Mediaboss Marketing

To prevent this, platforms could end the practice of allowing advertisers to bring external data to their ad systems entirely. The downside is that this would eliminate good uses of these tools in addition to the troubling ones.

Alternatively, platforms could require political advertisers to move away from data opacity and toward data transparency by permitting only certain types of verified targeting lists, such as lists of all registered voters of a certain party in a certain district. More transparency would incentivize good practice, and platforms could take steps to verify audience lists and perform random audits to improve enforcement and ensure accountability.

Second, targeting categories and the advertising auctions and algorithms that deliver ads based on those categories should not make it easy for advertisers to undermine the platforms own stated goals, whether it is Facebooks desire for social cohesion or Twitters goal of healthy discourse. Just as all major platform companies have voluntarily put in place verification processes for political advertising and created political digital ad archives, instead of banning political ads they can set further limits on the categories political advertisers can target (such as geographic region, interests, ideology, race and ethnicity, or gender). Platforms could review their existing categories to ensure they do not enable targeting that can undermine their missions, circumvent community standards or is likely to facilitate illegal activity.

Third, platforms should introduce product solutions that facilitate counter-speech. For instance, when a platform publishes a political ad in its ad archive, it could enable verified rival campaigns to publish ads to the exact same audience. This approach would be a privacy-protective way of ensuring that there is an opportunity for counter-speech, since platforms could enable the functionality without passing audience details or strategic information to rival campaigns.

Finally, companies repeatedly state that political advertising doesnt have a material effect on their bottom line. If thats the case, instead of banning political ads they should put their political advertising money where their mouth is, and commit to donating all revenue from political advertising to nonprofits and researchers focused on election integrity. Or invest that money directly in the development and improvement of their election integrity products.

In the face of intense pressure by the press, activists and policymakers, tech platforms should resist blunt solutions that greatly narrow the possibilities for expression for those vying for public office and contesting public issues. Blanket bans on political ads especially harm those without pre-existing large audiences and challengers to established elites. By putting changes in place that shine a spotlight on targeting practices, we can address some of the worst abuses of political ads technologies, while also leaving space for speech thats critical for a robust democracy.

Daniel Kreiss is a principal researcher at the University of North Carolina Center for Information, Technology, and Public Life and an associate professor at the UNC Hussman School of Journalism and Media. Matt Perault is the director of Duke Universitys Center for Science & Technology Policy and was formerly a director of public policy at Facebook.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. Wed like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And heres our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

The rest is here:
Four Ways to Fix Social Medias Political Ads Problem Without Banning Them - The New York Times