election 2020
Election 2020

Facebook’s botched election ad ban already blocked preapproved ads, including Biden’s

The company stopped ads that had already been approved and paid for from running, sparking outrage among political campaigns.

Joe Biden

Some political ads, which were already running on Facebook, ended up getting blocked as part of the company's new ban, which the company attributed to "data lags."

Photo: Gage Skidmore/Flickr

Facebook's ban on all new political and social issue ads leading up to the U.S. election is already causing chaos. On Tuesday, the company began prohibiting all new ads related to politics and social issues from running on the platform, instantly prompting an outcry from political groups who said some of their ads which were already running on the platform ended up getting blocked too. That included ads from Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden's campaign, according to a source familiar with the situation.

"Facebook: Trust us, we will be able to execute our silly, performative preelection hoop-jumping exercise 100% effectively," Biden's digital director tweeted shortly after the ad ban went into effect. "Also Facebook: [immediately breaks within seconds of launching the silly, performative preelection hoop-jumping exercise]."

According to a message sent by a Facebook representative to progressive advertisers, which was reviewed by Protocol, the company attributed the issue to "data lags."

"On October 27 at 12:01AM PT, we started pausing ads about social issues, elections or politics in the U.S. without impressions to begin the restriction period. We are aware that a subset of ads may show as paused that delivered impressions before 12:01 AM PT," the message read. "Once an ad has been actioned (e.g. paused, stopped - whether by Facebook or by the advertiser) it can take a few hours to reflect in our system correctly. Any ads that met the criteria to run during the final campaign will be eligible to run once we've resolved any data lags. We apologize for any inconvenience."

Asked for comment, Facebook directed Protocol to a tweet from its head of product management Rob Leathern. "We're investigating the issues of some ads being paused incorrectly, and some advertisers having trouble making changes to their campaigns," Leathern wrote, several hours after this story originally published. "We're working quickly on these fixes, and will share an update once they are resolved.

On Tuesday morning, Mark Jablonowski, managing partner of the digital targeting firm DSPolitical, said he noticed ads that had been running on behalf of a range of his Democratic campaign clients were suddenly blocked. Jablonowski reached out to Facebook, but as of the early afternoon, hadn't received any response. President Trump's digital director Gary Coby didn't respond to a question about whether the Trump campaign's ads had been affected.

Chris Herbert, who runs Facebook ads for the group Defending Democracy Together, said 75 percent of his ads were blocked on Tuesday, despite the fact that they were running before the cutoff. Herbert said the issue had been mostly resolved by Tuesday afternoon, but that a handful of ads are still disabled.

It wasn't just political organizations lashing out at Facebook. Don Haas, director of teacher programs at the Museum of the Earth in upstate New York, said ads for the museum's upcoming climate change exhibit were also blocked. Those ads were not previously running, but Haas said he and his team were unaware that they would be impacted by Facebook's ad ban, which it announced earlier this month. "It's incredibly frustrating for many reasons that Facebook is blocking these ads," Haas said.

Not everyone was taken by surprise by the ban, though. Digital advertisers working on political campaigns had been preparing for Facebook's new policy for weeks, ensuring that they had all of their ads submitted, paid for and approved before the company's deadline. "Orgs & campaigns worked to rethink election week strategies and got all ads in by midnight (a lot by Friday of last week just to be sure FB would approve). This morning, orgs and campaigns woke up to a bunch of disapproved ads that Facebook said would be fine. BIG YIKES," Hector Sigala, who served as Bernie Sanders' 2016 digital media director, wrote on Twitter Tuesday. "I get it, it's tech and buggy and things break. But don't roll out such huge changes to your platform, 7 days before E-Day, impacting $millions in investment aimed at turning out voters when so much is at stake without ensuring it is 10000000% going to work."

Facebook announced the ban in hopes of preventing misinformation about the election results from spreading through ads. The company previously said it expects the ban on new ads to last at least through election week, but said that was subject to change.

Update: This story was updated at 2:24 p.m. PT to include a comment from Facebook.

 Issie Lapowsky

Issie Lapowsky ( @issielapowsky) is Protocol's chief correspondent, covering the intersection of technology, politics, and national affairs. She also oversees Protocol's fellowship program. Previously, she was a senior writer at Wired, where she covered the 2016 election and the Facebook beat in its aftermath. Prior to that, Issie worked as a staff writer for Inc. magazine, writing about small business and entrepreneurship. She has also worked as an on-air contributor for CBS News and taught a graduate-level course at New York University's Center for Publishing on how tech giants have affected publishing.

politics facebook politicial ads election 2020
gaming
Power

How the creators of Spligate built gaming’s newest unicorn

1047 Games is now valued at $1.5 billion after three rounds of funding since May.

1047 Games' Splitgate amassed 13 million downloads when its beta launched in July.

Image: 1047 Games

The creators of Splitgate had a problem. Their new free-to-play video game, a take on the legendary arena shooter Halo with a teleportation twist borrowed from Valve's Portal, was gaining steam during its open beta period in July. But it was happening too quickly.

Splitgate was growing so fast and unexpectedly that the entire game was starting to break, as the servers supporting the game began to, figuratively speaking, melt down. The game went from fewer than 1,000 people playing it at any given moment in time to suddenly having tens of thousands of concurrent players. Then it grew to hundreds of thousands of players, all trying to log in and play at once across PlayStation, Xbox and PC.

Keep Reading Show less
Nick Statt
Nick Statt is Protocol's video game reporter. Prior to joining Protocol, he was news editor at The Verge covering the gaming industry, mobile apps and antitrust out of San Francisco, in addition to managing coverage of Silicon Valley tech giants and startups. He now resides in Rochester, New York, home of the garbage plate and, completely coincidentally, the World Video Game Hall of Fame. He can be reached at nstatt@protocol.com.
startups protocol gaming funding venture capital gaming
sponsored
Sponsored Content

Putting the ‘human’ into payments

While it's easy to get lost in the operational and technical side of a transaction, it's important to remember the third component of a payment. That is, the human behind the screen.

Over the last two years, many retailers have seen the benefit of investing in new, flexible payments. Ones that reflect the changing lifestyles of younger spenders, who are increasingly holding onto their cash — despite reports to the contrary. This means it's more important than ever for merchants to take note of the latest payment innovations so they can tap into the savings of the COVID-19 generation.

Keep Reading Show less
Antoine Nougue,Checkout.com

Antoine Nougue is Head of Europe at Checkout.com. He works with ambitious enterprise businesses to help them scale and grow their operations through payment processing services. He is responsible for leading the European sales, customer success, engineering & implementation teams and is based out of London, U.K.

sponsored sponsored content
Protocol | Policy

Why Twitch’s 'hate raid' lawsuit isn’t just about Twitch

When is it OK for tech companies to unmask their anonymous users? And when should a violation of terms of service get someone sued?

The case Twitch is bringing against two hate raiders is hardly black and white.

Photo: Caspar Camille Rubin/Unsplash

It isn't hard to figure out who the bad guys are in Twitch's latest lawsuit against two of its users. On one side are two anonymous "hate raiders" who have been allegedly bombarding the gaming platform with abhorrent attacks on Black and LGBTQ+ users, using armies of bots to do it. On the other side is Twitch, a company that, for all the lumps it's taken for ignoring harassment on its platform, is finally standing up to protect its users against persistent violators whom it's been unable to stop any other way.

But the case Twitch is bringing against these hate raiders is hardly black and white. For starters, the plaintiff here isn't an aggrieved user suing another user for defamation on the platform. The plaintiff is the platform itself. Complicating matters more is the fact that, according to a spokesperson, at least part of Twitch's goal in the case is to "shed light on the identity of the individuals behind these attacks," raising complicated questions about when tech companies should be able to use the courts to unmask their own anonymous users and, just as critically, when they should be able to actually sue them for violating their speech policies.

Keep Reading Show less
Issie Lapowsky

Issie Lapowsky ( @issielapowsky) is Protocol's chief correspondent, covering the intersection of technology, politics, and national affairs. She also oversees Protocol's fellowship program. Previously, she was a senior writer at Wired, where she covered the 2016 election and the Facebook beat in its aftermath. Prior to that, Issie worked as a staff writer for Inc. magazine, writing about small business and entrepreneurship. She has also worked as an on-air contributor for CBS News and taught a graduate-level course at New York University's Center for Publishing on how tech giants have affected publishing.

content moderation twitch
Protocol | Workplace

Remote work is here to stay. Here are the cybersecurity risks.

Phishing and ransomware are on the rise. Is your remote workforce prepared?

Before your company institutes work-from-home-forever plans, you need to ensure that your workforce is prepared to face the cybersecurity implications of long-term remote work.

Photo: Stefan Wermuth/Bloomberg via Getty Images

The delta variant continues to dash or delay return-to-work plans, but before your company institutes work-from-home-forever plans, you need to ensure that your workforce is prepared to face the cybersecurity implications of long-term remote work.

So far in 2021, CrowdStrike has already observed over 1,400 "big game hunting" ransomware incidents and $180 million in ransom demands averaging over $5 million each. That's due in part to the "expanded attack surface that work-from-home creates," according to CTO Michael Sentonas.

Keep Reading Show less
Michelle Ma
Michelle Ma (@himichellema) is a reporter at Protocol, where she writes about management, leadership and workplace issues in tech. Previously, she was a news editor of live journalism and special coverage for The Wall Street Journal. Prior to that, she worked as a staff writer at Wirecutter. She can be reached at mma@protocol.com.
cybersecurity remote
insurance
Protocol | Fintech

When COVID rocked the insurance market, this startup saw opportunity

Ethos has outraised and outmarketed the competition in selling life insurance directly online — but there's still an $887 billion industry to transform.

Life insurance has been slow to change.

Image: courtneyk/Getty Images

Peter Colis cited a striking statistic that he said led him to launch a life insurance startup: One in twenty children will lose a parent before they turn 15.

"No one ever thinks that will happen to them, but that's the statistics," the co-CEO and co-founder of Ethos told Protocol. "If it's a breadwinning parent, the majority of those families will go bankrupt immediately, within three months. Life insurance elegantly solves this problem."

Keep Reading Show less
Benjamin Pimentel

Benjamin Pimentel ( @benpimentel) covers fintech from San Francisco. He has reported on many of the biggest tech stories over the past 20 years for the San Francisco Chronicle, Dow Jones MarketWatch and Business Insider, from the dot-com crash, the rise of cloud computing, social networking and AI to the impact of the Great Recession and the COVID crisis on Silicon Valley and beyond. He can be reached at bpimentel@protocol.com or via Signal at (510)731-8429.

life insurance ethos insurance
Latest Stories