Google To Block Election Ads After Election Day (axios.com) 70
Google informed its advertisers Friday that it will broadly block election ads after polls close Nov. 3, according to an email obtained by Axios. From a report: Big Tech platforms have been under pressure to address how their ad policies will handle conflicts over the presidential election's outcome. Facebook recently said that it will no longer accept new political ads for the week leading up to Election Day, but it will not block election ads after the polls close. It will, however, reject ads from U.S. political campaigns prematurely claiming victory before results have been declared, per Fast Company. In the email, Google says that advertisers will not be able to run ads "referencing candidates, the election, or its outcome, given that an unprecedented amount of votes will be counted after election day this year." The policy, which is intended to block all ads related to the election, will apply to all ads running through Google's ad-serving platforms, including Google Ads, DV360, YouTube, and AdX Authorized Buyer.
OK so once they sway (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Slashdot decided they don't need us anymore, seeing as they removed the Post Anonymously checkbox for logged in users using D2.
Might be my last week here, as I go back to using Soylent News.
Re: (Score:1)
Bye, Felicia.
Re: (Score:2)
What is "D2" ?
Re: (Score:2)
D1 and D2, for those new to Slashdot, are versions of the discussion system you can select in preferences. D2 is the current default for desktop browsers.
Re: (Score:2)
What's in it for the google? Money! (Score:2)
Really? What was supposed to be the point of that FP?
My initial reaction to this story was to wonder WTF? What is supposed to be the point of an election ad after the election? Is the google's system so phucked up that they will continue taking money for pointless ads?
Took me some thought, but here's my crazy theory (of the hour): The google wants to get some money. What a shock. But how does it connect here? Because a lot of the "election ads" are disguised. I think the google is planning a little scam her
Do us all a favor and block them now (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously, at this point who would possibly let an advertisement sway them? It's just a waste of time and money.
Re: (Score:3)
Leading up to 2016 Election Hillary Clinton for the most part had stayed ahead of Trump in the polls, With some brief cycles where Trump went ahead of Clinton, When ever Clinton had said or did something unpopular, or bringing up the FBI investigation on the emails. That had given Trump a slim lead for a couple weeks. When the FBI decided to investigate the Emails her polls dropped, very close to election day, which caused Trump to get ahead especially in the swing states.
The News Cycle and Advertisements
Re:Do us all a favor and block them now (Score:5, Interesting)
"The News Cycle and Advertisements do sway voters."
You made your argument as if those 2 things should be treated as the same thing, but IMO they are different enough to require 2 separate arguments. People seek out the news (making people more receptive to it), and they chat about it with family/friends/neighbors/co-workers. Ads are forced on people, and are unwelcome to almost everyone (making people less receptive to it).
News agencies have (or are supposed to have) rules for making at least some half-assed attempt at vetting sources of information. Political ads are literally any BS that anyone can pull out of their ass if they have enough money to place the ad. Perhaps the lines between the two have been getting more blurred lately, but there is still a difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Nuh uh. The other guy is bad.
Re: (Score:3)
Seriously, at this point who would possibly let an advertisement sway them? It's just a waste of time and money.
Lots of people, which is why they spend millions on ads.
Re: (Score:2)
Billions and billions on ads. Not millions.
Re: (Score:2)
I stand corrected.
https://adage.com/article/camp... [adage.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, at this point who would possibly let an advertisement sway them?
You're joking right? People are burning down 5G towers because of what they read on Facebook. Minds are incredibly frigging weak. Outrage is incredibly strong. And political adverts pander to both and typically go unchecked.
People are still incredibly pissed at how polices forces have been shutdown and defunded. Oh wait that didn't happen, but people did see that in an advert so it must be true. Also Joe Biden is senile and unable to form coherent sentences - This message brought to you by the most incohere
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with most of what you said, but...
Most of what you mentioned came from right-wing media (regardless of whether it's social, talk show, or news media). Those do NOT count as political ads that will be shut down after the election. I'm only referring to the types of ads that will be shut down. Do you really think someone getting their news from Fox, Rush, or even Facebook will be swayed by a Biden ad? Or the other way around? I know people are stupid, but they will still pay more attention to the news
Re: (Score:2)
Err I think you haven't seen political ads recently: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] Here's a defund the police one.
I know people are stupid, but they will still pay more attention to the news stories (regardless of whether they're true or false) that come out in the next month than to the ads.
That doesn't help depending on which news site the end up at. I mean sure someone may see an advert and decide to fact check it on the news. Then what? A quick google search and a flip of the coin as to whether they end up on CNN or Fox News and their view of the advert can go either way. I don't for a moment think that someone getting all their news from Fox will be swayed by a Biden ad. Bu
It doesn't matter (Score:1)
Game over.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Remember - when Democrats claim Republicans are going to do something they're telling you what they want to do.
It's particularly funny in this case where all of the "let's game the electoral college" nonsense is coming from the Democrats.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That can be a very dangerous game for the State Legislature. Your state legislatures don't have the benefit of the secret service protecting them 24/7. For those people who doesn't like Trump, they _Really_ don't like him. Also the Swing States in general get special treatment from both political parties, nearly all the time, because each side would rather keep it a swing state vs a solid state for your opponent.
So the Legislator can risk, being defeated in the next election.
The state can lose out on some
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
And just to be clear
Don't think that all democrats are Anti-Gun, and even though who want gun control, may still own and enjoy using Guns
You're suggesting that if your side doesn't get its way, you'll take the streets and murder.
Re: (Score:1)
This is one rare election where the popular vote matters. If the popular vote margin is large, above 7% perhaps, it will be difficult to get away with such shenanigans. It will simply be too obvious that the election is being stolen.
If you do not reside in a swing state, make sure you still vote!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
That is not the point. The issue is when Biden wins the electoral college but the Republican party refuses to concede.
If the popular vote is 7%+, it will be really difficult to pull that off. Anything smaller and Trump will be given the presidency by his Supreme Court.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If she had retired, the Repulican controlled Senate would not have confirmed a new judge. Also, what is legal and what is not should not depend on gambles. Political judges are an abomination.
After? (Score:4, Insightful)
I would block the *before*!
Re: (Score:3)
It's too prevent sore losers encouraging their supporters to attack the democratic process.
The result may not be known for days, even weeks due to mail in and legal action. The potential for violence is high.
Re: (Score:1)
It's too prevent sore losers encouraging their supporters to attack the democratic process.
Sounds like 2016.
The potential for violence is high.
Violence happened immediately after the 2016 election.
Everything you claim the Republicans are going to do, the Democrats have done, but you say the Republicans are bad for it, and the Democrats are good.
I just have one question. Are you still fucking with other peoples kids?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Then you're missing the point of why they are doing this. It's not to prevent political messaging from swaying voters. It's to prevent political messages supporting a revolution or the idea that the vote wasn't democratic.
Honestly with the Wannabe Dictator in Chief already sowing the seeds that the election is illegitimate it's kind of hard not to argue that both parties should be locked in a cage underground until the votes are counted and power has been handed over.
Re: After? (Score:2)
Then shut down the whole internet and telephone system!
Eh, just block them permanently (Score:4, Insightful)
What would be the point? (Score:4, Funny)
As the cliche goes:
"There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
By the time the votes are in, the first two boxes will be moot, the third doesn't exactly capture the imagination of an advertising demographic. Which leaves the fourth....
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that anybody has bothered to test Google's servers for bullet resistance. You might be doing them a favor by testing that out!
Re:What would be the point? (Score:4, Insightful)
As the cliche goes:
"There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
By the time the votes are in
What does "the votes are in" mean, exactly? It's likely that this year there will be a significant delay between votes being cast and results being known, and there's a risk that some may try to exploit that interval to de-legitimize the vote-counting process, especially if it looks like the process is hurting their chances. This action is intended to at least reduce Google's active participation in any de-legitimization process.
IMO, the best thing we could do is to instruct all election officials not to report any partial results. They should keep quiet until they've completed the counting and verification process (under the observation of all relevant political parties -- but with all observers subject to non-disclosure agreements), and announce the results only when they're ready to certify. If that means that we get no information at all about the results in some states until three or four weeks after the election, so be it.
Re: (Score:2)
Hillary Clinton is frequently quoted as saying that Biden should not concede the election. I like to think that she mean that Biden should not concede until the votes have been counted.
In 2000, the New York Times [nytimes.com] discovered that Gore would have won, but only if the all the ballots in Florida were counted-- which neither side had asked for.
If I had been trained in statistics, I could probably more effectively argue my gut intuition-- which is that as a scientific "poll" of the electorate, Florida's m
Re: (Score:2)
Hillary Clinton is frequently quoted as saying that Biden should not concede the election. I like to think that she mean that Biden should not concede until the votes have been counted.
Yes, I'm sure that's what she means, and what Biden understands. Virtually everyone in US politics has enough respect for democratic process and tradition that obedience to the final vote is just a given, it doesn't have to be stated. I wish I could believe that the guy behind the Resolute desk had the same ingrained norm.
If I had been trained in statistics, I could probably more effectively argue my gut intuition-- which is that as a scientific "poll" of the electorate, Florida's methods did not have the precision to distinguish its vote count from statistical noise. And statistical noise is a strange basis for political legitimacy. At this stage, though, it's a little late to re-engineer the voting process.
An argument I've made for years is that when the election is so close that statistical noise -- or the weather, or who had the last positive or negative press release, or... -- decides the
Re: (Score:2)
Virtually everyone in US politics has enough respect for democratic process and tradition that obedience to the final vote is just a given, it doesn't have to be stated.
Up until a week ago I would have agreed. Now I'm more inclined to believe that half of the people in US politics respect the democratic process, and precisely no one in US politics has any kind of integrity.
Re: (Score:2)
It's likely that this year there will be a significant delay between votes being cast and results being known
I thought it's common knowledge that the votes being in means they have been cast, not that they have been counted. That is precisely the GP's point. This here is to stop one specific party from claiming that the election was a fraud and calling a rise to arms from its heavily armed base.
You and the GP are fully aligned.
They should keep quiet until they've completed the counting and verification process (under the observation of all relevant political parties
And there you've undermined the point. If a political party is observing they can see the outcome as it is progressing. *They* are the threat here (well one side anyway), not the general pub
who cares about election ads post-election? (Score:2)
I don't get the point. Who cares about election ads post-election?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Several states are allowing postmarked mail-in ballots, up to a few weeks after Nov 3. Some groups could switch to a "the vote is this close, if you have not voted yet mail it in, only you can stop WW 3".
But don't they still require postmarks before Nov 3rd? In which case the ads are irrelevant?
Re: (Score:3)
Several states are allowing postmarked mail-in ballots, up to a few weeks after Nov 3.".
To be slightly more precise: several states are allowing mail-in ballots that have been postmarked on or before Nov. 3 to be counted after election day.
And, for one state (Pennsylvania), mailed ballots have a default assumption that it is assumed to have been mailed on time proven otherwise: that is, a postmark after Nov. 3 will dis>/i>qualify a ballot, but no postmark (or illegible postmark) will be assumed to have been mailed before election day.
Good summary here: https://fivethirtyeight.com/fe... [fivethirtyeight.com]
Re: (Score:2)
"No: ballots mailed after the election day won't get counted"
Which is why Democrats are trying to make ballot harvesting legal everywhere.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
How is ballot collection any different than proving transportation to a polling location during a non-pandemic election?
Because it lacks the controls and protections for anonymous and coercion free voting that other mechanisms provide.
There's already enough corruption around absentee voting from things like 'head of household insists on filling in all the ballots' or 'religious leader tells followers to bring their ballots to the place of worship to be completed' without adding yet another fraud vector.
Re: (Score:2)
You make some good points, but neither of your examples are unique to 2020. Both of those situations existed in prior years. Yes, polling centers provide additional checks against coercion: you go alone into the booth, you can not take pictures, even folks that request assistance with traditional voting should be helped by two polling officers of different party affiliation. But to require folks this year to visit a polling in order to cast their ballot is also abusive.
So what do we do? The asshole head
Re: (Score:2)
neither of your examples are unique to 2020
I'd be against ballot collection in any year, for the very reason that my examples are indeed not unique to 2020.
to require folks this year to visit a polling in order to cast their ballot is also abusive.
Nonsense. People are safely going shopping, they're going to work, their children are going to school, idiots are rioting in the streets.
Voting is just not a fucking risk vector.
People have the freedom to choose their own religion, even one that tells them to stop thinking for themselves.
However, one that demands to place their vote for them is breaking the law, and quite rightfully so.
No matter how you do it this year Mr. The Entertainer, please vote in the manner and for the candidates of your choice. But don't tell me or anyone else not do the same.
Learn the fucking difference between 'Cedric' and 'Cederic'.
I won't be voting this year. There are no elections this year
ballot harvesting [Re:who cares about election...] (Score:2)
Which is why Democrats are trying to make ballot harvesting legal everywhere.
Do you have a reference for that? I can't find any news suggesting that Democrats are trying to make ballot harvesting legal everywhere.
A good overview is here: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/b... [cbsnews.com]
The main example given is a Republican, not a Democrat.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
In Related News (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Have your horses fled the barn? It's never too late to buy a ACME Barn Door!
NOTE: Buying an ACME Barn Door after the fact will not get your horses back. Don't be stupid.
So... should we applaud? (Score:2)
You want to make a difference in the election Google (Facebook, et all)? Completely ban *all* political advertising. Period. Now. Forever. You want to try and sell me some crappy product based on my interests? great, go for it - otherwise, keep your trap shut.
I'm not so sure this is a good idea... (Score:3)
1. Some states have runoff elections. The November 3rd election determines the top-two finishers, who then compete in a second election. For example, Louisiana's runoff is December 5, 2020. Georgia's is December 7, 2020. For candidates who are in those elections, can they run ads?
2. What about special elections for vacancies that occur after November 3? Districts (states, cities, counties, etc.) could have elections in January or February 2021, often as a result of a current officeholder winning an election on November 3, 2020 for a different position. For candidates who are in those elections, can they run ads?
3. Some communities have elections in months other than November, including in some cases in the Spring. For candidates who are in those elections, can they run ads?
4. What about future elections, say primaries and the general election in 2022? For candidates who are in those elections, can they run ads?
I get that lots of folks on slashdot simply don't like political ads. I suggest that the alternative may be worse -- allowing Alphabet and Facebook and Apple and a few others the ability to influence politics in the US without allowing those with other points of political view from creating advertisements that persuade viewers in favor of policies that are antithetical to Silicon Valley's profit margins.
Re: (Score:2)
Having political ads caught in the crossfire of what they are trying to achieve (prevent the sowing of distrust in the democratic process while votes are being counted) is not a bad thing. Frankly political adverts should be blocked.
You want to make a point, go to a debate, have your point discussed and countered, and fact checked. Political adverts are a scourge on democracy, especially since they often flat out lie without any recourse.
Electoral College (Score:1)
"It will, however, reject ads from U.S. political campaigns prematurely claiming victory before results have been declared,"
I predict they will not abide by this policy. They will allow 'I win' claims before Electoral College has voted.
Any statistic or totaling or mention of Total votes for President across ALL of America should also be banned as that is NOT how President is chosen. There is no such thing as 'Popular Presidential Vote'. There is only State totals and Electoral College voting.
People who l
Good (Score:2)
I live in California, and pay more attention than most to this crap. They won't even start mailing ballots (that is, descriptions of what prop X says) for another 2 weeks.
I only wish they would block the damned ads until people can actually see what the ads are about. But t
Block ALL Election Adverts 48 hrs before Nov 3 (Score:2)