Google Has the Most Promising Approach to Political Ads

Jakub Porzycki/NurPhoto via ZUMA

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

We now have three big social media companies that have announced three different rules for political ads. In order:

  • Facebook will allow anyone to say anything.
  • Twitter will ban political ads completely.
  • Google will do away with hyper-local audience targeting.

Unsurprisingly, nobody is happy with any of these companies. The reason is simple: a rule-free environment, like Facebook’s, allows an endless firehose of crap to be published. But if you add a rule, there will always be a requirement to interpret the rule. Twitter will have to decide which things are political ads and which aren’t. Google will have to do the same, since presumably hyper-local targeting will still be allowed for non-political accounts.

So which is worse? Letting anything go, or having to continually make judgments about what’s allowed and what isn’t—and putting up with endless kvetching about how they’re getting it wrong?

There is no good answer. For what it’s worth, I think Google has the most promising approach. Hyper-local targeting is what gives a lot of the most outrageous ads their power: their creators know they can say anything they want and it’s unlikely anyone in the mainstream media will ever see it or take it seriously. If you force them to broaden the reach of the ad, it costs more—which all by itself cuts down on some of the most frivolous stuff—and it’s more likely to become widely seen and do more harm than good to your preferred candidate.

It’s true that Google still has to decide whether something is a “political” ad, but that’s doable. What’s more, they can afford to be fairly loose about this since, unlike Twitter, they aren’t banning the ads completely. Anyone who grumbles about being “censored” needs only change the targeting of their ad a bit so that more people can see it, and they’re back on the air. If they’re afraid to do that, it’s a pretty good sign that they’re up to something fairly sleazy.

None of this is perfect, and nothing ever will be. One way or another, platform companies have to make decisions, and one way or another, some crap will get through and some legit stuff won’t. The best we can hope for is that social media companies take their responsibilities seriously and devote enough people to the task to prevent too many mistakes. We’ll see.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate