In a personal blog post published on January 9, 2020, the product director responsible for overseeing Facebook’s political ads library, Rob Leathern, penned a defense of the company’s stance on political advertisements. As the individual who led the team that developed the Ad Library and coded the transparency panel, Leathern’s perspective is unique.
He acknowledged the widespread anger towards Facebook’s approach, but expressed concerns about private companies making decisions about political ads. Instead, Leathern advocated for Congress to establish industry-wide regulations. This view aligns with the positions previously expressed by Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg.
The post was published three months after Twitter banned most political ads and two months after Google limited audience targeting for election-related content. Unlike its competitors, Facebook chose not to follow suit but instead released new transparency tools.
These tools allow any user to access the Ad Library and view details such as the number of people who viewed a political ad, the amount spent, and the geographic, demographic, and age breakdown of the ad’s audience. This is a significant development, marking Facebook’s response to months of employee letters, civil rights group petitions, and inquiries from lawmakers. However, the policy itself remains unchanged.
Facebook continues to accept payments for political advertisements and does not intend to ban or fact-check campaign ads. The company maintains that voters should be allowed to hear what their leaders say, regardless of truthfulness.
This stance, often expressed by Zuckerberg, was echoed by Leathern in his post. The practical implications are clear. Campaigns can still upload voter files containing names, addresses, and phone numbers, which can then be matched to user profiles. Once matched, candidates can tailor their messages to specific segments of the electorate.
For instance, a hardline immigration ad might be shown to one group, while a moderate tax plan is presented to another. The public visibility of these ads remains minimal until after they have been displayed.
The new transparency panel provides post-facto totals but does not prevent targeting, does not require pre-approval, and does not fact-check ads. Facebook justifies this approach as a principled stand, arguing that private companies should not regulate political speech. However, Congress has yet to write the necessary rules.
For months, Facebook has been advocating for legislative action, but no bill has been passed, and no hearing has resulted in legislation. As Leathern acknowledged in his post, internal dissent persists.
The company’s policy has not been amended, but new transparency tools have been introduced, and the call for regulation has been reiterated. Twitter and Google have chosen different paths, but Facebook is forging its own path. The company will continue to run political ads, will continue to allow micro-targeting of voters, and will continue to advocate for Congress to step in.
The company will also continue to disclose, after the fact, the number of people who saw each ad and the amount spent.
Meta Data
{“@context”: “https://schema.org”, “@type”: “NewsArticle”, “headline”: “Facebook Stands Firm on Political Ad Policy Despite Criticism”, “description”: “In a personal blog post, the product director responsible for overseeing Facebook’s political ads library defended the company’s stance on political advertisements.”, “datePublished”: “2020-01-13T15:00:00+00:00”, “author”: {“@type”: “Person”, “name”: “InfoPulse Today”}, “publisher”: {“@type”: “Organization”, “name”: “InfoPulse Today”}}
Related Stories
Facebook Maintains Political Ad Policy Amid Criticism #FacebookAdDirector #DefendsPoliticalAd #Policy #Tech #News
