Google Political Ad Approaches Get Some Hill Backing; Others Critical
Google’s decision to limit political advertising microtargeting is a better approach than Facebook’s decision not to fact-check political ads, Sens. Mark Warner, D-Va., and Ed Markey, D-Mass., said in interviews last month. Sens. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii; Josh Hawley, R-Mo.; and John Kennedy, R-La.; said Google’s updated policy is a mistake.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
It’s against Google policy for any advertiser to make false claims, the platform said Nov. 20. The company clarified its policies to prohibit things like deepfakes and misleading or “demonstrably false” claims. It conceded no company “can sensibly adjudicate every political claim, counterclaim, and insinuation,” so enforcement will be limited to clear violations. Earlier last month, Twitter banned all political ads (see 1911010041).
Google and Twitter are on a better track than Facebook, Warner said. He noted it's “partially true” that platforms are good for first-time candidates to compete with incumbents, and limiting political speech could have an impact. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, was vocal about the impact on newcomer politicians when Twitter announced its decision.
“I actually think it’s a mistake to ban ads,” Schatz said. “I just think they should be responsible. They have terms of service, and they can just make them better and enforce them.” Banning the marketing is a “cop-out,” he said. Companies don’t want to hire human supervision because it’s expensive, he said, and “because they have unending faith in their own algorithms, which aren’t working.” Google, Twitter and Facebook didn't comment.
Social media platforms moving toward tougher limits on political commercial material is “another way of shutting out political speech,” Hawley said. “I don’t know why you wouldn’t treat political ads on their platforms like you’d treat them on broadcast.” With stations, there’s an established framework, he said. Warner noted that cable networks remove demonstrably false material. “It sounds like more speech limitation to me, which is kind of worrisome,” Hawley said.
Asked whether he will invite Twitter before the Senate Constitution Subcommittee he chairs, Cruz expected this to “remain an ongoing conversation in a serious focus of scrutiny.” He previously called Twitter’s decision “yet another attempt to silence conservatives, since Twitter knows President [Donald] Trump has the most sophisticated online program ever known.”
Neither Twitter's nor Google’s decisions were correct, Kennedy said, arguing they’re trying to be politically correct. It’s a mistake for social media companies to try to tell “the American people what they can and can’t see," he said. "They’re going to make both sides unhappy.”
Algorithms prevent some harmful content, but everything else is ad hoc, Schatz said. An army of humans could prevent this, he added, dismissing First Amendment concerns as “preposterous.” Google and Twitter “don’t want to piss off Republicans,” he said.
Google's and Twitter’s decisions are “steps in the right direction,” Markey said, criticizing Facebook’s hands-off approach. “These steps are going to help reduce the sinister side of cyberspace.”
Kennedy said Congress should vote on privacy legislation. He also suggested the tech industry establish a body like ICANN to address hate speech.