An Analysis of United States Online Political Advertising Transparency

During the summer of 2018, Facebook, Google, and Twitter created policies and implemented transparent archives that include U.S. political advertisements which ran on their platforms. Through our analysis of over 1.3 million ads with political content, we show how different types of political advertisers are disseminating U.S. political messages using Facebook, Google, and Twitter's advertising platforms. We find that in total, ads with political content included in these archives have generated between 8.67 billion - 33.8 billion impressions and that sponsors have spent over $300 million USD on advertising with U.S. political content. We are able to improve our understanding of political advertisers on these platforms. We have also discovered a significant amount of advertising by quasi for-profit media companies that appeared to exist for the sole purpose of creating deceptive online communities focused on spreading political messaging and not for directly generating profits. Advertising by such groups is a relatively recent phenomenon, and appears to be thriving on online platforms due to the lower regulatory requirements compared to traditional advertising platforms. We have found through our attempts to collect and analyze this data that there are many limitations and weaknesses that enable intentional or accidental deception and bypassing of the current implementations of these transparency archives. We provide several suggestions for how these archives could be made more robust and useful. Overall, these efforts by Facebook, Google, and Twitter have improved political advertising transparency of honest and, in some cases, possibly dishonest advertisers on their platforms. We thank the people at these companies who have built these archives and continue to improve them.

[1]  Roxana Geambasu,et al.  XRay: Enhancing the Web's Transparency with Differential Correlation , 2014, USENIX Security Symposium.

[2]  Krishna P. Gummadi,et al.  Privacy Risks with Facebook's PII-Based Targeting: Auditing a Data Broker's Advertising Interface , 2018, 2018 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP).

[3]  Saikat Guha,et al.  Challenges in measuring online advertising systems , 2010, IMC '10.

[4]  Aaron Rieke,et al.  Leveling the platform: real transparency for paid messages on Facebook , 2018 .

[5]  Aleksandra Korolova Privacy Violations Using Microtargeted Ads: A Case Study , 2011, J. Priv. Confidentiality.

[6]  Erika Franklin Fowler,et al.  Political Advertising in the 21st Century: The Rise of the YouTube Ad , 2010 .

[7]  Ramesh Govindan,et al.  AdReveal: improving transparency into online targeted advertising , 2013, HotNets.

[8]  Darrell M. West Air Wars: Television Advertising and Social Media in Election Campaigns, 1952-2012 , 2013 .

[9]  Dhavan V. Shah,et al.  Campaign Ads, Online Messaging, and Participation: Extending the Communication Mediation Model , 2007, Journal of Communication.

[10]  Saikat Guha,et al.  Empirical Analysis of Search Advertising Strategies , 2015, Internet Measurement Conference.

[11]  Andrea Morrone,et al.  Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission , 2010 .

[12]  Roxana Geambasu,et al.  Sunlight: Fine-grained Targeting Detection at Scale with Statistical Confidence , 2015, CCS.

[13]  Krishna P. Gummadi,et al.  Investigating Ad Transparency Mechanisms in Social Media: A Case Study of Facebooks Explanations , 2018, NDSS.

[14]  L. L. Kaid,et al.  Political Advertising in the 2004 Election , 2005 .

[15]  Krishna P. Gummadi,et al.  Potential for Discrimination in Online Targeted Advertising , 2018, FAT.