Posted on 10/03/2017 7:14:08 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Facebook, Google, and Twitter all directly advised campaigns on how to influence voters — and the help may have been decisive.
Facebook’s role during the 2016 presidential election has come under extraordinary scrutiny in recent weeks. Most notably, attention has swirled around a Kremlin-backed troll farm’s purchase of $100,000 worth of ads on the platform during the election cycle. This came on the heels of controversies over the proliferation of "fake news" during the campaign.
But our research shows another, less discussed aspect of Facebook’s political influence was far more consequential in terms of the election outcome. The entirely routine use of Facebook by Trump’s campaign and others — a major part of the $1.1 billion of paid digital advertising during the cycle — is likely to have had far greater reach than Russian bots and fake news sites. And beyond this reach, our research reveals that firms such as Facebook, Google, and Twitter now play a much more active role in electoral politics than has been widely acknowledged.
Those companies had staff working hand in hand with Trump campaign digital staffers, according to Gary Coby, the director of advertising at the RNC and director of digital advertising and fundraising for Trump’s general election campaign. “I required that if people wanted to work with us, they needed to send bodies to us in Texas and put people on the ground because Hillary had this giant machine, well-built out with digital operations, and we're just a few guys and a big Twitter account,” he told us.
“Google, Twitter, and Facebook, we had people who were down there constantly and constantly working with us, helping us solve our problems in relation to how we're using the platforms,” he said. “If we're coming up with new ideas, bringing them into the fold to come up with ideas of how their platform could help us achieve our goals."
In light of Mark Zuckerberg’s recent announcement that Facebook will require disclosure and transparency around who creates and purchases political ads, it is worth considering the transparency of the behind-the-scenes work that enables the use of Facebook, Google, and Twitter to influence voters.
During and since the election, we formally interviewed dozens of staffers working on all the major 2016 campaigns, along with representatives of the big tech companies, to understand how campaigns use these platforms to reach the electorate. All of them echoed Coby’s comments that Google, Facebook, and Twitter play active roles in electoral politics.
For example, these firms offer an extensive array of campaign services — including advising campaigns on everything from the content of ads and other communications to the specific groups they might benefit most from targeting, and how best to reach them. Consider the fact that all three of these firms have dedicated partisan teams that work with campaigns. Staffers work with campaigns to guide advertising buys, boost engagement around online ads, and shepherd the use of their platforms.
One reason these firms have invested in working with campaigns is for a slice of the political ad sales market. The 2016 election alone was a $2 billion enterprise.
Technology firms and campaigns are both incentivized to work together — digital ads deliver revenue for technology companies based on engagement. This means that these firms get paid more based on higher performing ads: More click-throughs equal more revenue. For campaigns, more clicks mean greater reach and potential impact.
It’s not just the ad revenue alone that these firms are after. Presidential campaigns garner massive, worldwide attention. As such they serve as important vehicles for marketing these platforms and new tools they offer. Even more, we found that technology firms want to create relationships with campaigns to further their long-term lobbying efforts. Successful candidates become legislators, governors, and even presidents, with influence over the regulations, or lack thereof, that will apply to these firms.
Not all campaigns use Facebook, Twitter, and Google in the same way. Hillary Clinton built a large in-house staff to execute digital media on the campaign, but with a lean staff, the Trump team likely benefited more from the help provided by the tech companies. The expertise these firms provided to the campaign’s general-election San Antonio office was particularly important, and days after the election, Trump's digital director said Facebook played a "critical role" in its success.
You could consider the help provided by tech companies as a form of subsidy to the campaigns. These subsidies of expertise are mutually beneficial: The platforms get ad revenues and build relationships with campaigns and their candidates, while campaigns optimize their advertising and extend the reach of their messaging.
Ali-Jae Henke, the current head of industry, elections at Google, described the company’s routine work with campaigns during the cycle: “They say ‘like look, we really want to get attention and we want to reach as many people as possible and these are kind of the areas politically where we might have challenges or the different types of voting blocs we need to reach’ … and so then I am able to in that advisory capacity be like, ‘well this is what moms look like online, this is how we find them...’”
This work is of major importance, because even the most well-funded political campaigns are always strapped for time and resources, given the monumental task they have of contacting, motivating, and persuading the electorate. By enhancing the ability of institutional political actors to connect with citizens and make politics meaningful in an era of fragmented audiences and attention, we believe Google, Facebook, and Twitter are playing a significant role in the democratic process.
There is a troubling lack of transparency that clouds this role. Given the scope and scale of the paid uses of platforms such as Facebook by campaigns, the effects likely dwarf those of fake news or illegitimate advertising buys. This, of course, is speculation, because we will never know for certain how much impact these things had. That is why the basic lack of transparency and disclosure surrounding digital political advertising is so concerning, and Mark Zuckerberg’s recent announcement was a step in the right direction.
Google and Twitter should join Facebook in its effort around transparency and disclosure, and make the paid content posted on their platforms public so citizens, journalists, and academics can evaluate these messages. Government regulation around transparency is ideal. However, former chairperson Ann Ravel stated that the Federal Election Commission is “dysfunctional” and “deadlocked.” In the interim, these firms should work together to set standards for political advertising disclosure and open paid communications up to public scrutiny.
Seems like the left is trying to keep Zuckerberg out of the race. Even they have to realize that he has zero appeal.
Facebook and ABC colluded to present the news and frame the campaign.
They even ANNOUNCED it before the campaign began.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3221753/posts
Facebook data mining for political views
Politico ^ | 10/30/2014 | Hadas Gold
Facebook is mining its data of users’ posts to find out how users feel about certain candidates or issues and sharing that data with ABC News and BuzzFeed for use in their 2016 reporting, the social-networking site will announce on Friday.
The data will be gathered from the posts of Facebook users in the United States 18 and older, classifying sentiments about a politician or issue as positive, negative or neutral. The data can also be broken down into sentiments by gender and location, making it possible to see how Facebook users in the key primary states of Iowa or New Hampshire feel about certain presidential candidates, or how women in Florida feel about same-sex marriage....
This has got to be the most asinine thing I've read in a long time. Since when are ads *not* public? The challenge in advertising is not that ads are not well publicized, it is that the public does not want to see them. What this author wrote is ludicrous.
And still - Hitliary did not win.
What??? Media companies working with campaigns to sell advertising??? That’s never once in the history of a campaign in the United States ever happened before! Not once! I’m shocked I tell you! SHOCKED!
It should be illegal for media companies to sell advertising to election campaigns!
A hundred thou !?!? Where in the world could such an immense advertising budget come from?
A trollathon could raise that in 4 months
Who’d have guessed?
ping
Just like when I pull into a gas station, the electricity to run the gas pump is a "subsidy" to my gasoline purchase -- NOT !!!
If I want to buy an ad in any kind of media they have people who will help me with that. This is not a subsidy -- the cost of the ad pays the salaries of the helpers.
What I am really reading here is that Hillary's team though they were smarter than the people at Facebook, and decided to do it their own way. Team Trump accepted all the help they could get, and were more effective. You decide which trait makes the better President.
And then there’s Cambridge Analytica, which even the mention of seems taboo.
If Facebook collects data, the people freely five them, on everyone and then analyzes it, I might not like it, but that doesn't automatically make it illegal.
Ted Cruz got to a solid second place in a field of 17. If they had backed Lindsey Graham or Jeb Bush I could see your point.
OK. So even if they do very well, what is wrong with that?
The whole idea of our Republic is that we elect representatives to carry out the will of the people. If CA helps those representatives to better understand the will of the people, isn’t that a good thing?
Now maybe there is an issue with psy ops to change the will of the people, but that is nothing more than advertising, which has been legal since time immemorial. There are even biblical references to men dressing well so as to attract women.
The whole idea of a political campaign is just advertising to convince voters to support one candidate over another. If CA is that good at it, then we should be thankful they are on our side.
I don’t have problem number one with Cambridge Analytica. They did us all a big favor.
So who will be the first big name Leftist to get tired of this crap and scream “ She lost because she’s a zhitty human being!!”?
Ppssst..... The minders have positioned bots to read and summarize posts on certain conservation boards....
Do not worry about this.
These nets will all go down at critical moments, causing great anxiety among the users.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.