The role of Russian agents in the 2016 US Presidential Election and the advertising policy of social networks such as Twitter and YouTube, especially Facebook, have come under scrutiny by both the US senate and users in the wake of the Cambridge Analytics scandal.
Social networks, which include political content that misinformation on its platform as well as malicious actors when it comes to political election campaigns, have inadvertently influenced voters and played an important role in the fate of countries.
As we’ve seen in the documentary The Great Hack, campaign workers who aren’t afraid to manipulate users through social networking ads to change the views of the undecideds are trying to help Donald Trump be elected President and the UK’s It led to his exit from the European Union.
At this point, it may be much more prudent for social networks to provide advertising services for political campaigns, which cannot prevent misinformation, hate speech and malicious actors on its platform. Social networks, especially Facebook, continue to lose their credibility in the eyes of the user as they grant concessions to politicians on their platforms.
Last month, for example, Nick Clegg, Facebook’s Global Director of Policy and Communications, said in a speech that politicians would not check the accuracy of their speeches, even if they violatefacebook’s hate speech rules or principles. he said he wouldn’t stop it.
Let’s just say that Nick Clegg is referring to the free will of the electorate as the basis for this statement:
As part of the statement, the company considers facebook notable for politicians’ rhetoric to prevent presidential candidates’ speeches from reaching voters. Politicians will not send their speeches to third-party companies that offer verification services, such as Teyit.org, Facebook said, mediating voter manipulation.
An example of manipulation on the platform is an ad used in Trump’s election campaign. In the ad, Donald Trump says Democrats want to repeal the second article of the US Constitution.
Despite this unoriginal statement, the ad that continues to run brings new ones. For example, the ad for Joe Biden, who is known for his anti-Trump stance, is not stopped, even though it is not originally available. Biden, who has reached Facebook, YouTube and Twitter to request the removal of the ad, has received a negative response from social networks.
Facebook’s statement to Biden reads:
Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren, who is running for the 2020 US Presidential election, claims facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg supports Trump by posting lies in his Trump campaign on Facebook.
While all this debate is going on, let’s add that social networking apps don’t generate much revenue from political campaign ads. In the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election, Trump and Clinton spent million as part of their campaign. In 2016, Facebook was featured at billion a year.
Similarly, 4 million was spent during the 2018 US midterm elections, while Facebook’s annual revenue for 2018 was billion.
Mark Zuckerberg has also mentioned in the past that running election ads is not a very profitable business. Zuckerberg said they had to hire moderators to eliminate false news, so they were costing them money to run political advertising.
The fact that political ads run on the platform without any auditmay be due to the company’s willingness to make more money by lowering finances.
On the other hand, the UNITED Kingdom, Ireland and the European Union countries during the election campaign, TV advertising is subject to severe restrictions and bans. Similarly, in the United States, legal sanctions can be imposed on TV ads and social networking ads, preventing voters from manipulation.