The Message Behind the Medium

The regulation of political advertising on social media has long been on the agenda. As the Cambridge Analytica scandal and Russian interference in the 2016 US elections showed, the lack of transparency and oversight is having tangible effects – on voter orientation, social behaviour and even election outcomes. And as the share of political advertising shown on social media increases, it’s worth bearing in mind that it’s practically only Meta and Alphabet that allow political ads: there is no real competition in this market.

At the Digital Futures Gathering, a group of activists from Europe and South America discussed the factors that should be taken into account when advocating for transparent and accountable political advertising on social media. This essay was inspired by those conversations and builds on participants’ contributions with the aim of highlighting key dilemmas and challenges.

Definition
One of the few positive aspects of political advertising on social media is that platforms use broad definitions. To determine whether an ad is ‘political’, they look at its potential effect (whether it will influence political behaviour or election outcomes) rather than simply who has placed it or when it has been shown (for example, an ad placed by a political party during an election period). However, loopholes remain – for example, how to deal with pages with a significant number of followers, publishing posts that have a similar reach and effect as paid ads (some of which might even be sponsored from outside the platform by a political initiative).

Labelling
While using a broad definition of political advertising should ensure that non-party political entities cannot circumvent rules, in practice it can make it harder to detect political ads. One way of countering this is to require those placing ads to label them as political or not, while an algorithm double checks non-labeled ads. Another option relies fully on algorithms, which removes all responsibility from advertisers to disclose the purpose of their ads (though this might encourage the publication of ‘Trojan horse’ ads that do not appear political, with the aim of tricking the algorithm). In the end there seems to be no big difference between the two options: recent research has shown that Facebook is often unable to detect what constitutes a political advertisement and regularly both under- and over-enforces its political ads policy. Still, were advertisers required to label their ads, they could still be sanctioned for non-compliance via disclosure rules.

Transparency
The history of political advertising shows that a policy that places limits on ads is not by itself sufficient for ensuring that political advertising attains a high degree of integrity. Advertisers can always find a way round restrictions. While transparency does not solve the problem either, it allows for public scrutiny and accountability, even when platforms or authorities fail to enforce rules. Still, in non-democratic countries, it could put activists and dissenters at risk by disclosing the names of individuals or funders. Allowing for exceptions from disclosure also risks enabling third-party actors – such as government-organised NGOs (GONGOs) or entities that claim to be non-political but are still able to influence voter behaviour – to circumvent the rules.

Bans
Banning political ads can be similarly fraught. In countries with free media and balanced political communication and outreach, periodic bans can help protect voters from manipulation. However, in places where social media is the primary or only channel for reaching broad audiences due to a lack of independent outlets, a ban on political ads just serves the interests of those in power.

National vs international
It becomes even more tricky to imagine a preferable scenario for ads that are sponsored in one country and published in another. Banning foreign ads seems a straight-forward solution for preventing malicious foreign influence, but this could also mean that EU-level political parties would be prohibited from campaigning in multiple countries at EU elections, and climate activists would need to set up offices in all possible jurisdictions to be able to launch global or international campaigns.

Government ads
The aspects above suggest that it is impossible to regulate online political ads globally through uniform rules. Still, there are certain types of ad that could be subjected to total transparency right away. The highest transparency requirements should apply to ads published or sponsored by governments as these are funded by public money and (should) serve the public interest. This requirement would allow for the development of new publication standards that could then be expanded to other ads, thus contributing to enhanced overall transparency of ads on social media.

Who should regulate
Ad disclosure on social media is currently the result of platforms deciding to self-regulate in the wake of a number of high-profile scandals. But when it comes to better rules, nobody should expect platforms to go any further by themselves. And what about governments? The risk is that highly-fragmented regulation could undermine improved ad policies. For now, rules that can be applied at the transnational level by groups of states that share similar political systems (such as the EU) seem to have the best chance of enforcing higher standards of transparency and accountability.

Digital futures
To achieve better regulation and improved practices in digital political advertising, pressure needs to be put on platforms and legislators to do more than merely fixing the present system’s flaws. Pointing at faults, engaging in litigation for data and hacking poor disclosure rules are all important steps – especially if they feed into alternative conceptions of online political ads. Some of these ideas might even be incorporated into the EU’s new political ads regulation that should be implemented before the next EU parliamentary elections. Let’s keep an eye on them.

Sándor Léderer is co-founder and director of K-Monitor, an anti-corruption NGO from Hungary.