IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/zbw/iprjir/254286.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Can online political targeting be rendered transparent? Prospects for campaign oversight using the Facebook Ad Library

Author

Listed:
  • Mehta, Somya
  • Erickson, Kristofer

Abstract

A recent policy development has been voluntary self-regulation of internet platforms through the establishment of online ad archives. Since 2018, concern over the potential misuse of platforms has led to calls for reform of online campaign monitoring. In response, Google, Facebook and Twitter made available repositories of political advertisements appearing on their respective platforms. The intended promise was to make the process of political advertising less of a 'black box' and render voter targeting more transparent to public review. In this paper, we consider whether the Facebook Ad Library actually improves the capability of regulators and the public to oversee online campaigns. Specifically, we analyse a corpus of ads focusing on Brexit in the lead-up to the European Parliamentary Elections in 2019, to determine whether these data are meaningful compared to reporting of offline campaign activity already required under UK Electoral Commission rules. We examine some 234 individual ad campaigns run during a 14-day period leading up to the election using data collection tools available via the Ad Library interface. A content analysis of individual ads combined with data obtained from the archive about the ad sponsor and demographic reach suggests at a coarse level of detail that micro-targeting has taken place. However, limitations of the Ad Library prevent its effectiveness as an oversight mechanism, as reporting obscures details about overall spend, reach and targeting behaviour, key issues for online political advertising. Based on these findings and the methodological challenge of interrogating the Facebook Ad Library, we reflect on the policy effectiveness of supposedly transparent ad archives as a policy tool.

Suggested Citation

  • Mehta, Somya & Erickson, Kristofer, 2022. "Can online political targeting be rendered transparent? Prospects for campaign oversight using the Facebook Ad Library," Internet Policy Review: Journal on Internet Regulation, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG), Berlin, vol. 11(1), pages 1-31.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:iprjir:254286
    DOI: 10.14763/2022.1.1648
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/254286/1/1801317674.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.14763/2022.1.1648?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David W. Nickerson & Todd Rogers, 2014. "Political Campaigns and Big Data," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 28(2), pages 51-74, Spring.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Whitaker, Stephan D., 2018. "Big Data versus a survey," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 285-296.
    2. Sayibu Ibrahim Nnindini & Kobby Mensah, 2021. "Political Relationship Marketing: An Examination of Internal Relationship Management in Ghanaian Political Parties," Information Management and Business Review, AMH International, vol. 13(3), pages 30-40.
    3. Joseph Gerald Hirschberg & Jeanette Ngaire Lye, 2020. "Grading Journals In Economics: The Abcs Of The Abdc," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(4), pages 876-921, September.
    4. Enrico Cantoni & Vincent Pons, 2021. "Strict Id Laws Don’t Stop Voters: Evidence from a U.S. Nationwide Panel, 2008–2018," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 136(4), pages 2615-2660.
    5. Balart, Pau & Casas, Agustin & Troumpounis, Orestis, 2022. "Technological change, campaign spending and polarization," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).
    6. Exley, Christine L. & Petrie, Ragan, 2018. "The impact of a surprise donation ask," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 152-167.
    7. Ceren Baysan, 2017. "Can More Information Lead to More Voter Polarization? Experimental Evidence from Turkey," 2017 Papers pba1551, Job Market Papers.
    8. Markku Kaustia & Samuli Knüpfer & Sami Torstila, 2016. "Stock Ownership and Political Behavior: Evidence from Demutualizations," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(4), pages 945-963, April.
    9. Jessica Baldwin-Philippi, 2024. "Data-Driven Maintaining: The Role of the Party and Data Maintenance in the US Context," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 12.
    10. Braaksma, Barteld & Zeelenberg, Kees, 2015. "“Re-make/Re-model”: Should big data change the modelling paradigm in official statistics?," MPRA Paper 87741, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Edward McFowland III & Sriram Somanchi & Daniel B. Neill, 2018. "Efficient Discovery of Heterogeneous Quantile Treatment Effects in Randomized Experiments via Anomalous Pattern Detection," Papers 1803.09159, arXiv.org, revised May 2023.
    12. Baldwin-Philippi, Jessica, 2019. "Data campaigning: between empirics and assumptions," Internet Policy Review: Journal on Internet Regulation, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG), Berlin, vol. 8(4), pages 1-18.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:iprjir:254286. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://policyreview.info/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.