The likes of Facebook and Google pretty much control what we see and do on-line: Futures Forum: "Guided democracy" and the century of spin Futures Forum: How to rescue our time from the digital giants A problem being that a lot of this is not exactly transparent: Futures Forum: Campaign to get social media to counter fake news Futures Forum: Brexit: and the EU elections: countering fake news from WhatsApp And earlier this year, the government tried to push for a little more transparency: The UK government has called on the competition watchdog to launch an inquiry into the UK's digital ad market, specifically to probe the dominance of the Facebook-Google duopoly. UK chancellor Philip Hammond has requested that the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) launch a review after an independent report he commissioned detailed how the UK's competition framework isn't fit for the economic challenges posed by digital markets, at home and internationally. Led by Jason Furman, Barack Obama’s chief economic adviser, an independent panel of experts found that the digital advertising market "is dominated by two players and suffers from a lack of transparency". UK government to probe dupoly's digital ad dominance | The Drum Whether the UK government will push for a little more transparency over current uses and abuses: MIC WRIGHT: Efforts to introduce transparency in online political advertising are falling short
PUBLISHED: 10:00 10 May 2019 | UPDATED: 13:55 10 May 2019
MIC WRIGHT says that political campaigners are undermining the democratic process with manipulative, duplicitous online advertising and more needs to be done to introduce transparency.
There was great fanfare in October 2018, when Facebook introduced new rules for political advertising running on its platform in the UK. Requiring advertisers to prove their identity and location before their messages were shown and displaying the group behind each ad to users, along with the introduction of a searchable Ad Library, was repeatedly hailed as "transparent" in media reports.
But taking a look at any one of the current Facebook ads focused on Brexit reveals how the social media giant didn't so much install a window into the world of online political advertising as opt for some frosted glass.
Messages promoted by groups with names like Better Brexit, Now Brexit and the Brexit Defence Force are linked to pages with no indication of the individuals managing them nor of their ultimate funding sources. Facebook also remains reticent to show the targeting criteria used by the advertisers. So, while it's possible to view them in the Ad Library there is no way of knowing who is seeing these messages in their Facebook newsfeeds.
The Guardian reported in April that the Mainstream Network - an operation designed to look like a grassroots campaign made up of pro-Brexit Facebook pages backing a no-deal exit - is in fact overseen by Lynton Crosby's political lobbying firm CTF Partners, with a budget of more than £1 million.
The UK information commissioner, Elizabeth Denham, told the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Sub-Committee on Disinformation that the activity is being probed as part of her office's wider investigation into the use of political data online.
Denham told MPs that she was shocked to see that the government's recent White Paper on online harms did not significantly address the issue of political advertising: "I was surprised and disappointed that there wasn't more focus on what I think is a huge societal harm, which is around electoral interference and the need for more transparency in political advertising."
The information commissioner was asked by MPs whether Facebook's changes to its rules around political advertising go far enough. She told them: "You can't leave it to an individual company. There needs to be more robust transparency tools and there needs to be regulation that requires companies to have systems in place to give real transparency."
Her view is echoed by the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising (IPA) and the independent fact-checking charity FullFact, which have both called for an industry-owned register of political advertising in the UK, with details not only of content, but of who is being targeted and how much is being spent to reach them.
While Facebook's Ad Library and other measures are clearly inadequate, Twitter and Google have yet to provide public archives of UK political advertising run on their platforms.
Current rules on electoral advertising were drafted to cover posters, billboards and leaflets, not micro-targeted social media posts and customised email campaigns. The Electoral Reform Society's director of research and policy, Jess Garland, put it succinctly: "The UK's analogue-age election rules are a meddlers' charter that leave our elections vulnerable."
While the claims made in commercials for washing powder or cosmetics can be rigorously challenged by the Advertising Standard Agency (ASA), since 1997, it hasn't regulated any form of political messaging. Lies that would be unacceptable in the process of trying to sell pet food go unchallenged when it is voters being served up rhetoric to swallow. It was easier to get away with falsely claiming that Turkey was joining the EU than it is to lie about the nutritional content of a turkey drumstick.
The official Vote Leave campaign spent more than £2.7 million on targeted Facebook ads during the EU referendum. Data subsequently released by the social network to the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Sub-Committee as part of its inquiry into fake news, revealed that Vote Leave had run ads with 1,433 different messages.
They ranged from bizarre claims that the EU was out to kill the British cuppa to emotional appeals featuring polar bears and bullfighting. The adverts were seen more than 169 million times in total.
As well as relatively straightforward adverts, Vote Leave ran a competition offering a £50 million pound prize to anyone who could predict the outcome of every match played in the 2016 European championships. It was a data harvesting exercise.
But while regulators are trying to get to grips with the online political advertising equivalent of muskets, campaigners already have machine guns and tanks at their disposal.
In 2016, the Trump campaign tested an average of 50,000 ad variations a day to micro-target voters, peaking at 150,000 ads on some days. It did that, in part, by using machine learning to quickly get rid of under-performing messages and formats and bring the most effective lines to the top. Voter profiles are ever more detailed and machine learning is increasingly making connections between data sets that human campaign strategists would never be able to make on their own.
We are not far from a time when it will be possible to quickly and effectively target single voters with messaging geared to their particular hopes and fears.
A recent Channel 4 investigation accused the Arron Banks-funded Leave.EU campaign of faking footage of migrants entering the UK and attacking women, but future political advertising could make even that look mild. Deepfake videos - clips using machine learning to turn real people into convincing puppets for words or actions they might otherwise never say - are becoming increasingly advanced. It is only a matter of time before deepfakes are effectively used for political disinformation and the waters are further muddied.
Last September, three members of Congress - Democrats Adam Schiff and Stephanie Murphy, along with Republican Carlos Curbelo - wrote to the US director of national security, Dan Coats, to warn that "as deepfake technology becomes more advanced and more accessible, it could pose a threat to public discourse and national security".
The issue is not just that campaigns could use deepfake techniques to spread rumour and gossip, but that an increased climate of distrust could make it easier to discredit real videos with plausible deniability.
Donald Trump initially apologised for his comments on the infamous Access Hollywoodtapes, but he later suggested that the audio was fake. In a climate where deepfake attacks on politicians become common that kind of obfuscation will become easier for figures who are so willing to brazenly lie about their words and actions.
Currently, the UK is in a situation where the Electoral Commission complains of campaigns submitting invoices for Facebook advertising that "[make] it difficult or impossible to know what the money was spent on and where". While the regulations don't even require that minimal meaningful level of disclosure, and technology companies are not forced to deliver true transparency, the integrity of UK elections will be in doubt.
Ensuring that all online political advertising in the UK has to abide by the same imprint laws as offline advertising is key - they must state who paid for them and published them. But it has to go further than that. We need a publicly viewable algorithmic ingredient list tied to every targeted online political ad - who is seeing this message and what criteria were used to decide that they would? Revealing the recipe shouldn't be left to the whim of individual companies, but a legal requirement.
Political campaigns used to have to shout their messages but Vote Leave's targeted Facebook ads during the EU referendum were whispers. The manipulation would have been far less effective if it had been done in the full light of public scrutiny, where the conflicting tones and disparate imagery would have been apparent. It's easy to sell a lie if only people who don't know any better can hear you telling it.
This is a Wizard of Oz problem: It's currently too hard to know who is behind the curtain, pulling the strings. If voters are able to see how they are defined by campaigns that target them, they may be a lot less willing to take the messages presented to them at face value. Offline political adverts are restricted by their context, jumbled on the doormat with bills and junk mail, or pasted on a billboard.
European elections 2019: what will happen in England’s South West?
In recent years the South West of England has become a Conservative stronghold, as the opposition from the Liberal Democrats in rural areas dwindled, restoring an older pattern of Labour challenging from the few big cities like Bristol, Plymouth and Exeter. However, in European Parliament elections, UKIP came first in 2014, winning two of the region’s six seats, and helping shape a strong Leave vote in the 2016 Brexit referendum – an inheritance that now falls to the Brexit Party. With regional Conservative support now at unprecedentedly low levels, the three strong pro-Remain parties are vying to get two seats between them. With voters able to cast only a single vote for a party list, the Democratic Audit team reviews likely outcomes and the main potentially electable candidates.
The South West region spans across Bristol, Gloucestershire, Wiltshire, Somerset, Dorset, Devon and Cornwall, plus the overseas territory of Gibraltar. With several high-profile celebrity candidacies competing, the region has attracted greater than usual media attention. The Conservatives’ past lock on electoral success here was squeezed in previous European Parliament elections, culminating in 2014, when UKIP won 32% to the Tories’ 29%, though both parties picked up two seats.
The new Brexit Party has inherited almost all the past UKIP voters and seems to have cannibalised much of the Conservative vote share too. Figure 1 shows that in aComRes poll conducted in early May Farage’s party has 34% support in this region and so will easily gain two seats. Ann Widdecombe, a former Conservative minister (and Strictly Come Dancing contestant) heads their list and is guaranteed to win a seat. They should also gain another one, and a third seat is not beyond the bounds of possibility.
Labour are currently polling second with 18%, up quite a bit on their 14% in 2014. Their incumbent MEP Clare Moody heads their list and is sure to be re-elected, but Lord Andrew Adonis (an arch-Remainer and supporter of a second referendum) still looks unlikely to win a second seat. Labour’s efforts to seek votes from both Leave and Remain supporters reflects the tensions in its position on Brexit, so pro-Remainers may choose to support one of the next three parties taking an unambiguous Remain line.
The Greens won the region’s final seat with 11% support in 2014. On the regional ComRes poll they are currently on 9%. But they face competition from the resurgent Liberal Democrats on 13% and Change UK/The Independent Group on 11%. This result would give the Liberal Democrats one seat, and the new Change UK party would also gain a seat, while the Greens might miss out. The Greens have the advantage of an incumbent and relatively well known MEP in Molly Scott Cato. But Change UK’s lead candidate here is Rachel Johnson (a well-known journalist and also Boris Johnson’s sister). Which of them prevails may hang on a combination of personal profile and their party’s national fortunes – which vary considerably from poll to poll. To complicate the picture, in the ComRes regression analysis of their poll (details in the footnote to Figure 1) the Liberal Democrats were rated well ahead on 17%, and Change UK and the Greens both counted out at 6%. Given the small samples in regional polls, the exact standing of these smaller parties is especially hard to judge.
Meanwhile on the right, the Conservatives languish on just 11% in Figure 1, and on this basis would retain only one of their seats. However, again the ComRes re-analysis using demographics and regression techniques boosts their vote share to 16%, although this is still not enough for a second seat.
Finally UKIP itself has just 3% of voters backing it and no chance of a seat. Their second-placed candidate is the social media provocateur Carl Benjamin, who has been banned from most social media for making unpleasant rape jokes targeting female MPs, attracting considerable press and public condemnation. He has no chance of being elected, but may have helped hasten his party’s total demise.
All the parties have six parties standing in the region, though any one listed in the bottom half of their candidate list cannot possibly win a seat under proportional representation. Voters select just one party to vote for on the ballot paper, not individual candidates. In making up their minds which party list to support, voters need only pay attention to the candidates in the shaded boxes below.
Figure 1: Main party candidates in the South West (with ComRes poll data, 1–7 May 2019) and possible winners
Note: ComRes also produced revised poll numbers using a technique called MRP, which adjusts the results based on past results and local demographics, and puts the Brexit Party on 30%, Labour on 19%, Lib Dems on 17% Conservatives on 16%, Greens on 9% and Change UK on 6%).
To find details of all the local candidates, and to locate your polling station, visit our Democratic Dashboard site and enter your postcode. The site also has full details of other recent elections in your local area.
Below we list a summary of any candidate in Figure 1 with some chance of being elected, and point you to their social media sites, which can show something of what each candidate is like as a person. At the bottom of this article we also show the full 2014 results for the South West.
Which candidates could be elected in the South West in 2019?
THE BREXIT PARTY has fielded a list headed by some high-profile candidates, strengthening their assured chance of winning two seats, and perhaps even three on a good surge day.
Ann Widdecombe was Conservative MP for a constituency in Maidstone from 1987 to 2010, and served in several ministerial roles in John Major’s government, including as Minister for Prisons. (For a summary of her Commons’ voting record, look here). She is known for holding strongly socially conservative views. Since leaving politics she has appeared on numerous television shows, and in pantomime.
James Glancy (Twitter: @jaglancy) is a former Royal Marine and Special Boat Service officer who served in Afghanistan. He is also an environmental campaigner and presenter of Discovery’s ‘Shark Week’ programme.
Christina Jordan is a former nurse, airline attendant, and charity worker. You can read an interview with her here.
LABOUR look certain to retain their current seat, but unlikely to get enough support to win another one.
Clare Moody (Twitter: @ClareMoodyMEP) was elected MEP in 2014 (reversing a complete fail for Labour in 2009). For her voting record in the Brussels parliament see her Votewatch.eu profile. She sits on committees covering defence, foreign affairs, industry, and women’s rights. She previously worked as an official for the trade union Unite.
Andrew Adonis (Twitter: @Andrew_Adonis) was a political advisor to Tony Blair, and was made a Labour peer in 2005 when he joined the government as a junior minister, first for education and then transport. Since the referendum he has been a vocal pro-European campaigner in the People’s Vote campaign, and is vice-Chair of the European Movement.
LIBERAL DEMOCRATS – Until 2014,the Lib Demsregularly returned MEPs to the European Parliament from the South West. On current polling, they have a good chance of getting one elected again.
Caroline Voaden (Twitter: @CarolineVoaden) is a former Reuters journalist, who has worked for charities and run her own business. You can read her full biography here.
CONSERVATIVES – Their recent regional dominancehas not been enough to insulate them in this election. Although they will hold one of their existing seats, they are quite likely to lose the other on the ComRes data.
Ashley Fox (Twitter:@Ashleyfoxmep) was first elected to the European Parliament in 2009, and was leader of the Conservatives’ group there. For his voting record see his Votewatch.eu profile. Before going to Brussels he was a local councillor in Bristol and a solicitor.
James Mustoe (Twitter: @JamesMustoe1) is a councillor for Mevagissey in Cornwall, and manages the constituency office for St Austell and Newquay MP Steve Double.
GREEN PARTY – The Green Party (just) won the region’s last seat in 2014, and their incumbent has a good chance of retaining it, although everything depends on how the strong pro-Remain vote splits.
Molly Scott Cato (Twitter: @MollyMEP) has been a Brussels MEP for the South West since 2014 and spokesperson on Brexit for the Green Party of England and Wales. For her EP profile and voting record see here. She was previously an economist and academic at the University of Roehampton.
CHANGE UK – The new party of former Labour and Conservative MPs is pushing hard in this region, and will hope that a high-profile candidate secures them one seat.
Rachel Johnson (Twitter:@RachelSJohnson) is a journalist, and the former editor of The Lady magazine. She was a supporter of the Lib Dems at the 2017 election. She is part of the Johnson political clan: her brothers are the Conservative MPs Boris and Jo Johnson.
UKIP – The party looks likely to plummet from first to last place, perhaps aided by the highly controversial Carl Benjamin in second place on their list. Even their lead candidate below has no chance of success.
Lawrence Webb (Twitter: @LawrenceJWebb) works as an assistant to the UKIP leader Gerard Batten. He was UKIP’s London mayoral candidate in 2012.
Figure 2: 2014 European Parliament results for the South West and MEPs
Source: Democratic Dashboard. Order elected and current status: 1. William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (elected as UKIP, now Independent); 2. Ashley Fox (Conservative); 3 Julia Reid (elected as UKIP, now Brexit Party); 4 Julie Girling (elected as Conservative, now Independent); 5 Clare Moody(Labour); 6 Molly Scott Cato (Green).
Read more about how the European Parliament elections work:
All EU member states will hold elections to the European Parliament between 23 and 26 May. Since the UK has now extended its membership of the EU beyond this date (and possibly until the end of October), these elections must also happen here on Thursday 23 May. The UK elects 73 Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) by a proportional representation (PR) system, to represent 9 English regions, Scotland and Wales, and using the STV system in Northern Ireland. The Democratic Audit team explains how this election works, what will be on your ballot paper, and what we know so far about party prospects. In the run-up to the election we will preview the contests in your area in more detail.
My friend and former student Paul Gerner suggested to me a few years ago that the federal government have a “regulatory reset.” The idea is that the government eliminates all regulations and then brings back the ones it decides it wants. Presumably, we would end up with substantially fewer regulations.
I loved the idea but it boggled my mind. How would that work? What would happen to certain industries and lots of people who depend on some degree of certainty in making their plans? And, of course, aside from the issue of how it would work, neither Paul nor I thought the federal government would ever do it.
Expired Regulations
I still think that. But James Broughel, a senior research fellow with the Mercatus Center, points out that that’s exactly what Idaho’s state government has just done. He writes:
Something rather remarkable just happened in Idaho. The state legislature opted to—in essence—repeal the entire state regulatory code. The cause may have been dysfunction across legislative chambers, but the result is serendipitous. A new governor is presented with an unprecedented opportunity to repeal an outdated and burdensome regulatory code and replace it with a more streamlined and sensible set of rules. Other states should be paying close attention.
He continues:
Instead, the legislature wrapped up an acrimonious session in April without passing a rule-reauthorization bill. As a result, come July 1, some 8,200 pages of regulations containing 736 chapters of state rules will expire. Any rules the governor opts to keep will have to be implemented as emergency regulations, and the legislature will consider them anew when it returns next January.
Is it going to be no-deal or a customs union? Anna Soubry called out Nigel Farage on Question Time last night for claiming that a “WTO” no-deal Brexit is the only way to get out of the EU. Farage has been dismissive of “soft Brexit” plans, which could involve a customs union or staying in the EU single market, calling them a “betrayal” of the referendum vote.
As Britain drifts towards a possible 'Norway Brexit' LARA SPIRIT travels to the Scandinavian country to discover why this would be the worst destination of all.
As Liam Fox put it in a letter to Tory MPs earlier this month, if the UK was to end up in a customs union, “we would ourselves be traded”. He added, quoting a saying used in Brussels, “if you are not at the table, you are on the menu”.
Very well put, Dr Fox. Yet this is where the UK is apparently headed. Britain – even the international trade secretary, it seems – is finally facing the reality of Brexit. It can choose the concept of 'control' above all else – and accept the economic harm which would follow departure from the world's largest free trade bloc. Or it can leave the EU while staying closely aligned to it – avoiding the worst of the damage to the economy, but without a seat at the table, with no ability to shape and influence policy, and at the mercy of others.
The second option appears to be the direction in which the government is moving, with some version of what has been dubbed 'common market 2.0' or Norway Plus. This would leave the UK in a similar, but not identical, position to Norway – the 'plus' indicates that the UK would also need to add a comprehensive customs arrangement to maintain common external tariffs and prevent a hard border in Ireland.
A version of this arrangement – without the plus – seems to be OK for Norway, so would it work for Britain? After all, the two countries have, in some respects, shared a similar path, even if they have taken different routes.
Both were founder members of the European Free Trade Association in the 1960s, before being rebuffed in their efforts to join the European Community by France.
Both then held referendums about becoming full members in the 1970s. But while the British opted to do so, the Norwegians declined, in a plebiscite in 1972 (by 53.5% to 46.5%). Norway did so again in 1994 (this time by 52.2% to 47.8%), although the same year it did join, along with Britain and the rest of the EU, the European Economic Area. This has formed the basis of Norway's relationship with the EU ever since. Through membership of the EEA, Norway has access to the EU's single market, but the arrangement also requires Oslo to incorporate around 5,000 of the 23,000 laws currently enforced by Brussels.
There have been occasional murmurings of opposition to this status – largely from the Norwegian left – but, on the whole, the country seems relatively satisfied with the arrangement.
Ellen Bramness Arvidsson, director of Finans Norge – which represents financial services companies – said: “The Norwegian financial sector is extremely positive towards the EEA agreement because it does give us total market access. When we adhere to these rules we are a part of the internal market like members are.”
Jonas Gahr Støre, the leader of the Norwegian Labour party and a former minister for foreign affairs, described it as “a very Norwegian deal”.
“It has been a national compromise short of membership, which gives us access to the internal market and all the four freedoms – people, goods, services and capital. The exception is agriculture and fish, which remain outside. But we have access to the market and a level playing field.”
Though it was overtaken by Nordic neighbour Finland in the rankings this year, Norway has consistently bagged top spot on the World Happiness Index. The country draws admiration for its strong social democratic tradition and it has some of the world's highest living standards, helped by its North Sea oil and gas resources. Norway, then, seems pretty content with its lot, including its status as an adjunct of the EU. Could a restless, divided Britain benefit from such a pragmatic solution, then?
Kjetil Wiedswang, a commentator at Norwegian business newspaper Dagens Næringsliv, suggests not. He has been observing Britain's relationship with the EU for 30 years and says there have been repeated instances of many in Britain being tempted by the so-called 'Nordic model'. The problem, he believes, is that it is not really available for the UK.
“(When it has been suggested before) People have lined up and said, 'well OK, if you're a small, peaceful, basically conservative, protestant, oil-rich country then you should do it like us',” he said.
But Britain does not share many characteristics with Norway. It doesn't have a trillion-dollar sovereign wealth fund and has more than 13 times the population. What works for Norway is not the same as what works for Britain.
A Norway deal would also not solve the issues that many thought Brexit would address. For those who believed a Leave vote in 2016 would mean no more freedom of movement, an end to being subject to laws laid down in Brussels and total freedom to strike trade deals with the rest of the world, following the Norwegian route is going to leave them sorely disappointed.
Norway accepts all four freedoms in return for access to the single market. In order to avoid a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, common market 2.0 would require a customs union too – precluding any ability to strike our own free trade deals.
And while Brexiteers will be frustrated, a Norway solution is no more enticing for us Remainers. While it might protect freedom of movement – something which deserves to be embraced, not eliminated – the arrangement would simply mean we keep some of the benefits we enjoyed as full EU members, but without a say in any of the decision-making processes.
Laurie Taylor talks to Thomas Konda, Professor of Political Science at SUNY, Plattsburgh, about the history and changing nature of conspiracy theories. Why have such wild theories overrun America?
Also, Hugo Leal, Methods Fellow at the University of Cambridge discusses the most comprehensive examination of conspiracy theories ever conducted. About 11,500 people were surveyed in a study covered nine countries - the US, Britain (excluding Northern Ireland), Poland, Italy, France, Germany, Portugal, Sweden and Hungary.
The research found that Trump and Brexit voters were more likely to believe in conspiracy theories than others.
Brexit and Trump voters more likely to believe in conspiracy theories, survey shows
One of the largest ever surveys on public belief in conspiracy theories suggests that Brexit and Trump voters are significantly more likely than their political rivals to believe in a range of conspiracy theories
Latest research reveals the extent to which conspiracy theories have become “mainstream rather than marginal beliefs” in a number of Western countries
Findings suggest that a large number of people across the surveyed countries think their governments are “hiding the truth” about immigration. In particular, researchers found that Brexit and Trump voters are significantly more likely to believe in this and a wide range of other conspiracy theories – including that “Muslim immigration to this country is part of a bigger plan to make Muslims a majority”, that “man-made global warming is a hoax”, and that “the truth about the harmful effects of vaccines is being deliberately hidden from the public”.
Brexit party leader distances himself from Alex Jones, host of Infowars website
Rowena Mason Deputy political editor Wed 8 May 2019
Nigel Farage, the Brexit party leader, has insisted he is not a conspiracy theorist after he repeatedly appeared on a far-right US talkshow and openly discussed ideas about a “new world order” linked to antisemitic tropes.
