Politics

How right-wing websites are getting around Facebook’s political ad ban

The Daily Wire and PragerU have run dozens of political ads since the ban went into effect. Meanwhile, left-leaning newsrooms like Courier are still locked out.

A finger touching a phone with the Facebook logo

Far right news outlets like The Daily Wire have continued to run political ads during Facebook's political ad ban.

Image: Rafael Henrique/Getty Images

Since Election Day, Facebook's ban on all political and issue ads has stoked anger among the many political candidates, organizations and even charities that have been barred from advertising on the platform, particularly with a high-stakes Georgia runoff taking place in just a few weeks.

But the ban hasn't actually stopped everyone from pushing political ads.

Hyper-partisan news pages like The Daily Wire have used an exemption Facebook bestows on some news outlets to continue buying ads with explicitly political messages, without being filtered through the company's political advertising funnel. And PragerU, which is not a verified news outlet but which makes viral conservative videos, appears to have just slipped through Facebook's cracks, sharing dozens of ads since Election Day that include the message, "The left is destroying America." These same ads also warn against "Big Tech censorship," even as they garnered thousands of impressions during an ostensible ban on political ads. (Media Matters for America first reported on the existence of these ads.)

This ad ran without a disclaimer for days during Facebook's ad ban.Image: Protocol

Between Dec. 3 and Dec. 9 alone, Facebook's ad library shows that The Daily Wire spent more than $5,000 on political and issue ads, while PragerU spent a little over $500. The Daily Wire's editor-in-chief didn't respond to Protocol's request for comment. PragerU's chief marketing officer, Craig Strazzeri, said the company has gone through Facebook's political ad authorization process but didn't explain why some of PragerU's political ads were running without a disclaimer. Instead, Strazzeri blamed Facebook for doing "whatever they can to try to prevent conservative ideas from reaching more people."

Sarah Schiff, a Facebook product manager, said in a statement that verified news outlets are allowed to continue running ads about politics during the ad ban, but that their "opinion content" is supposed to be prohibited. "We're temporarily prohibiting all advertisers, regardless of their political affiliation, from running ads about social issues, elections, or politics and are investigating to determine if ads have run in error," Schiff said.

The problem isn't just that some of the biggest partisan pages on the right have been able to circumvent Facebook's political ad filters over the last month. It's also that some of the biggest outlets on the left have been barred from doing so, because Facebook categorizes them as political groups, not news.

The most prominent example is Courier Newsroom, a group of left-leaning local newsrooms funded by Acronym, a Democratic organization. According to The Wall Street Journal, Courier inspired Facebook to institute a new policy this summer at Mark Zuckerberg's behest that prohibits any pages connected with political people or entities from being included on Facebook's News tab.

The new policy means that unlike other news outlets on Facebook, Courier is required to disclose their political ads. Since the ban went into effect, none of Courier's newsrooms have been able to boost their reporting on any stories related to politics or even broad social issues like climate change.

"We're trying to seed content organically to get the stories out there, but ultimately there's really only so far you can go," said Lindsay Schrupp, editor-in-chief of Courier, who said traffic to their sites has fallen by 50% under the ban. "We know it's pay-to-play, and we're definitely seeing that."

Courier was, for instance, immediately blocked from boosting a post reminding people of health insurance open enrollment deadlines and a news story about a JAMA study that showed Black and Hispanic people were not inherently genetically more vulnerable to COVID-19 despite higher rates of death. The Daily Wire, meanwhile, was able to run a group of ads linking to an opinion piece about the election by Ben Shapiro titled, "The Woke Lose." Those ads, which ran for several days after the ban was enacted, received more than a million impressions in the days after the election.

Facebook's news exemption was created in 2019, following an uproar from organizations that balked at having their stories included in Facebook's political ad library, which launched in 2018. To prevent news stories about politics from getting conflated with ads or caught up in the bulky authorization process Facebook requires for political advertisers, Facebook began verifying news outlets for exemption.

These verified pages don't have to maintain an archive of their ads beyond the ones that are currently active, and that archive doesn't include information on how much the ads cost or who saw them. There's only one caveat: When these pages buy ads that include opinion, they're supposed to disclose them as political ads. But that's a conceptual gray area for lots of hyperpartisan outlets, and they don't always comply.

The task of determining which sites count as news soon became tricky. Facebook created broad guidelines, including that websites had to cite their sources and include transparent information about their reporters. And yet, the rules appeared to be applied unevenly. Courier struggled for most of 2020 to get its newsrooms verified, Schrupp said, even before Facebook instituted its rule barring political entities in August. Meanwhile, obviously partisan sites like The Daily Wire and Breitbart have been given an exemption.

It's difficult to know for certain how many news outlets have used the exemption to continue pushing political ads on Facebook during the ad ban — or which outlets have, like Courier, been shut out of the exemption. Facebook doesn't publish a list of outlets with the news exemption and, by virtue of being exempt from the archive, the majority of ads purchased by news outlets disappear when they're no longer running. The only way they get archived is if Facebook catches the ads after the fact and lists them as having run without a disclaimer. The Daily Wire's ad archive now includes several post-facto disclaimers.

Laura Edelson, a doctorate candidate who helps run New York University's Online Political Ads Transparency Project, has been tracking Facebook ads from known partisan news sites since Election Day. She told Protocol that while both liberal and conservative sites have been running political ads during the ad ban, the vast majority of ads are coming from right-wing sites. There are two reasons for that, Edelson said. The first is that there's a bigger explicitly partisan media ecosystem on the right than there is on the left. "This isn't a switch you can flip. Either you invested in setting up one of these partisan local newsrooms a year ago … or you didn't," Edelson said.

Facebook spokesperson Mari Melguizo agreed with the assessment. "I think they're spot-on that, yes, the media ecosystem, especially on Facebook, leans more heavily right. There are more pages on that end of the political spectrum."

The second reason right-wing outlets have been more able to push political content through ads during the ban is that Courier, a formidable player in the space, has been temporarily taken out of the equation. "Acronym and Courier are huge. They're a massive part of this," Edelson said.

Beyond the hit to the business, Schrupp says the ban is interfering with Courier's ability to report on the Georgia runoffs. The company employs 70 reporters across the country, many of whom have been stationed in Georgia to cover the race. "We were committed to getting information out about voting rights in Georgia for the Senate runoff. That's been near impossible," Schrupp said. At the same time, according to CrowdTangle data compiled by Schrupp, over the last month, four of the top 10 most engaged posts on Facebook related to the Georgia runoff have come from Fox News and Breitbart.

To Edelson and the leadership at Courier and Acronym, Facebook's policy of prohibiting news organizations from getting verified if they have ties to political entities is flawed because so many partisan news outlets don't disclose their political ties. That means the sites with the least transparency may face even fewer disclosure requirements than sites that are upfront about their funding or their leadership.

"Because we transparently, proactively disclosed Acronym as an investor … they used that against Courier," said Tara McGowan, founder and CEO of Acronym.

McGowan doesn't deny that Facebook should have the ability to filter out partisan commentary from legitimate journalism, and there are plenty of people on the left and the right who believe Courier deserves as much scrutiny as any far-right outlet gets. But McGowan argues that if Facebook is going to write these rules, it should be based on the quality of the reporting. "You'd think that the standard and criteria for what makes verified news would be based on the integrity of the journalism and the content itself, not the investors," McGowan said. "That puts them in murky territory, given how few for-profit investors and investments are disclosed."

Facebook's policy around news outlets applies to any page that is owned by a political person or entity; any page that shares proprietary information, like passwords or data, with political people or entities; and any page that lists political people or entities as page owners or partners. Facebook defines political entities as political parties, campaigns, PACs and 501(c)(4) nonprofits or any for-profit business that consults for those organizations. Political people, meanwhile, are defined as political candidates, elected officials, people whose jobs are legislatively confirmed or people who are employed by or have decision-making authority over political people and entities.

McGowan says there's a political cost to allowing some right-wing groups and news outlets to continue paying to push their messages on Facebook while locking out outlets that might counter their narratives. For one thing, during the run-up to the 2020 election, Acronym analyzed the impact of boosted news articles compared to traditional political Facebook ads and found that, for low-information voters, news articles were far more persuasive in moving voters away from President Trump. "The boosted news was continually more effective," McGowan said.

Now, McGowan and Schrupp fear that Facebook is putting its thumb on the scales just weeks ahead of the Georgia runoffs. Facebook's spokesperson Melguizo said that while Courier has been vocal about its inability to get verified as news, there were plenty of pages on the other side of the political spectrum that were affected by the policy as well.

For McGowan, the issue of partisan outlets being exempt from the ad ban is part of a much larger pattern of Facebook tiptoeing around the far-right sites that regularly dominate the platform and are so quick to cry censorship. There's no law that says Courier Newsroom is a political entity but, say, The Federalist, which is funded by conservative megadonor Richard Uihlein, isn't. Facebook is making those judgment calls and, in this case at least, enforcing them in ways that seem to undermine its own policies. "They create a transparency tool under pressure, because they're not regulated," McGowan said, "but then, they get to make all the rules."

Update 12/12/20 1:08 pm ET: This story has been updated to clarify that Acronym funds Courier. Its super PAC Pacronym does not.

Protocol | China

Beijing meets an unstoppable force: Chinese parents and their children

Live-in tutors disguised as nannies, weekday online tutoring classes and adult gaming accounts for rent. Here's how citizens are finding ways to skirt Beijing's diktats.

Citizens in China are experienced at cooking up countermeasures when Beijing or governments come down with rigid policies.

Photo: Liu Ying/Xinhua via Getty Images

During the summer break, Beijing handed down a parade of new regulations designed to intervene in youth education and entertainment, including a strike against private tutoring, a campaign to "cleanse" the internet and a strict limit on online game playing time for children. But so far, these seemingly iron-clad rules have met their match, with students and their parents quickly finding workarounds.

Grassroots citizens in China are experienced at cooking up countermeasures when Beijing or governments come down with rigid policies. Authorities then have to play defense, amending holes in their initial rules.

Keep Reading Show less
Shen Lu

Shen Lu is a reporter with Protocol | China. Her writing has appeared in Foreign Policy, The New York Times and POLITICO, among other publications. She can be reached at shenlu@protocol.com.


Keep Reading Show less
Nasdaq
A technology company reimagining global capital markets and economies.
Protocol | Policy

Google and Microsoft are at it again, now over government software

The on-again, off-again battle between the two companies flared up again when Google commissioned a study on how much the U.S. government relies on Microsoft software.

Google and Microsoft are in a long-running feud that has once again flared up in recent months.

Photo: Jens Tandler/EyeEm/Getty Images

According to a new report commissioned by Google, Microsoft has an overwhelming "share in the U.S. government office productivity software market," potentially leading to security risks for local, state and federal governments.

The five-page document, released Tuesday by a trade group that counts Google as a member, represents the latest escalation between the two companies in a long-running feud that has once again flared up in recent months.

Keep Reading Show less
Ben Brody

Ben Brody (@ BenBrodyDC) is a senior reporter at Protocol focusing on how Congress, courts and agencies affect the online world we live in. He formerly covered tech policy and lobbying (including antitrust, Section 230 and privacy) at Bloomberg News, where he previously reported on the influence industry, government ethics and the 2016 presidential election. Before that, Ben covered business news at CNNMoney and AdAge, and all manner of stories in and around New York. He still loves appearing on the New York news radio he grew up with.

People

Facebook wants to kill the family iPad

Facebook has built the first portable smart display, and is introducing a new household mode that makes it easier to separate work from play.

Facebook's new Portal Go device will go on sale for $199 in October.

Photo: Facebook

Facebook is coming for the coffee table tablet: The company on Tuesday introduced a new portable version of its smart display called Portal Go, which promises to be a better communal device for video calls, media consumption and many of the other things families use iPads for.

Facebook also announced a revamped version of its Portal Pro device Tuesday, and introduced a new household mode to Portals that will make it easier to share these devices with everyone in a home without having to compromise on working-from-home habits. Taken together, these announcements show that there may be an opening for consumer electronics companies to meet this late-pandemic moment with new device categories.

Keep Reading Show less
Janko Roettgers

Janko Roettgers (@jank0) is a senior reporter at Protocol, reporting on the shifting power dynamics between tech, media, and entertainment, including the impact of new technologies. Previously, Janko was Variety's first-ever technology writer in San Francisco, where he covered big tech and emerging technologies. He has reported for Gigaom, Frankfurter Rundschau, Berliner Zeitung, and ORF, among others. He has written three books on consumer cord-cutting and online music and co-edited an anthology on internet subcultures. He lives with his family in Oakland.

Protocol | Policy

The techlash is threatening human rights around the world

Some 48 countries introduced laws to regulate tech last year. But researchers say many of those laws are just attempts at censorship and surveillance.

In its latest report, Freedom House President Michael Abramowitz said, "We really see free expression and privacy as under unprecedented strain."

Christopher T. Fong/Protocol

Governments around the world are seizing on widespread frustrations with Big Tech as justification for a spate of increasingly restrictive laws governing online speech, a new report finds, a trend that researchers say puts both free expression and the fate of tech companies' overseas employees at risk.

Over the last year alone, some 48 countries worldwide introduced — and in some cases, passed — laws to regulate tech companies, according to the latest report by Freedom House, a nonprofit that publishes an annual survey on internet freedoms in 70 countries. While those laws have often been passed in the name of promoting competition, protecting people's data and moderating offensive content, the report's authors say that, in many cases, these laws are merely thinly veiled attempts to force companies into censorship and surveillance.

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.

Latest Stories