Solving the Political Ad Problem with Transparency

Almost all content and advertising on the Internet is adapted to each viewer. The impact of this type of content distribution on the 2016 election is still being studied. However, we can say with certainty that the campaigns used it to tell different things for different people without worrying about accuracy.

The solution to this problem is: telling people to show ads is impractical and legally questionable. A more direct solution based on applicable disclosure regulations was proposed in Congress:This Honest Advertising Act would boost transparency through digital media platforms post all ads on a website that anyone can see.

Before the web, massive data, and machine learning, political groups and campaigns reached their target audiences through mass media—newspapers, radio, and television. Almost everyone watched the same news and ads at the same time. As a result, the public shared a common knowledge base about what political candidates were saying. Not anymore.

Digital media platforms now track what users watch, search for, post, like, and share in order to microtarget their users with ads they’re more likely to want to see. Compared to the scattershot approach used in TV and other mass media, microtargeted ads are incredibly effective. That’s great for media platforms, which can make money from advertisers. It’s great for consumers, who can trade their time watching ads they’re more likely to want to see for “free” internet utilize. And it’s great for businesses, which can reach their target audiences for less money.

But recent news has made it clear that microtargeting isn’t so good for democracy. Microtargeted ads, which are at the heart of the most successful internet business modelallow political and other groups – including foreign countries – tell the Americans tens of thousands different storiesEach of these messages is tailored to the people who are inclined to agree with it and not available for anyone else to check or verify. The net result is increase divisions and “bogus news” arguments as the general public’s knowledge becomes fragmented into smaller and smaller pieces.

A look at the 19th century

The problem of politicians telling different stories to different people is not novel. In 1840, William Henry Harrison’s presidential candidacy essentially invented the modern campaign. He was the first to organize mass rallies, appear in person, and introduce catchy slogans. He realized that he could tailor his messages to different audiences, and even provide different segments of the population with different sets of facts. The people who heard his speeches never learned that their counterparts in another region were being told something different.

The solution: A traveling press corps made sure that everyone had access to all of the candidate’s speeches. Harrison and other candidates could, of course, still say whatever they wanted to any audience, but the press coverage turned the contradiction into a political liability. The solution today is the same: more transparency. In the age of microtargeted online advertising, we need to make all ads available to all people.

During the 2004 presidential election, transparency was necessary to eliminating bogus news. An advertising campaign by a group called “Veterans of Swift Boats for Truth” was created to discredit Democratic candidate John Kerry. Partly because a wide audience saw the ads, the effort was exposed as wrong propaganda about Kerry’s Vietnam War Service. By increasing the transparency of online advertising, we, the people can hold all politicians, parties and interest groups accountable and return to sensible debates based on a common set of facts.

Current solutions are not sufficient

Recent reports that Russia attempted to manipulate the election using microtargeted ads on Facebook, Google AND Twitterand that advertisers can microtarget ads based on Keywords racisthas led to calls for greater social responsibility of online media platforms and responsible.

Technology companies planned response is to hire more people to review ads and keywords – a form of censorship. Even if every ad and its associated keywords could be reviewed by media companies, there are freedom of speech issues involved in rejecting ads. Furthermore, motivated and savvy advertisers are likely to find ways to reach their intended demographics.

Learning from history

As in 1840, Americans need support restoring the transparency that has been lost as campaigns have changed how they reach voters. If media platforms were required to post all ads in an online archive on their websites for at least a year, then consumer groups, political watchdogs, the press, and basically every citizen could monitor which ads are being served.

In addition, at least in the case of political ads, the keywords used to target the audience and the group paying for them could be included in the ad itself. Putting all ads on a known and publicly accessible site would make the ads available for anyone to view for a reasonable period of time. Advertisers would be held accountable because anyone could see the ad and it would not disappear quickly. If we, as citizens, do not take it upon ourselves to check the archive site, then shame on us.

This will not solve all the problems of microtargeting. Advertisers and campaigns will undoubtedly try to circumvent any regulations that apply. The goal is not perfect accountability, but a step toward it. Just as campaign regulations require paid political ads in mass media identify sources of financingthere should be a trail of accountability for advertising on digital media platforms. This system is technically feasible and could be established immediately. It would likely reduce disinformation and curb foreign manipulation at the same time, and could support the internet live up to its hopes of improving—not hindering—democracy.

Editor’s Note: This article was updated on October 19, 2017 to reflect and accommodate the fact that specific billing has been introduced in Congress to establish regulations similar to those proposed in this article.