Blog
Jacqui Lambie’s network is the latest victim of ‘cybersquatting’, the tip of the iceberg of negative political ads online
Aug
Firebrand Senator Jacqui Lambie is furious that during the Tasmanian election campaign (in which she is fielding candidates), her party, the Jacqui Lambie Network, fell victim to one of the many pitfalls of the world of online political advertising.
Her party’s website is lambienetwork.com.au. You can understand her anger, after to learn The Tasmanian Liberal Party has created a website to campaign against her, called lambienetwork.com. It’s a difference you can miss by blinking your eye.
This is a textbook example of what is known as cybersquatting. It occurs when Internet domain names that are similar to existing trademarked materials or the names of individuals or organizations are bought by competitors to operate against the original. In reality, the major sites have bought stack domain names.
In the face of the desperate struggle of political parties for voters’ attention in a world full of distractions and decreasing trust in governmentCybersquatting is one of many online tools in the toolbox. But the toolbox is full of blunt tools that can only be effective for a minority of people. The real damage is done to the majority, which has less and less trust in politics and its institutions.
Read more: All governments are guilty of running political ads at public expense. Here’s how to stop it
Crowded, artificial landscape
In commercial marketing, the emphasis is on long-term brand building. In political marketing, there is only one goal: winning.
With so much pressure and so little time to achieve their goals, parties and candidates operate highly emotional messages and narratives to quickly grab the attention and engage their audiences and ultimately convince them to vote for them.
With the market fragmented into increasingly smaller segments, often based on very specific needs, social media has helped quickly move voters and develop narratives around leaders’ personal brands.
Former Prime Minister Scott Morrison has successfully used Instagram His Scomos and try doing something Bunnings DIY.
His successor, Anthony Albanese, repeated this strategy, allowing us to see who he really is, even with Twitter account/X for his dog Toto. The purpose is to develop resonance and build sympathy for his brand.
Of course, as any royal watcher or social media user can tell you, the curated images are exactly that: manufactured for us. So we trust this method less and less. It will only get worse the longer voters are exposed to it.
Stories like this one from the 2022 federal election in Labor-affiliated groups I’m considering paying influencers Posting cordial content doesn’t support either.
As a result, we are now more likely to be skeptical when we see content published by an influencer. Do they actually like the product, or are they just being paid to say they do?
“Angertainment” is very effective
So we’re back to square one. Negativity, or “angertainment,” sets in.
Reality shows are full of this. One example is villain editionwhere some of the participants are portrayed as antagonists for the sake of drama. There is also music that makes us feel like this is a “season-defining moment.”
They do it for the same reasons politicians have been doing it for decades. It works. It gets our attention. We get involved. We change our vote. The ratings for these shows don’t lie.
In the past, this was called “wedge politics” because it wedged one group of voters against another. A party or candidate could become the champion of that group and hail an electoral victory. Straightforward narrative construction.
Read more: We tracked election ad spending on 4,000 Facebook pages, here’s what they’re posting about — and why cybersecurity is a bigger concern
This was uncomplicated when the competition for our attention was less fierce. John Howard’s declaration at the opening of the 2001 election that “we decide” on immigration was pure wedge politics.
The goal is still the same, but in a competitive environment for our attention and retention, contemporary methods have allowed for fresh ways to reach the average voter. People who haven’t seen them before are more likely to believe them.
Darren England/AAP
Clive Palmer used spam messages Over the years, efforts have been made to attract attention, although this has not necessarily translated into electoral success.
A more inventive operate of the Internet in the campaign was by Pauline Hanson animated series.The first three episodes gathered 750,000 views in two weeks on YouTube.
Both the Labor and Liberal parties have had a forceful presence on Snapchat. In 2016, the Liberals were among the first to make a filter in the application. The work was the only big batch to operate it during the 2022 federal election campaign.
These are fresh ways of conveying the party’s key messages, including intimidation and smear campaigns.
Think of “Mediscare”, so well done by Labour in 2016 via text messages, and the revenge sequel that followed death taxes in 2019 by the Coalition. They made very good operate of Facebook groups.
It is now believed that aggression and entertainment have a better chance of conveying the message, and thus achieving victory, than anything else.
Lukasz Coch/AAP
A significant aspect of these campaigns has been disinformation, including misrepresenting or impersonating candidates. Senator David Pocock was a key target in the ACT in 2022, but the challenge was successfully completed through the Australian Electoral Commission.
But it’s 2024, and two years is an eternity on social media. The Jacqui Lambie Network (JLN) website trick we saw this week is old-fashioned. Unlike some other strategies, it’s not effective. But it is childish.
So why bother? The attacking party would be obvious to most if it didn’t have an authorized name, as required by electoral law. This weakens the effect and probably strengthens the reasons to vote JLN.
But political parties do this to take advantage of those who don’t realize they’re getting a bad message. Even if it’s a minority, it’s someone. In a tense political climate, that can be enough to tip the scales in their favor.
The side effects, of course, are the spread of disinformation and public disillusionment with politics and elections.
Read more: Few restrictions, no spending cap and almost no oversight: welcome to political advertising in Australia
Can we stop this?
We can easily.
Cybersquatting is a legal grey area. There are loopholes in the relevant laws that make it very challenging for those affected to take down websites. They are often managed by international organizations with laborious processes.
But the government can prohibit cyber interception or seizure of politicians’ or parties’ web addresses or social media channels. It can restrict negative advertising and introduce green check marks to verify the honesty of advertising.
The government could also ensure that social media companies take more responsibility for content and tolerate fewer excuses for bad behavior. This does not restrict free speech, only disinformation. Some independents already have presented draft laws on this issue to Parliament.
If it’s that basic, why hasn’t it been done? Because it requires political buy-in. Given that politicians are the ones who benefit the most from the existing framework, we don’t need negative publicity to tell us how unlikely it is that they’ll do anything about it anytime soon.
