I'm a political advertiser as part of my job and one thing most people don't get is that it's not just ELECTORAL ads that Facebook usually is referring to when they're talking about "political" ads. It's, as mentioned in the article, a shorthand for "Ads About Social Issues, Elections or Politics."
So, a few points. First, the obvious, that these things all depend on the extent to which Facebook promotes this "feature." So with that said:
1. I planned a big vote-by-mail (political orgs are concerned about in-person voting bc of COVID) ad campaign to members of my organization. Obviously, it wasn't just Facebook and Instagram, but these will be flagged as politics and less effective than they were previously. Facebook will do its own encouragement to register and to vote, but we know our membership better than Facebook and were crafting campaigns meant to motivate them based on research of what we know works, combined with in-person organizing that's coordinated in a way Facebook would never do. This will also hurt recruitment for members who want to knock on doors.
2. They define social issues as "sensitive topics that are heavily debated, may influence the outcome of an election or result in/relate to existing or proposed legislation." That's an "or" joining those, so it's an incredibly broad category. Expect more to be swept up in this than people in this thread are talking about.
3. The category is so broad that it's going to include most union ad activity. Not just organizing new workers, but let's say a union wants to advertise to its membership of nurses about how they can advocate for N95 masks in the workplace with their employer. It's not actually about public policy, yet Facebook generally will reject this type of ad if it's not categorized as "political." Facebook and Google both have anti-union ad practices, but this is unintentionally going to make it worse.
I'm not necessarily against these policies. Something can be bad in some ways and offset by the good. But if Facebook wants to make the argument about giving users the freedom, let me just ask, how informed are users going to be about what they're blocking? Do they know they might be blocking organizations they are dues-paying members of? Are they allowed to make a distinction between electoral ads and ads that are simply about "debated" topics?
I unfollow friends who mostly post political stuff, even though I generally agree with them. I'm there for pictures, the shared calendar and the messaging. I'll check out memeorandum or NYT for news, and will sometimes read political stuff on reddit or twitter.
To me, I prefer FB as a way to stay connected with friends. I have many other ways to learn about political topics.
I'm sensitive to this, which is why I added those questions to the end.
But let me make create a random example. Oil companies will be able to advertise on Facebook and reach everybody. Environmental organizations talking about oil will not. We don't call the oil companies a political or social issue advertiser, but this disparate treatment for what we consider "social issues" is going to have real-world implications.
You're not there for the ads at all -- you're there for "pictures, the shared calendar and the messaging."
> I'm there for pictures, the shared calendar and the messaging
Reminded me of the aggressive and eventually enforced simplification of the world so that no one would be offended about anything ever (the latter parts of Captain Beatty's speech)
This is a great point. Will a person who turns these ads off even UNDERSTAND that they're not allowing a Black Lives Matter organization to let them know about upcoming events? How will that be explained to the user? The advertiser might only even be sharing the ads with people set up on a recurring contribution to inform them how to stay involved.
Would you be ok with the inverse situation? You could allow ads from an organization you'd support, but you'd also be allowing ads from organizations contrary to your own beliefs?
That's literally the status quo. Yes, I probably favor that over this.
My point is three-fold:
1. There's no education about what this actually means. This has been pitched as during the 2020 election, hide ads from candidates. But it's not that. The coverage is unclear and it's unlikely Facebook will fully explain.
2. There's no flexibility to let people change the settings how they truly wish. Maybe I want to hear from organizations I belong to but don't want to see ads from political figures, for example. There's no setting for this. Keep in mind, you can be a dues-paying member of an org, follow them on Facebook, and still rarely see their organic posts. Facebook limited to reach of Facebook pages to encourage advertising, so simply being a Fan isn't a reliable way to see updates.
3. The meaning of "politics" is unclear. It allows ads from polluting companies, but not from environmental orgs. The restriction applies to Black Lives Matter, but possibly not to organizations raising money for police.
> Will a person who turns these ads off even UNDERSTAND that they're not allowing
Do you not find this approach patronizing?
I'm not jesting, your comments are well-informed and I am better off for having read them. Still I am curious why is it that you do not believe that people can make reasonable choices about content blocking and correctly interpret "sensitive topics that are heavily debated, may influence the outcome of an election or result in/relate to existing or proposed legislation.".
It's a fair question. But it's because the news reporting about it has been incorrect and has often suggested that it only applies to campaigns. That's why. I'm using reporters as a proxy for the public. And also, much of the public will learn about the feature from these reports.
As a political advertiser who jumps through huge hoops about what is and isn't allowed, what the definitions of different terms are, and how it's constantly changing and hard to keep up with even as a professional -- yeah, I can't expect others to have the time to keep up with it.
And even if they DO keep up with it, the standards are at times vague and enforced in weird, unexpected ways. What's a "sensitive" topic? Is talking about COVID masks a sensitive topic? I mean, it's recommended (now) by the CDC. But also, some people are anti-mask. There's a clear partisan divide on the mask issue. Is selling masks political? If a person wants to avoid Biden/Trump ads, should they now no longer see ads about a good deal on masks to stop spread of the coronavirus? (Companies that sell political t-shirts, even though they're not a political organization, have to be marked as politics. The content of the ad is important, not just the type of organization.)
But also, even if you're fully informed, there's little flexibility. You can't make an exception for an organization that you're a dues-paying member of so you can stay updated about how your money is being spent, for example.
Finally, that definition of social issues isn't the ONLY one (which, by the way, Facebook won't even describe to users who don't seek it out). Each individual issue area has its own definition. There are definitions about what is a "gun issue." On civil rights. On the environment. (Click "United States" at this link: https://www.facebook.com/business/help/313752069181919?id=28... ) This is super complicated and requires a large investment in time to fully understand.
I admittedly might be hyper-aware of these complications as somebody who has had to go through all this documentation to know what does and does not have to be marked as "politics" before I submit the ad for approval. (If you don't mark it properly, your ad can be delayed for days -- and politics is fast-moving.) Maybe Facebook users don't care. But there's no sense that I have from the way it was released that they sought user feedback, either from political orgs or even from the daily users of their website. What types of settings do they want? What kind of flexibility is needed? I don't see any evidence these issues were even grappled with. That's frustrating as an advertiser, that it seems like they just started with "how do we have fewer headaches?"
So, a few points. First, the obvious, that these things all depend on the extent to which Facebook promotes this "feature." So with that said:
1. I planned a big vote-by-mail (political orgs are concerned about in-person voting bc of COVID) ad campaign to members of my organization. Obviously, it wasn't just Facebook and Instagram, but these will be flagged as politics and less effective than they were previously. Facebook will do its own encouragement to register and to vote, but we know our membership better than Facebook and were crafting campaigns meant to motivate them based on research of what we know works, combined with in-person organizing that's coordinated in a way Facebook would never do. This will also hurt recruitment for members who want to knock on doors.
2. They define social issues as "sensitive topics that are heavily debated, may influence the outcome of an election or result in/relate to existing or proposed legislation." That's an "or" joining those, so it's an incredibly broad category. Expect more to be swept up in this than people in this thread are talking about.
3. The category is so broad that it's going to include most union ad activity. Not just organizing new workers, but let's say a union wants to advertise to its membership of nurses about how they can advocate for N95 masks in the workplace with their employer. It's not actually about public policy, yet Facebook generally will reject this type of ad if it's not categorized as "political." Facebook and Google both have anti-union ad practices, but this is unintentionally going to make it worse.
I'm not necessarily against these policies. Something can be bad in some ways and offset by the good. But if Facebook wants to make the argument about giving users the freedom, let me just ask, how informed are users going to be about what they're blocking? Do they know they might be blocking organizations they are dues-paying members of? Are they allowed to make a distinction between electoral ads and ads that are simply about "debated" topics?