Political advertising on Google(transparencyreport.google.com)
transparencyreport.google.com
Political advertising on Google
https://transparencyreport.google.com/political-ads/overview
63 comments
> Why doesn't google/fb (other than money) just ban ads from non-political campaigns.. i.e. Pacs, etc.. if you're Bernie Sanders you can run an ad, if you're a super pac or political agency you cannot run campaigns for a politician, only the verified politician and designated politician workers can access adwords/fb ads for that campaign. Why doesn't google/fb (other than money) just ban ads from non-political campaigns.. i.e. Pacs, etc.. if you're Bernie Sanders you can run an ad, if you're a super pac or political agency you cannot run campaigns for a politician, only the verified politician and designated politician workers can access adwords/fb ads for that campaign. This would essentially help make citizens united null/void at least so far as social media/search engine ad buys are considered...
So if you're a billionaire, you can run an ad campaign for yourself (either as a candidate or to promote issues you care about), but several thousand citizens can't come together to crowdfund an ad campaign to talk about the same thing?
That is, in effect, what you are saying.
So if you're a billionaire, you can run an ad campaign for yourself (either as a candidate or to promote issues you care about), but several thousand citizens can't come together to crowdfund an ad campaign to talk about the same thing?
That is, in effect, what you are saying.
Where do you think pac's get most their money? From corporations, billionaires, special interests..you think small donor's donate to most pacs?
I think special interests and corporations and billionaires should NOT be allowed to run ads AT all, unless they're personally running for office themselves.
Candidates should be able to take donations but only from real citizens, and only up to a certain limit.
Ideally, politicians would have a limit on how much they can spend on ads per quarter, to make it more 'fair' for everyone running, or hell give everyone equal budgets.
They can then take personal small donations from masses to build up their campaign coffers but cannot accept donations from lobbyists, corporations, etc... This would ensure more even-ness and that the person who wins will win because of their message/support instead of having more money to throw at it.
I think special interests and corporations and billionaires should NOT be allowed to run ads AT all, unless they're personally running for office themselves.
Candidates should be able to take donations but only from real citizens, and only up to a certain limit.
Ideally, politicians would have a limit on how much they can spend on ads per quarter, to make it more 'fair' for everyone running, or hell give everyone equal budgets.
They can then take personal small donations from masses to build up their campaign coffers but cannot accept donations from lobbyists, corporations, etc... This would ensure more even-ness and that the person who wins will win because of their message/support instead of having more money to throw at it.
> special interests and corporations and billionaires should NOT be allowed to run ads AT all, unless they're personally running for office themselves
So out with the Sierra Club, Planned Parenthood and every other advocacy group? There is a reason we have the First Amendment.
So out with the Sierra Club, Planned Parenthood and every other advocacy group? There is a reason we have the First Amendment.
They can still exist and advertise their causes, they just can't run positive/negative ads towards a political campaign. My goal w/ this idea is more for campaign purity rather than 'silencing' voices.
run ads about climate change all you want, just don't mention any politician by name in a positive or negative light... Only that campaign/politician can mention themselves and/or their opponent - though part of me would like negative opponent-based ads done away with too..I hate those.. but w/e...that's probably too much to ask for.
I'd like to see a time come when the only ads you see for a poltician are the ones that end w/ 'My name is ___ and I approve this message' and the ONLY person they talk about is themselves and/or their family and people they work with in a positive light. Instead of degrading their opponent. Some of Bernie's ads were perfect examples -- his America ad was amazing and just awesome and it didn't degrade Clinton or attack her, it instead elicited strong emotions of hope.
run ads about climate change all you want, just don't mention any politician by name in a positive or negative light... Only that campaign/politician can mention themselves and/or their opponent - though part of me would like negative opponent-based ads done away with too..I hate those.. but w/e...that's probably too much to ask for.
I'd like to see a time come when the only ads you see for a poltician are the ones that end w/ 'My name is ___ and I approve this message' and the ONLY person they talk about is themselves and/or their family and people they work with in a positive light. Instead of degrading their opponent. Some of Bernie's ads were perfect examples -- his America ad was amazing and just awesome and it didn't degrade Clinton or attack her, it instead elicited strong emotions of hope.
> run ads about climate change all you want, just don't mention any politician by name
France has a similar system. Tight restrictions on mentioning a party or candidate within a certain window before an election. We'd have trouble with that in America, though, because of the First Amendment. It would also shift power to those who can go on TV, attract attention to their blogs and otherwise organically inculcate attention through the press.
> the ONLY person they talk about is themselves and/or their family and people they work with in a positive light. Instead of degrading their opponent
Sometimes opponents need to be called out on their shit. In any case, I become immediately uncomfortable with restricting pure political speech in this manner.
France has a similar system. Tight restrictions on mentioning a party or candidate within a certain window before an election. We'd have trouble with that in America, though, because of the First Amendment. It would also shift power to those who can go on TV, attract attention to their blogs and otherwise organically inculcate attention through the press.
> the ONLY person they talk about is themselves and/or their family and people they work with in a positive light. Instead of degrading their opponent
Sometimes opponents need to be called out on their shit. In any case, I become immediately uncomfortable with restricting pure political speech in this manner.
> Candidates should be able to take donations but only from real citizens, and only up to a certain limit.
This is already the case in the US. Candidates can only take donations that are tied to individuals, and up to a specified limit per donor. And those lists (along with their employers) are all publicly disclosed, to ensure that companies cannot funnel donations illegally through their employees. (Incidentally, that's not true in many European countries, where corporations are allowed to donate directly without having to tie that money to an individual).
> Where do you think pac's get most their money? From corporations, billionaires, special interests..you think small donor's donate to most pacs?
There are a whole lot of PACs that are focused on specific issues relevant to particular demographics. For these groups, this is literally the only way for them to launch coordinated and organized campaigns to advocate for themselves, because none of their members is independently wealthy enough to fund it directly. Oftentimes, they're speaking up about issues that don't have the support of any elected official in the first place, and publicizing their message is the important first step towards building up the public pressure to get some elected officials on their side in the first place.
If you take that away from them, you're basically saying that they should have no right to speak out about the issues that affect them, but their well-funded, well-organized corporate opponents, billionaire self-funded candidates, and wealthy incumbent politicians all can.
This is already the case in the US. Candidates can only take donations that are tied to individuals, and up to a specified limit per donor. And those lists (along with their employers) are all publicly disclosed, to ensure that companies cannot funnel donations illegally through their employees. (Incidentally, that's not true in many European countries, where corporations are allowed to donate directly without having to tie that money to an individual).
> Where do you think pac's get most their money? From corporations, billionaires, special interests..you think small donor's donate to most pacs?
There are a whole lot of PACs that are focused on specific issues relevant to particular demographics. For these groups, this is literally the only way for them to launch coordinated and organized campaigns to advocate for themselves, because none of their members is independently wealthy enough to fund it directly. Oftentimes, they're speaking up about issues that don't have the support of any elected official in the first place, and publicizing their message is the important first step towards building up the public pressure to get some elected officials on their side in the first place.
If you take that away from them, you're basically saying that they should have no right to speak out about the issues that affect them, but their well-funded, well-organized corporate opponents, billionaire self-funded candidates, and wealthy incumbent politicians all can.
the ban would only be so far as they support or advocate against a political campaign running for office...all other ads are game.
My goodness, you certainly have a long list of people and organizations who shouldn’t be allowed to speak there. Can I be on it too?
Several thousand citizens can donate to a political campaign, which spends their money, rather than a PAC.
> Several thousand citizens can donate to a political campaign, which spends their money, rather than a PAC.
Only if there's a political campaign that represents the issues they care about in the first place. Oftentimes that's not the case.
And even then, there's no guarantee that the campaign would use that money specifically to promote the issues that they care about.
Only if there's a political campaign that represents the issues they care about in the first place. Oftentimes that's not the case.
And even then, there's no guarantee that the campaign would use that money specifically to promote the issues that they care about.
At what point is something political vs not? Is something about climate change political? Is an ad saying 'please pollute less' political? Where does that line get drawn?
I never said a pac couldn't advertise political causes... BUT they just can't mention politicians... i.e. they can't be a 3rd arm 'unapproved' tentacle representing a political campaign...
Suppose the ad just talks about some issue (pollution, guns, abortion, immigration) and what the advertiser wants to happen, and includes a link to their site "for more information" or "how to help" or something like that. The ad does not mention any particular politician or party.
The "for more information" or "how to help" page it links to, however, does explicitly name politicians and praises or condemns their positions on the issue and urges you to vote accordingly.
Allowed under your rules?
The "for more information" or "how to help" page it links to, however, does explicitly name politicians and praises or condemns their positions on the issue and urges you to vote accordingly.
Allowed under your rules?
[deleted]
> The continuum fallacy (also called the fallacy of the beard,[1] or line drawing fallacy) is an informal fallacy closely related to the sorites paradox, or paradox of the heap. Both fallacies cause one to erroneously reject a vague claim simply because it is not as precise as one would like it to be. Vagueness alone does not necessarily imply invalidity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy
> Where does that line get drawn?
In this case, at Google.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy
> Where does that line get drawn?
In this case, at Google.
This whole topic extends from the imprecision of policies at Google, quoting the wiki article of a fallacy doesn't contribute anything. Thanks.
That would literally take the voice away from people and place it soley in the governments hands. I dont want the only messages I hear be from the government or people wanting to be the government.
Why would you not want your voice heard? Why do you want your candidates to be limited to what their campaigns can afford? Some, recall, are independently wealthy, and many/most are not.
Because Google/FB/etc. also run their own PACs.
Follow @pinboard on Twitter for nice juxtapositions of the "we want to be neutral" language of a lot of the platforms, versus where they're putting their money. Example:
https://twitter.com/Pinboard/status/1026992202952536064
Follow @pinboard on Twitter for nice juxtapositions of the "we want to be neutral" language of a lot of the platforms, versus where they're putting their money. Example:
https://twitter.com/Pinboard/status/1026992202952536064
This is interesting! I work at Google, but I didn't know that Google has a PAC. It's actually funded by employee contributions and it's aim is to support an open internet.
https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00428623
They lobby for net neutrality, patent reform, immigration reform and similar issues.
This page has more information about Google's political activities in general:
https://www.google.com/publicpolicy/transparency.html
I think Google is much more transparent about this than other companies.
https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00428623
They lobby for net neutrality, patent reform, immigration reform and similar issues.
This page has more information about Google's political activities in general:
https://www.google.com/publicpolicy/transparency.html
I think Google is much more transparent about this than other companies.
You may want to learn more about Google's PAC. They donate to some not-that-great people, and it's hard to say "open internet" justifies that.
https://donationsfrom.tech/google
And if you dig into your own link you'll see that.
https://donationsfrom.tech/google
And if you dig into your own link you'll see that.
I saw that and I don't see an issue. Money (unfortunately)
influences politics in the US and the best way to influence it is to give across the political spectrum.
This is the problem with automated rule-based decision-making. Of course Google relies on it, because Google is existentially committed to the idea that this can solve any problem that ever has existed or ever will exist. But you have to ask yourself whether single-issue political action has a history of consistently producing good results (spoiler: it doesn't).
If Google really wanted to, they could find plenty of candidates who support the single issue Google cares about and are also generally decent people; it's not like there's only been one such candidate in the entire history of the universe, as you seem to be implying. But Google doesn't want to, and as a result Google ends up directly supporting candidates who will go on to do awful things, and sweeping it under the rug -- as with so many other Google problems -- by saying "well, the automated system decided to support him". You don't get to dodge the responsibility for that.
If Google really wanted to, they could find plenty of candidates who support the single issue Google cares about and are also generally decent people; it's not like there's only been one such candidate in the entire history of the universe, as you seem to be implying. But Google doesn't want to, and as a result Google ends up directly supporting candidates who will go on to do awful things, and sweeping it under the rug -- as with so many other Google problems -- by saying "well, the automated system decided to support him". You don't get to dodge the responsibility for that.
You misunderstood what I mean. I will edit my reply for clarity.
This is how you get a lot of PACs lobbying to get you regulated or broken up.
Because that would cost them money, and some competitor would show up who is willing to sell ads to pacs.
Competitor will show up to take on... Google? People aren't switching away from Google any time soon.
People are going to switch away from Google search, but Google's ad networks (DoubleClick, GDN/AdSense, Admob, AdX) actually compete with other ad networks (like OpenX, Rubicon Project, Criteo, AppNexus).
Many publishers use more than one ad network to maximize their income, so advertisers can just move to the other networks.
Many publishers use more than one ad network to maximize their income, so advertisers can just move to the other networks.
But only Google ad networks appear on Google products. They can choose what advertising appears there with no competitive impact.
AppNexus is now AT&T Advertising and Analytics as of today..
Precisely. Besides, good luck justifying the loss of revenue to the board of directors with 'muh good will'
> some competitor would show up
fb and goog have a captive market. no competitor is going to sell ads to their customers. they would lose money and that's it.
fb and goog have a captive market. no competitor is going to sell ads to their customers. they would lose money and that's it.
Or force the politician to put more of their money on Facebook and let the PACs backfill the TV and other spending where the rules don't exist.
I've run a small PAC before and am only replying so other people can see social proof that these are org-types that normal people at least occasionally use.
That would be extremely expensive for the platform.
Their policies are fascinating:
Take this one in not allowing certain kinds of inappropriate content:
" Content that harasses, intimidates, or bullies an individual or group of individuals
Example: Content that singles out someone for abuse or harassment; content that suggests a tragic event did not happen, or that victims or their families are actors, or complicit in a cover-up of the event."
Do other networks have similar policies?
Take this one in not allowing certain kinds of inappropriate content:
" Content that harasses, intimidates, or bullies an individual or group of individuals
Example: Content that singles out someone for abuse or harassment; content that suggests a tragic event did not happen, or that victims or their families are actors, or complicit in a cover-up of the event."
Do other networks have similar policies?
These two alone would cancel out most of the political ads I've seen.
" Promotions that are likely to shock or scare
Examples: Promotions that suggest you may be in danger, be infected with a disease, or be the victim of a conspiracy"
" Promotions containing obscene or profane language
Examples: Swear or curse words, slurs relating to race or sexuality, variations and misspellings of profane language"
" Promotions that are likely to shock or scare
Examples: Promotions that suggest you may be in danger, be infected with a disease, or be the victim of a conspiracy"
" Promotions containing obscene or profane language
Examples: Swear or curse words, slurs relating to race or sexuality, variations and misspellings of profane language"
that's a real specific Alex Jones policy
I've been getting a lot of these extremely hateful & racist CRTV ads on Youtube that I guess they don't care about.
Axios has good summary of what this is: https://www.axios.com/google-releases-political-ad-directory... - It mentions an API to access this information. I don't want to paste the Axios text because their entire article is pretty short, and I would feel bad about them not getting fair compensation for this kind of short, succinct journalism that I would like to see in the world.
I like the idea of Axios, but I've found their sourcing to be very bad, with the linked sources sometimes being wholly irrelevant to the article.
A few years back Axios was attempting to purchase a startup I was employed with.
Very interesting company. They have data on 5 billion people that sits in an airport hanger sized building.
Very interesting company. They have data on 5 billion people that sits in an airport hanger sized building.
You're thinking of these guys: http://acxiom.com/
Is this really the same Axios? Crunchbase says they were founded in 2016, and while it may actually be possible, I'd hate to think that a company could get data worth housing on 5 billion people in like two years.
Politico's founders left and created Axios. They say you can't take it with you when you go, but maybe you can?
"Must be approved by Google"
What prevents Google from shutting out legitimate campaigns that aren't racist or hateful, but doesn't align with how Google sees the future of the USA?
What prevents Google from shutting out legitimate campaigns that aren't racist or hateful, but doesn't align with how Google sees the future of the USA?
Many of the video ads are "no longer available" for viewing (e.g. OneNation [0]) and I see no information about target selectors that they used. Is Google not releasing this selectors or were the ads not targeted?
EDIT: Ok, you have to select a specific campaign to see the targets. Unfortunately I can't see where to go from the non-specific-campaign-filter video I select to the campaign it was on. Also there is campaign ambiguity since they are identified by date ranges...ideally a better presentation should be done.
A general FAQ can be found at [1]. Note how it doesn't include political ads that don't mention a federal candidate so, e.g. ads similar to the recent brexit ad disclosures would not even appear here if they happened domestically. Similarly, gubernatorial ads would also not appear. I can understand that what is and isn't a political ad when its about an issue and not a candidate is hard to determine (especially w/out FEC ID), but we have to assume the ads are at least viewed and categorized internally before deployed and it is at that point it would be reasonable to mark them.
0 - https://transparencyreport.google.com/political-ads/library/...
1 - https://support.google.com/transparencyreport/answer/9052272
EDIT: Ok, you have to select a specific campaign to see the targets. Unfortunately I can't see where to go from the non-specific-campaign-filter video I select to the campaign it was on. Also there is campaign ambiguity since they are identified by date ranges...ideally a better presentation should be done.
A general FAQ can be found at [1]. Note how it doesn't include political ads that don't mention a federal candidate so, e.g. ads similar to the recent brexit ad disclosures would not even appear here if they happened domestically. Similarly, gubernatorial ads would also not appear. I can understand that what is and isn't a political ad when its about an issue and not a candidate is hard to determine (especially w/out FEC ID), but we have to assume the ads are at least viewed and categorized internally before deployed and it is at that point it would be reasonable to mark them.
0 - https://transparencyreport.google.com/political-ads/library/...
1 - https://support.google.com/transparencyreport/answer/9052272
The budgets are smaller than I thought they'd be over a 2-3 month period. Also, not surprisingly, a lot of these ads are really, really badly done. Misspelled words, bad contrast of text color to background, just unprofessional.
Clicking any advertiser name shows "There was an error loading content." for me.
I’ve been thinking about a crowdsourced superpac. Anyone can create an ad and then donated money funds its distribution on Google and Facebook ad networks. Kind of like digital picketing. Does anything like this exist already?
One need not form a PAC -- it would be sufficient to buy ads yourself, and encourage others to do so, too.
I find it interesting that it's translated to Swedish but is only about the US. Are they using Google translate behind the scenes perhaps?
I don't know, but it seems likely that getting translation work done by human translators just wasn't all that hard for whoever worked on this. Big companies have a lot of resources and Google already has to translate all their UI text.
This is a step in the right direction. I like the top targeted keywords, but would be even better to see which ads and organizations bought the keywords. Is Trump or Beto spending more on people searching for aclu?
Something about seeing florida lit up on the map for such convoluted amounts of money on Google ads got me to laugh.
[deleted]
This would essentially help make citizens united null/void at least so far as social media/search engine ad buys are considered...