This is the first thing I found; take-out is, the flak they get over the whole political ads controversy isn't worth how much they make on them, comparatively. I'm inclined to believe them.
At a certain point in 2008, Obama was certain to be the Dem primary winner against Hillary. But CNN was still framing it as a tight contest. I wondered how much of that editorial decision was based on making sure eyeballs stay glued to CNN, so they can tell their advertisers "A 30 second slot costs this much at the moment...".
Throughout history, it has been difficult and divisive to decide what ads are "political", or even "electoral" or "partisan".
Remember when the ONDCP spent billions of dollars on "anti-drug" ads (including millions for a single super bowl spot)?
These were paid for by taxpayer dollars and ostensibly a public-health message. But we all realized that they were political and meant to defend an unpopular government policy by conjoining it with another slightly more popular policy (the "war on terrorism" as it was still called in 2002).
So what ads are "political" and what ads aren't?
Imagine as a baseline that we say that any ad for a candidate, paid for by a campaign, is political.
Well, then, how about an ad for a candidate for paid for a Super PAC? Still political probably, right?
OK, well, how about an ad depicting a particular policy outcome, ("Build the wall today!"), encouraging people to join a political action committee. Still political?
How about an ad from a 527 that says "We need medicare for all. Please donate if you agree."? How about an ad from a 501(c)(4) that says "Help support independent drug research."?
Comments
Why don't they just ban political ads altogether?
Because political ads are like printing money
Political ads make the company very little money actually
Source?
https://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-isnt-taking-political-ads...
This is the first thing I found; take-out is, the flak they get over the whole political ads controversy isn't worth how much they make on them, comparatively. I'm inclined to believe them.
At a certain point in 2008, Obama was certain to be the Dem primary winner against Hillary. But CNN was still framing it as a tight contest. I wondered how much of that editorial decision was based on making sure eyeballs stay glued to CNN, so they can tell their advertisers "A 30 second slot costs this much at the moment...".
Throughout history, it has been difficult and divisive to decide what ads are "political", or even "electoral" or "partisan".
Remember when the ONDCP spent billions of dollars on "anti-drug" ads (including millions for a single super bowl spot)?
These were paid for by taxpayer dollars and ostensibly a public-health message. But we all realized that they were political and meant to defend an unpopular government policy by conjoining it with another slightly more popular policy (the "war on terrorism" as it was still called in 2002).
So what ads are "political" and what ads aren't?
Imagine as a baseline that we say that any ad for a candidate, paid for by a campaign, is political.
Well, then, how about an ad for a candidate for paid for a Super PAC? Still political probably, right?
OK, well, how about an ad depicting a particular policy outcome, ("Build the wall today!"), encouraging people to join a political action committee. Still political?
How about an ad from a 527 that says "We need medicare for all. Please donate if you agree."? How about an ad from a 501(c)(4) that says "Help support independent drug research."?
Where do you draw the line?
I am not sure. But surely drawing the line at what is and isn't political is much easier than attempting to state what is and is not true.
It depends on the statement. For most statements that matter, I think it's probably easier to do fact checking than a political litmus.
At the end of the day, we need to stop using platforms that rely on a central authority's revenue from advertising. That's the core problem here.
because Revenue