Facebook rolled out a new algorithm in January 2018. And with the new year, came the promise of a better social network.
The aim was to create a platform that fostered meaningful connections and cracked down on the fake news cycle that has dominated the political landscape since the 2016 election.
After it was revealed that Russian operatives bought ads made to look like they came from American advocacy groups, the social network promised more transparency surrounding who can buy ads.
Now, the process requires uploading an official ID, the last four digits of your social security number, along with a letter from a registered US address.
While this might sound reasonable given the current climate—there are some weird things about the new rules. For example, publishers who create political content must submit this information, too—as do businesses with any political bent, perceived or real.
So, what’s the state of the current FB ads landscape?
Some added transparency
In May, the social network introduced a searchable database called AdArchive, which allows users to view political ads for U.S. elections. This month, they’re doubling down ahead of midterms, with Ad Archive report, a weekly report that discloses political spending.
The latest rollout gives users access to which politicians are spending most on digital sales.
So, far Beto O’Rourke (followed by Trump) is topping the ad spend charts and Democrats are buying three times as many ads as their conservative counterparts.
But there have been some notable hiccups
Unfortunately, Facebook isn’t always great at drawing clear lines.
Since the Ad Archive rollout, brands like Walmart, Nike, and Papa John’s were mistakenly added to the archive. And while there’s no penalty associated with that distinction, it’s safe to say, most brands would likely rather avoid mislabeling.
Most of the mislabeling happens when a brand is linked to a political (-ish) cause. Papa John’s and those hate speech instances, for example, or Nike’s Colin Kaepernick ads.
Procter & Gamble ran an ad in support of LGBTQ pride and Facebook canceled it, citing that this was not disclosed as a political ad.
Newsrooms and small businesses are facing issues, too.
Back in April, when Facebook announced their plan to create a public database of political ads, they also announced that news stories covering political topics would be flagged if they were promoted or boosted to increase views.
Which is where things get a bit murky. While we get that there are some serious problems with fake news and irritating posts, it seems a little crazy that a small news team can’t cover the election without first submitting a great deal of information.
This is why Snapchat might have a big effect on the US midterm elections
Read Now ►
Purging perceived spammers
Facebook announced earlier this month that it purged over 800 U.S. publishers and individual accounts for spamming users with political posts.
The idea was to remove accounts generating content through clickbait ad farms, though according to the Washington Post, Facebook removed pages from people who say they were legitimate political groups.
Chris Metcalf of the left-leaning digital publication Reasonable People Unite told the Post he would gladly abide by Facebook’s rules if he knew what they were.
Facebook says these accounts were shut down for having “consistently broken our rules against spam and coordinated inauthentic behavior”.
The social media site keeps citing authentic behavior and the importance of having trust in the connections made through the platform.
As such, they’ve cracked down on anything that looks like politically themed clickbait, whether its authentic or not—and that’s not just paid ads. Those with too much organic activity — likes, shares, comments — are at risk, too.
Facebook’s statement says that they’re just looking out for misuse, meaning political groups need to be ‘upfront about who they are and what they’re up to.’ Facebook says they’re committed to uncovering abuse whether that’s economically or politically motivated.
Metcalf, mentioned this in the Post interview, too, stating he was accused of trying to profit off of content. But isn’t anyone who’s writing news articles, blog posts, or branded content trying to profit from it?
But—wait, you can buy ads under fake names?
Based on the purging and rollout of the database, it seems that Facebook is trying to do some good, promising transparency and trying to eliminate misuse. But, VICE recently ran an article revealing another bug.
In May, Facebook added a mandatory “Paid for by” disclosure for any political or political adjacent ad. VICE found that they were able to place bogus ads “paid for” by Mike Pence, the Islamic State and the Democratic National Committee Chairman, Tom Perez. Interestingly, they reported, an ad paid for under the name “Hillary Clinton” was swiftly denied. VICE even posed as 100 Senators and Facebook approved all their ads.
Final thoughts
To say that Facebook needs to work out a few kinks is an understatement.
It’s everyone’s best interest to understand who is paying for ads–but it seems the company is making things difficult for brands and publishers who bump up against political issues, which could potentially lead to problems down the road.
More about Facebook's scandals
