for
those that do see it as parody, might still think it plausible that the
crescent moon would be a-top the Eiffel Tower.

I think this kind of distortion happens on all sides of politics, and I think
it shouldn't be tolerated on any of them.

> Demanding that all nations become "multi-cultural" is xenophobic against the
> host nations. See the definition of Colonialism...

I'm not sure you understand the definition of Xenophobia.

xenophobia n. dislike of or prejudice against people from other countries.
(source: google search)

At last check, France is predominantly caucasian of at least one French-born
parent 86% (75% of both)* and French-speaking 86%#. Anyone born overseas, and
whose first language is not English are clearly not even close to the
majority.

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_France#Births_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_France#Births_by_country_of_birth_of_the_parents)

#
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_France](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_France)

> Are you talking about ads over the internet? I'm talking about life in
> general.

And I'm not. But I take you're point, there's a lot of people that don't look
and behave like you entering a country you love, and you're concerned by this.
This wouldn't bother me, but I can share some concern in the rise of militant
extremist Islam and could see how this might cause you to view all immigration
as problematic.

The video you linked looks like the 'multicultural' district of any city I've
been too. There's people of all walks of life visible, not overwhelmingly
Islamist. It's also run down, like every multicultural district which usually
finds the place with the cheapest rent and access to facilities. I strongly
doubt this scene represents the whole, or even a majority, of Paris, but I
haven't been in some 10 years, so I couldn't know.

Edit: Unfinished sentence about xenophobia

------
herf
Regardless of whether or not the companies helped, there is no historical
precedent for this kind of "speech": enormous concentrations of wealth
combined with super-effective targeting.

Even if you were royalty or a pope in history, your speech was not magnified
like this.

------
tareqak
Techmeme Summary: _Bloomberg: Sources: Facebook and Google helped Secure
America Now, a conservative nonprofit advocacy group, target ads for an anti-
refugee campaign in swing states_

------
baybal2
>Unlike Russian efforts to secretly influence the 2016 election via social
media, this American-led campaign was aided by direct collaboration with
employees of Facebook and Google. They helped target the ads to more
efficiently reach the intended audiences, according to internal reports from
the ad agency that ran the campaign, as well as five people involved with the
efforts.

FB did the same thing in Russia, when they were still trying to flirt with the
regime, naively believeing that they can come out with net benefit from such
relationship. The regime never treated them any much differently from any
other of its pawns.

FB was openly taking money from Russian/KGB campaigners round 2010,
dispatching campaign consultants and overall treating them as their first tier
clients. Same was true of Google in Russia when they still had hopes of
somehow greasing hands with the establishment. They evacuated the most
valuable staff out of Russia around 2015 to Switzerland, when they finally
gave up on Russian market. I still do remember them quitely delisting online
resources with corruption exposures circa 2007, that were reappearing in
search with simple reversal of word order.

KGB may've been just "probing where the water is shallow" and gaining
experience with online propaganda in 2010 by buying "seemingly innocent" think
tank drivel and consulting contracts from FB and Google, and then they went
full throttle when it came to sabotaging the US elections.

American top C-Levels, officials, 3 letter agency employees, and other
American beau monde all have that "smart, sophisticated, brilliant, but damn
naive" note in their personalities. Such types look the same to me as people
who are trying "to win in a casino," while having "I know what I'm doing" look
on their face. They can't win anything there in any sense.

Americans must overhaul their political establishment and institutes of power
with virtuous and competent people. If I was a US congress, I would've put it
very square, if a dot com like FB actively conspires with Russians, and then
pretends that they didn't, then everybody along the chain of command down to
founders, c-levels, and major financiers (with their own respective boards)
are detained, subject to criminal prosecution and given prison sentences.

------
te_chris
I used to not really buy the ‘regulate them as utilities argument’, but now,
reading stories like this, it seems to be the only way. The influence these
platforms have and the conflicts they create for the owners and operators need
to be clearly managed externally.

~~~
mseebach
The irony is that they are acting exactly like a utility is supposed to,
offering their services to anyone, regardless of their politics.

> _“It’s a tricky issue,” [Wendy Moe, professor of marketing at the University
> of Maryland’s Robert H. Smith School of Business] says, because once the
> companies decide they’ll do hands-on work for political groups, “it’s hard
> for them to say we’ll help these groups, but not others.” "_

The water utility can't legally refuse service to the Trump campaign, and
neither would the Facebook utility.

What you're asking for, is for Facebook to act in way they're specifically
only able to act because they're _not_ regulated like a utility.

Or for a quick lesson is public choice theory, consider exactly who would be
writing the regulations a regulated Facebook would be regulated under and
ponder whether that's going to end well.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
I can also use public records laws to get a great deal of information on what
my utilities are up to. That transparency is not present with the tech giants.

------
away2017throw
Bizarre how only one political opinion is assumed to be appropriate and
correct.

~~~
hueving
That's what the last 8 years have led up to. Having different political views
is now a completely normal reason to stop talking to someone entirely. This
leads to everyone in the US existing in a political echo chamber attacking
strawman versions of the other side.

Most Democrats think people who voted for Trump did so because they are racist
or sexist. That's it, no room for reasonable discourse when out of the gate
someone is assuming the other to be irrational.

~~~
lghh
> Most Democrats think people who voted for Trump did so because they are
> racist or sexist.

Most that I know, myself included, don't think that about people who voted for
Trump. I do however think that voting for Trump makes you racist or sexist.
Voting for Trump wasn't necessarily a result of it, but it sure was an
indicator or turning point.

~~~
beingmyself2
>People who voted for Donald Trump didn't do so because they were racist or
sexist >But voting for Trump makes you a racist or sexist Not sure I
understood your comment.

~~~
lghh
Basically, causes are different than effect. A person may have voted for him
because of economic promises, but because they thought the tradeoffs on race
and gender mattered less than those economic promises they are acting in a way
consistent with racism.

~~~
beingmyself2
And so the goalposts keep moving. How soon until not giving up your job for a
poor minority is considered racist? At what point do we draw the line and say
it is ok to have your own self-interest in mind, rather than that of the
outgroup? At what point do we stop responding to the bludgeon that is the word
"racist"? Eventually you are going to push people into doing actually racist
things if you keep trying to deny them the means to self-sovereignty.

------
pjc50
[http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/20/us/mosques-
targeted-2017-t...](http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/20/us/mosques-
targeted-2017-trnd/index.html)

It's difficult to draw a direct line between any one campaign and any one
incident, but this kind of lie-based Islamophobic material is basically
radicalising material for domestic US terrorists.

