Policy

Big Tech’s political ad bans are a big charade

Twitter and others swore off political ads before 2020, but their decisions may have cost more than just ad dollars.

Colourful overlapping silhouettes of people voting in USA elections

Questions remain about how apolitical political ad-banning policies really are.

Illustration: smartboy10/Getty images

Say ExxonMobil wanted to run an ad on Twitter about how natural gas is actually totally climate-friendly. The company could get certified as a “cause-based” advertiser, provide some basic details like its company ID and country of origin, and fire away.

But if Erik Polyak, managing director of the climate advocacy group 314 Action, wanted to run an ad debunking that very debunkable claim, he couldn’t. 314 Action is registered as a political action committee and, in late 2019, Twitter announced it would no longer take ads from PACs — or political candidates, parties or government officials, for that matter.

“We believe political message reach should be earned, not bought,” Jack Dorsey tweeted at the time. (Twitter spokesperson Elizabeth Busby shared a verbatim statement with Protocol.)

Political ads had become too susceptible to abuse, Dorsey wrote, presenting “entirely new challenges to civic discourse,” and he believed the company couldn’t credibly claim to be cleaning up its act while also taking money to push whatever misleading message political advertisers wanted.

Twitter wasn’t the only one reaching that conclusion. After facing intense scrutiny over the ways digital ad systems were abused during the 2016 election, some tech platforms — Spotify, LinkedIn, TikTok and Pinterest among them — decided that it might be easier to simply sit elections out and imposed various bans on political advertising. Only Spotify has opted to bring them back, albeit in a limited fashion.

But as the midterm elections loom, questions remain about how apolitical these policies really are and whether they’re actually reducing abuse or simply taking the spotlight off of the companies that imposed them. “They launched this policy that's really tilted the playing field,” Polyak said of Twitter. “Instead of getting serious about disinformation on the platform, they've just gravitated towards this one-size-fits-all policy that really favors big corporations and penalizes advocacy groups like us.”

“It’s performative,” added Tatenda Musapatike, CEO of the Voter Formation Project, a voter turnout nonprofit focused on underrepresented communities. Musapatike previously worked on political ads at Facebook. “[Platforms] have political messages on there, but they don’t want to open themselves up to the risk or the appearance of the risk,” she said. “They don’t want to end up like Facebook in 2017.”

It’s hard to measure the impact these political ad bans have had on elections, or on platforms, in part because none of the platforms has shared any research measuring their impact — that is, if any have done that research at all. Protocol asked Twitter, TikTok, LinkedIn and Pinterest if they had any data on the effect of the ad bans: Twitter, TikTok and Pinterest did not respond directly to the question, and LinkedIn said it didn't have data to share.

That’s a problem, said Matt Perault, a professor at UNC's School of Information and Library Science and a former director of Facebook’s public policy team. Tech platforms large and small made what Perault calls “historic interventions” in paid political speech before the 2020 race. “It might be that some form of ad restrictions are positive, and we want to keep them in place if they worked; or maybe they failed, and because they failed, we don't want to implement them in the midterms or in 2024,” Perault said. “We don’t know the answer to any of those questions.”

In the absence of data from the companies, Perault and his colleague Scott Babwah Brennen, head of Online Expression Policy at UNC’s Center on Technology Policy, went looking for answers of their own. In a paper published last year, they analyzed the effects of the temporary ban on new political ads that Facebook put in place immediately before and immediately following the 2020 election. They found that while the bans likely had minimal impact on curbing misinformation, they did seem to hurt smaller campaigns, since digital ads are cheaper than other mediums. The bans also appeared to hurt Democrats more than Republicans, since Democrats generally relied more on Facebook ads for small-dollar fundraising.

“It doesn't hurt Donald Trump. He has massive organic content, and he can spend money wherever he wants to spend it,” Perault said. “It hurts challengers who might not have name recognition, who are trying to figure out: For 100 bucks, where can they get a good return on their investment?”

The irony, of course, is that it was Democrats who primarily demonized digital political ads after 2016, warning of the dangers of “dark posts” and castigating tech giants for the way their ad systems had been misused by Russian operatives. Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Mark Warner introduced the Honest Ads Act, which would have required more disclosure and transparency around online political ads. Momentum behind that bill fizzled after its Republican co-sponsor, Sen. John McCain, died, but the increased public pressure did prompt Facebook, Google, Snap, Reddit and even, temporarily, Twitter to create ad archives of their own.

That was a clear win for transparency, but the increased scrutiny may have inadvertently driven some platforms away from political advertising altogether. These archives, after all, took substantial resources, and the new visibility has created unending bad press for platforms, especially Facebook. Ultimately, Brennen said, “Small companies just don't think it's really worth it.”

But the rules those platforms have since put in place forbidding political bans are imperfect at best. Take TikTok: The company banned political ads in 2019, but paying influencers to peddle political messages instead has become a widespread workaround, despite the company’s stated policy against it. Twitter’s prohibition on political ads, meanwhile, has effectively created a loophole for businesses while stymying advocacy groups, said Stephanie Grasmick, CEO of the Democratic marketing firm Rising Tide Interactive.

“Hotel chains and airlines say, ‘We’re rated the No. 1 employer. Our employees love us,’ and then the union that represents the workers can’t advertise at all because of how they’re organized,” Grasmick said. “If they’re going to have rules — and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with having rules — then the rules should apply equally to everybody.”

The bans also haven’t stopped potential misinformation from spreading through online ads. They’ve just made those ads harder to find. Perault and Brennen have been tracking where political advertising has moved online in the wake of these bans and discovered that a lot of it is migrating to programmatic advertising platforms, which have few rules about what advertisers can say and almost no transparency systems in place. Buying ads this way can also drive up costs for campaigns, Brennen said, because navigating programmatic systems often takes a trained marketing consultant. That only further obscures the flow of campaign cash: When campaigns hire consultants to do their digital advertising, those consultants by and large aren’t required to publicly report where the money goes.

Even on Facebook, where it’s still possible to run political ads, the landscape for political advertisers looks a lot different — and a lot pricier — in 2022. That’s due to Apple privacy changes that have torpedoed every app’s ability to track users, as well as to Facebook’s own decision to prevent advertisers from targeting users based on “sensitive” categories, including their political beliefs. There are still ways to find relevant audiences, Musapatike said, but “the targeting is less efficient.”

All of this has made it increasingly expensive for smaller, less resourced political campaigns to advertise online. That, Perault said, is a “social cost” that tech platforms need to assess at least as much as they assessed the upside of banning political ads. But nearly three years after many of these companies made that decision, and with a contentious midterm election just months away, Perault said, our understanding of the effects of those bans is still woefully inadequate.

“Are we — going into the next momentous moment in the democratic governance of our nation — going to be in a better position to make informed decisions about what the right approaches are?” he said. “I think it's a travesty that we don't have that information.”

Every day, millions of us press the “order” button on our favorite coffee mobile application. When we arrive at the coffee shop, we expect that our chosen brew will be on the counter a few minutes later. It’s a personalized, seamless experience that we have all come to expect. What we don’t know is what’s happening behind the scenes. The mobile application is sourcing data from a database that stores information about each customer and what their favorite coffee drinks are. It is also leveraging event-streaming data in real time to ensure the ingredients for your personal coffee are in supply at your local store.

Applications like this power our daily lives, and if they can’t access massive amounts of data stored in a database as well as streaming data “in motion” instantaneously, you, and millions of customers, won’t have the in-the-moment experiences we all expect.

Keep Reading Show less
Jennifer Goforth Gregory
Jennifer Goforth Gregory has worked in the B2B technology industry for over 20 years. As a freelance writer she writes for top technology brands, including IBM, HPE, Adobe, AT&T, Verizon, Epson, Oracle, Intel and Square. She specializes in a wide range of technology, such as AI, IoT, cloud, cybersecurity, and CX. Jennifer also wrote a bestselling book The Freelance Content Marketing Writer to help other writers launch a high earning freelance business.
Policy

How the internet got privatized and how the government could fix it

Author Ben Tarnoff discusses municipal broadband, Web3 and why closing the “digital divide” isn’t enough.

The Biden administration’s Internet for All initiative, which kicked off in May, will roll out grant programs to expand and improve broadband infrastructure, teach digital skills and improve internet access for “everyone in America by the end of the decade.”

Decisions about who is eligible for these grants will be made based on the Federal Communications Commission’s broken, outdated and incorrect broadband maps — maps the FCC plans to update only after funding has been allocated. Inaccurate broadband maps are just one of many barriers to getting everyone in the country successfully online. Internet service providers that use government funds to connect rural and low-income areas have historically provided those regions with slow speeds and poor service, forcing community residents to find reliable internet outside of their homes.

Keep Reading Show less
Aditi Mukund
Aditi Mukund is Protocol’s Data Analyst. Prior to joining Protocol, she was an analyst at The Daily Beast and NPR where she wrangled data into actionable insights for editorial, audience, commerce, subscription, and product teams. She holds a B.S in Cognitive Science, Human Computer Interaction from The University of California, San Diego.
Fintech

How I decided to exit my startup’s original business

Bluevine got its start in factoring invoices for small businesses. CEO Eyal Lifshitz explains why it dropped that business in favor of “end-to-end banking.”

"[I]t was a realization that we can't be successful at both at the same time: You've got to choose."

Photo: Bluevine

Click banner image for more How I decided series

Bluevine got its start in fintech by offering a modern version of invoice factoring, the centuries-old practice where businesses sell off their accounts receivable for up-front cash. It’s raised $767 million in venture capital since its founding in 2013 by serving small businesses. But along the way, it realized it was better to focus on the checking accounts and lines of credit it provided customers than its original product. It now manages some $500 million in checking-account deposits.

Keep Reading Show less
Ryan Deffenbaugh
Ryan Deffenbaugh is a reporter at Protocol focused on fintech. Before joining Protocol, he reported on New York's technology industry for Crain's New York Business. He is based in New York and can be reached at rdeffenbaugh@protocol.com.
Enterprise

The Roe decision could change how advertisers use location data

Over the years, the digital ad industry has been resistant to restricting use of location data. But that may be changing.

Over the years, the digital ad industry has been resistant to restrictions on the use of location data. But that may be changing.

Illustration: Christopher T. Fong/Protocol

When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade on Friday, the likelihood for location data to be used against people suddenly shifted from a mostly hypothetical scenario to a realistic threat. Although location data has a variety of purposes — from helping municipalities assess how people move around cities to giving reliable driving directions — it’s the voracious appetite of digital advertisers for location information that has fueled the creation and growth of a sector selling data showing who visited specific points on the map, when, what places they came from and where they went afterwards.

Over the years, the digital ad industry has been resistant to restrictions on the use of location data. But that may be changing. The overturning of Roe not only puts the wide availability of location data for advertising in the spotlight, it could serve as a turning point compelling the digital ad industry to take action to limit data associated with sensitive places before the government does.

Keep Reading Show less
Kate Kaye

Kate Kaye is an award-winning multimedia reporter digging deep and telling print, digital and audio stories. She covers AI and data for Protocol. Her reporting on AI and tech ethics issues has been published in OneZero, Fast Company, MIT Technology Review, CityLab, Ad Age and Digiday and heard on NPR. Kate is the creator of RedTailMedia.org and is the author of "Campaign '08: A Turning Point for Digital Media," a book about how the 2008 presidential campaigns used digital media and data.

Latest Stories
Bulletins