\n
![](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/rsoftsolution.com\/blog\/wp-content\/plugins\/RSSPoster_PRO\/cache\/3d917_facebook-video-ads.jpg?w=640&ssl=1\")
<\/p>\n
\n<\/p>\n
The U.S. Federal Election Commission (FEC) has voted to seek public views on whether there should be a change to the rules for political ads that extends disclaimer requirements to ads shown on digital platforms, such as Facebook and Google.<\/p>\n
At a meeting today<\/a> the FEC voted to reopen public comment on the issue for a 30-day period. After which a spokeswoman told us it will review the comments and could decide to hold a hearing on a potential rule-making.<\/p>\n In a letter to the Commission, dated September 7, commissioner Ellen Weintraub urged the FEC to act, writing: \u201cIt is imperative that we update the [FEC\u2019s] regulations to ensure that the American people know who is paying for the internet political communications they see. And it is our duty to have these changes in place in time to inform the 2018 elections.\u201d<\/p>\n In her letter, Weintraub suggests holding a public hearing on the issue \u2014 and inviting representatives from major social media platforms, including Facebook, Google and Twitter, to attend and \u201cexplore with us how the FEC can craft the best possible internet disclaimer rules going forward\u201d.<\/p>\n Although a Reuters<\/a> report of the meeting says commissioners disagreed on the need for rule changes, so it\u2019s not yet certain whether a public hearing will go ahead or not.<\/p>\n Much will, presumably, depend on the flavor of public comments the FEC receives.<\/p>\n Currently digital platforms are excluded from U.S. regulatory requirements to state who paid for a political ad. But questions have been raised about how viable it is for a democracy to allow large and powerful digital ad targeting platforms to be exempt from rules governing the use of political advertising \u2014 not least given the increasingly influential role of tech platforms in shaping media consumption.<\/p>\n A recent Pew study<\/a> of American\u2019s news consumption habits found two-thirds of U.S. adults reported getting at least some of their news on social media, while a fifth reported doing so \u201coften\u201d. It would not seem viable, over the long run, for social media to stand outside the regulatory regime for political ads.<\/p>\n Notably the FEC\u2019s action comes just over a week after Facebook revealed<\/a>\u00a0that pro-Russian entities had bought as much as $150,000-worth of ads on its platform between 2015 and 2017, including in the run up to the U.S. presidential election.<\/p>\n The ads had apparently targeted a range of political \u2014 and socially divisive \u2014 issues, rather than directly seeking to promote individual candidates. Although Facebook has refused to release copies of the ads to the public so the content cannot be independently assessed \u2014 raising further questions about the ability of regulators to understand let alone control use of its platform for political ends.<\/p>\n The scandal has also led to calls for Facebook to #ReleaseTheAds<\/a>\u2026<\/p>\n Secret political ads are by definition an attack on democracy. Their disclosure is not optional. Shocking FB continues to insist otherwise.<\/p>\n \u2014 Pierre Omidyar (@pierre) September 9, 2017<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n Commenting on the issue, Jeff Chester, of U.S. consumers rights and privacy organization, the\u00a0Center for Digital Democracy<\/a>, urged an end to exemptions from the rules for digital ad platforms.<\/p>\n \u201cThe FEC must require all digital ad companies to public disclose who paid for ads or other marketing used for political and electoral campaigns. As the two most powerful forces in political online advertising, and who consider election marketing a highly lucrative vertical, it is especially important that Facebook and Google be held more accountable,\u201d he told TechCrunch.<\/p>\n \u201cIn addition the FEC should require each company to store and make public available every version of a political ad or message it delivers. In today\u2019s cross-device, real-time and micro-targeting digital ad environment, thousands of different ad messages can be tailored. \u00a0These ads can even change depending on our behaviors and what device we use.<\/p>\n \u201cPolitical advertising cannot be allowed to be in a \u201cblack box\u201d that prevents journalists and others to examine the claims made by candidates and campaigns. \u00a0In addition, techniques like digitally-driven voter suppression and Facebook \u201cdark\u201d posts, used by the Trump campaign in 2016, illustrate how the U.S. requires 21st Century safeguards to ensure campaigns are conducted fairly.\u201d<\/p>\n Facebook\u2019s role in distributing and amplifying fake news came in for sharp criticism last year following the election of Donald Trump.<\/p>\n In the face of an angry backlash the company publicly acknowledged<\/a>\u00a0it needed to do more to stop the spread of misinformation on its platform.<\/p>\n Its efforts since have focused on experiments aimed at limiting the ability of misinformation to spread via the News Feed, including badging certain content as disputed \u2014 leaning on third party fact checkers to do the legwork there \u2014 and\/or offering contrasting viewpoints<\/a>.<\/p>\n These efforts have faced early criticism<\/a> for being too tepid and\/or slow to be effective, even as fresh fake news stories have shown a continued ability to rack up millions of Facebook views<\/a>.<\/p>\n But the Russian-bought political ads scandal brings a new, sharper dimension to the misinformation debate \u2014 with money seen changing hands for the first time between Facebook and entities of a hostile foreign government intent on remotely influencing the political views of the voting American public at a key moment in a presidential election cycle.<\/p>\n U.S. congressional committees are currently investigation claims of Russian meddling in the 2016 elections \u2014 and Facebook has apparently handed the disputed ads to the special counsel investigating the allegations.<\/p>\n\n