Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 1st Nov 2017 23:31 UTC
Legal

Top officials from Facebook, Google, and Twitter told a congressional panel Tuesday that their platforms hosted a disinformation campaign carried out over their networks by Russian state actors. The propaganda centered on the presidential election, immigration, gun rights, gay rights, and racial issues, the companies said. None of the three organizations said they supported proposed legislation requiring them to disclose who is buying political advertisements on their platforms, although these Web companies promised more public transparency about who is buying ads on their networks.

All political spending must be disclosed in some form or another in most countries, so I see no reason why ad spending on Facebook or Twitter should be any different. I also like the idea to make it illegal - or impossible - for foreign entities to buy ad space for political content; as in, a French entity would not be able to buy political ads in The Netherlands. It's already illegal in, say, the US for foreign entities to donate or spend money on candidates, so there's definitely precedent.

The real issue, however, is that it might be hard, though, to define what is a political ad, and what isn't.

Permalink for comment 650520
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by philcostin
by philcostin on Thu 2nd Nov 2017 18:23 UTC
philcostin
Member since:
2010-11-03

Don't forget Thom, the west "doesn't have propaganda". It never has.

How effective indeed, this propaganda must be, such that people would believe such a notion.

"But.. but Russia!"

Your political opinion seems to stem from the perspective of someone particularly susceptible to western propaganda.

Propaganda is everywhere. Come on, you know this. You can forget the concept of "reputable" journalism. Just forget it. Every sphere of western society is managed by gatekeepers - even if only for fear of loss of reputation. No different in any country.

Edited 2017-11-02 18:27 UTC

Reply Score: 5