Reporters Posed as 100 Senators To Run Ads on Facebook. Facebook Approved All of Them. (vice.com) 83
William Turton, reporting for Vice News: One of Facebook's major efforts to add transparency to political advertisements is a required "Paid for by" disclosure at the top of each ad supposedly telling users who is paying for political ads that show up in their news feeds. But on the eve of the 2018 midterm elections, a VICE News investigation found the "Paid for by" feature is easily manipulated and appears to allow anyone to lie about who is paying for a political ad, or to pose as someone paying for the ad. To test it, VICE News applied to buy fake ads on behalf of all 100 sitting U.S. senators, including ads "Paid for by" by Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer. Facebook's approvals were bipartisan: All 100 sailed through the system, indicating that just about anyone can buy an ad identified as "Paid for by" by a major U.S. politician. What's more, all of these approvals were granted to be shared from pages for fake political groups such as "Cookies for Political Transparency" and "Ninja Turtles PAC." VICE News did not buy any Facebook ads as part of the test; rather, we received approval to include "Paid for by" disclosures for potential ads.
Re: (Score:1)
While vice has degenerated into mostly fauxtrage about non-issues, it's good to see they occasionally investigate real problems.
Is this Facebook's problem to solve? The problem of identity fraud when buying ads? I guess it is if Facebook is taking no measures at all: they should at least make fraud hard. But ultimately no business can entirely prevent fraud, which is one of the few reasons we need a government.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"But ultimately no business can entirely prevent fraud,"
They care about preventing the kind of fraud where they don't get their money.
This is not that kind of fraud and so they don't give a shit.
Re: (Score:2)
But ultimately no business can entirely prevent fraud
But they sure can be held to a much higher standard than Facebook currently is. I work at a financial institution and our fraud prevention techniques are certainly not foolproof. Although if we ever found out that one group attempted to receive distributions for 100 of our clients, while contacting us with the email address 'youreasucker@cantbelievethisworks.com', and we were willing to give them our clients money, we would and should be shut down.
I'm not saying Facebook should be held to the same standard
Re: (Score:2)
Do people even read the post they reply to any more?
they should at least make fraud hard. But ultimately no business can entirely prevent fraud
I'm not saying Facebook should be held to the same standard as a hospital or bank, but it is bullshit to hide behind the argument that no one can prevent all fraud. It is a straw-man argument.
Yeah, there is certainly a strawman here.
Re: (Score:2)
Although if we ever found out that one group attempted to receive distributions for 100 of our clients, while contacting us with the email address 'youreasucker@cantbelievethisworks.com', and we were willing to give them our clients money, we would and should be shut down.
Fraud requires some potential benefit to the perpetrator or damage to the victim. YOU giving someone other people's money meets both standards. FB approving an ad has neither.
YOU also have a bit more capability to determine identity than Facebook has. YOU have access to SSN, for example, gathered when people opened the accounts. FB does not, or at least, should not.
Re: (Score:2)
Fraud requires some potential benefit to the perpetrator or damage to the victim. YOU giving someone other people's money meets both standards. FB approving an ad has neither.
YOU also have a bit more capability to determine identity than Facebook has. YOU have access to SSN, for example, gathered when people opened the accounts. FB does not, or at least, should not.
It could certainly cause harm to accept false adds:
Imagine an add that says "Lets cut the heads off of all the immigrant children, and then rape their corpses! -Paid for by Senator whomever."
Most adds falsely placed for political shit-stirring would probably be less extreme, but you see my point.
Facebook should certainly implement some verification step before allowing adds to go live. Perhaps they have -the journalists above did not actually pay for and place any adds, they just performed a single step of
Re: (Score:2)
It could certainly cause harm to accept false adds:
What harm was caused by Facebook approving the 100 ads?
Most adds falsely placed for political shit-stirring would probably be less extreme, but you see my point.
No, I don't. Where was the harm? What is your point?
Re: (Score:2)
But ultimately no business can entirely prevent fraud
But they sure can be held to a much higher standard than Facebook currently is. I work at a financial institution and our fraud prevention techniques are certainly not foolproof. Although if we ever found out that one group attempted to receive distributions for 100 of our clients, while contacting us with the email address 'youreasucker@cantbelievethisworks.com', and we were willing to give them our clients money, we would and should be shut down.
I'm not saying Facebook should be held to the same standard as a hospital or bank, but it is bullshit to hide behind the argument that no one can prevent all fraud. It is a straw-man argument.
You might not give someone's money without careful authorization, but you would certainly take money on someones behalf.. say making a payment on a loan? No problem and no questions asked, right? Your vaunted fraud prevention wouldn't prevent that. See the difference?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess it is if Facebook is taking no measures at all: they should at least make fraud hard. But ultimately no business can entirely prevent fraud
There is a difference between not being able to prevent all fraud and making no real effort to prevent ANY fraud
Why did you reply to my post to sat the same thing I said, in almost the same words?
Re: (Score:2)
Know your customer.
Not Surprised (Score:2)
Re: Your Close Friends the Russians (Score:1)
They can never be to blame. Its ALL western lies! BIGLY.
Re: (Score:1)
Dude, I'm sure you could buy ads advertising the sale of people on Facebook as long as you showed up with cash.
On the Internet.... (Score:2)
On the internet, no one knows you're a dog [wikimedia.org]
No surprise here... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
The good news is that you too can do this. Say you don't like Senator Blowhardski's policy on GunClimateGate, we'll you can just take out an ad on Facebook that says "Sen. Blowhardski Changes Position on GunClimateGate!" and say it's "Paid for by Sen. Blowhardski". Once that thing get a couple hundred thousand "Likes" you just know the good senator will change his mind.
Effect of outsourcing (Score:2)
When your ad approval office is outsourced to folks that barely speak English, how are those employees supposed to know that "Cookies for Political Transparency, paid for by Chuck Schumer" is a fake ad?
Wait, wait (Score:2)
I am confused. It looks like an entity said if I prove to be X, would you run ads specifying > with X as sponsor?” and Facebook said if you prove to be X, sure!”.
Isn't it how it's actually supposed to be working?
Re: (Score:1)
You are confused. The article clearly states they did not actually prove they were the politician whose name appeared in the "Paid for by" statement. Read this paragraph:
To test it, VICE News applied to buy fake ads on behalf of all 100 sitting U.S. senators, including ads “Paid for by” by Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer. Facebook’s approvals were bipartisan: All 100 sailed through the system, indicating that just about anyone can buy an ad identified as “Paid for by” by a major U.S. politician.
So all they did was say: "We're representing Senator Dimwit, please approve our ad", and they got approval to purchase future ads with the "Paid for by Senator Dimwit" statement.
Re: (Score:2)
I understand that. But is this enough to follow through until the end, or id Facebook going to ask for proof further down the process?
It could go like this:
1. "We're representing Senator Dimwit, please approve our ad"
2. "You are approved"
3. "Please run ad ABC"
4. "Prove you are representing Senator Dimwit before we implement the ad"
So is this the case or not?
Re: (Score:2)
so they have to prove it before each ad order, instead of one time? That seems unlikely.
Re: (Score:1)
Seems eminently likely to me. Approving the ad and actually running it are two separate operations, it makes sense that each one would have its own independent set of requirements. And the logical place to put the "proof" step is "before the ad is run".
Of course, if you've already been through the process once, all you'd have to do is reference the proof that you submitted last time (and demonstrate, to some threshold, that you're the same entity).
Re: (Score:2)
No, they have to prove before the first ad, I assume they have an account number or some identifier linked to the account owner. All subsequent ads requested from the same account are automatically approved.
Of course, these are all assumptions, however I have found no references within the article.
Re: (Score:2)
that seems more feasible. I still think it would be simpler for them to just require the proof before issuing the approval, but inefficient processes are hardly a new thing. Thanks for the clarification :)
Political Ads have no truth filters (Score:2, Interesting)
Broadcasters can't censor political ads, and there's no rules covering "political truth", so it's now anything goes.
Also, the limits on PAC spending have been removed, so these ads are showing up everywhere
I'm seeing and hearing outrageous and obvious lies in this recent run. Thanks Trump!
Re: (Score:2)
Broadcasters can't censor political ads, and there's no rules covering "political truth", so it's now anything goes. Also, the limits on PAC spending have been removed, so these ads are showing up everywhere I'm seeing and hearing outrageous and obvious lies in this recent run. Thanks Trump!
Political ads have never had "truth filters". It's always been "anything goes".
Political ads are literally what free speech is for. It was intended for angry leaflets, not exotic dancers.
Well (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook is ultimately a failed social experiment.
These days . . . I'm starting to think that our whole global society is a failed social experiment.
In that sense . . . Facebook correctly represents us . . . whether we like what we see, or not.
Re: (Score:2)
This is even more reason to delete Facebook. Facebook is ultimately a failed social experiment. Here's to hoping it continues a decline in popularity.
Yes, it certainly looks as if Facebook is declining in popularity. [statista.com]
Re: (Score:3)
FB is useful for certain sections traditionally finding it difficult to get their voice heard.
I know activists in many languages including English - good / bad according to your political philosophy - who command a huge following on FB where they don't need an outlet in mainstream media to have their opinions heard. This is important for anyone who's not in the mainstream...for an example, take US, what if you don't get included in a NYT or Fox or WSJ...you may get some minor players.
Yo
Re: (Score:2)
They had their chance to fix it (Score:1)
Facebook has become an national security risk at this point. Since they refuse to fix it, it's time for the government to get involved. We don't need more congressional testimony from Fuckerberg. They are a clear and present danger. Shut them down until they "get it".
Wouldn't deleting it be easier? Trump, Pelosi &am (Score:2)
Facebook has a lot of mess, but the *government*? You figure getting Donald Trump, Duncan Hunter, and Nancy Pelosi in control of it will make it better?!
Maybe Shaun Brown is gonna fix everything? Really?
Or are you saying it's beyond salvaging, so it should be demolished in a spectacular Mythbusters-style fashion by sending in Claire McCaskill? McCaskill sure can destroy things!
Facebooks business is selling ads (Score:3)
They are not going to turn away money at the end of the day unless they are legally required to do so.
Do think any bars would card if the force of law did not obligate them to it? I doubt many would. I am sure a little human decency would stop most from selling liquor to children; but few would turn away teens.
facebook is in the same boat here. Yes its illegal for a political campaign to take foreign money. In a lot of cases its illegal for them to coordinate efforts with foreign actors.
I have yet to see anyone point a law that specifically prevents 99% of those face book ads from being underwritten by foreign persons. The only political speech foreigners are bared from AFAICT is explicit campaign activities IE running an ad advocating voting for or against a specific candidate. They can run issues ads all day long. Its not even clear its illegal for them to suggest a candidate is a criminal, or a Nazi, or whatever if they stop short of saying "vote no.." etc.
IMHO facebook did nothing wrong - they sold ad space. The people crying about Russian interference are sore loosers. The problem is not the American electorate being exposed to facebook ads, the problem is that they are easily swayed by facebook ads. This is the inevitable result of years and years of "everyone should vote" propaganda. No! Everyone should not vote; the right of everyone to vote should be protected strongly but people who don't take the time to study politics and the issues have no damn business at the polls. Voting is right! not a responsibility. If you don't want to put the effort in there should be no shame in that but at the same time its irresponsible to weigh in at all if the totality of information behind your opinion is a facebook meme.
The correct answer is to start educating people what voting is for and what its not for. Its for allowing those who want to take the time to contribute to informed policy making access to do so; its not for choosing the "Next top President" or electing "The first XXXXXX"
Re: (Score:2)
If bullshit banner ads are suggestive enough to get someone to vote in a manner they otherwise would not; facebook in particular and advertising in general are the absolute bottom of the stack in terms of things to be concerned about.
Crazy to think that in 2018 people have become so complacent, so gullible and so naive that the internet's oldest profession has to be regulated (for our security, of course). Needing mommy government to come in and remove the sharp corners from everything just serves to make
Re: (Score:2)
But, making it an earned right buts the permission of people to vote in the hands of the elected. Once you block people from voting based on some arbitrary knowledge, you can use that vague test to effectively block people by gender, race, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not saying voting should be an earned right; specifically here. I do think that it perhaps could be, tied to taxation.
I am simply arguing that voting should not be encouraged for its own sake. Any citizen that wants to vote and is interested should be invited and permitted to do so.
What I don't like is this "voting is a responsibility, everyone must go to the polls" line that is always pushed. Yes voting is a responsibility and you should only do it if you are taking it seriously. If you are they t
Illegal? (Score:2, Interesting)
Is it illegal to use a false identity to post an ad. No doubt it is against Facebooks Terms and Services- but could one be arrested for posting a fake ad on Facebook? What charge?
I have no intention of posting fake ads myself, but would there be repercussions if an individual on these shores posted a fake ad and got caught?
Re: (Score:2)
Is it illegal to use a false identity to post an ad. ... repercussions
That's why it says they didn't actually post any fake ads. They just got approval for whatever ads they bought to be listed as being paid for by a Senator.
I can haz literacy?!?!
Re: (Score:2)
I can haz literacy?!?!
Apparently not since I asked "Is It" and did not make a statement saying "It Is".
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently not since I asked "Is It" and did not make a statement saying "It Is".
Questions end in question marks, not periods.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, I found the 12 year old on daddy's computer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Could the politicians sue them for pretending to be them? Or sue Facebook for not bothering to properly verify identity and wrongly labelling the ad?
Well duh (Score:2)
Leave Facebook TODAY. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
I'd love to leave Facebook. But I'm a member of multiple groups whose only "social" presence is on FB. Like my neighborhood HOA and kids' school. For better or worse, FB is their main mechanism for communicating relevant information to me. Now, for me to quit Facebook, I need to either decide that I don't want to know about these goings on, or convince both the organizers and the bulk of the other members to move to other methods.
Re: (Score:2)