-
Oh yes for sure, the chain letters were more an example for something that should in theory be clearly identifiable as sketchy at best, and yet so many people not only believe them, but do their part in sharing it themselves. If they fail at that hurdle already, how well-prepared are they going to be to deal with the targeted ads you mention?
And I fully agree with what you say with regards to wilfully spreading disinformation, and the disparity in spending power by campaigns. The whole matter is complicated by the fine-tuned targeting capabilities that you now have through social media - is it just the natural 'next step' in advertising that has now reached political advertising, or is it going too far?
One thing that I would like to see is full transparency of advertising. There's no (good) reason that I know of for keeping the details of political advertising secret. I would like to be able to go to a central website that lists in detail how much advertising money a specific campaign spent, where, on what. In itself, that wouldn't solve anything of course, but at least it would take a lot of the guesswork out.
you responded in earnest
I suppose the easiest way out of this is to claim I was merely joking too, and call it a day.
SwissChap-
One thing that I would like to see is full transparency of advertising. There's no (good) reason that I know of for keeping the details of political advertising secret. I would like to be able to go to a central website that lists in detail how much advertising money a specific campaign spent, where, on what.
That's what Facebook has already done. You can go and check out the content/spending for past political Facebook ads (since the feature was introduced).
It could be better: everything in one place, more policing/fines for people trying to 'bend the rules', etc.
JonoMarshall
For me, it's a much bigger problem than chain letter thingies on Facebook. For example: the Trump campaign was spending 1 million dollars a day (just digital ads) to try and influence susceptible voters in the final weeks of the election. That's before you consider the influence over other media.
Spending lots of money in a very targeted way is a winning tactic, but I have two problems with it: using lies (propaganda) to create your desired behaviour change and ensuring a level playing field for all candidates/policies (spending limits).
Vote Leave had a winning tactic/team, but they lied and went over the spending limits.