#sunlight was an unpaid actor

[potetosaradas]

testing the canon R8 during the golden hour

[scooby-review]

The New Scooby Doo Movies S1 E13-16

13. The Haunted Horseman of Hagglethorn Hall

Undoubtedly this is my favourite episode of this iteration. 

The episode follows the gang having to help Davy Jones of the Monkees solve a mystery of a Scottish castle. It’s fairly simple, but it shines through its characterisation and its use of the guest star. 

I love the way Davy interacts with the gang, he’s not necessarily the focus throughout, rather, the mystery takes precedence, and wow does this feel like an actual mystery! It harkens back to Where are You in a way I personally love. Davy is found by having the gang follow a trail of his singing, and later, he sings a song that scores a chase sequence. It’s so perfect, the bubblegum pop sound allows this episode to feel like it came from season two of Where are You, and I feel like it elevates this great chase scene a lot. 

The location is another classic feeling one, it’s a castle, haunted by a ghost and a moat monster. Again, it takes the best of what both this era and Where are You had to offer and blends them, this is an episode that makes use of the special guest while feeling like an interesting mystery and having an interesting villain. 

To linger on these for a moment, the Haunted Horseman is a fun design, the archetype of a knight and horse matches the location perfectly, and of course, this also ties back into the ghostly aspect of this villain. The monster truly haunts the halls of this episode - he will appear, then fade, crafting this unpredictability and impermanence to him which adds to the creepiness of the character. 

Meanwhile, the Moat Monster also is a very fun creature for the series. Sometimes feeling like just a toad, other times truly leaning into the more anthropomorphic elements, the monster is just fun to watch bounce around, he’s a large toad, feeling reminiscent of 50s creature features to me, such a creature certainly would be alarming, especially if he got up and ran. There’s a simplicity here that reminds me of the Shark Men, sure he’s kind of just a shark, but he’s also enough man to keep the design interesting and not as bare bones as one might initially think. 

Also, I found this to be a pretty funny episode! For example, come the end of the story they simply don’t arrest the villains? Hell the gang don’t even report them, instead, they are forced to work, unpaid, at the castle to make amends. 

They break off into a fun set of trios too, and all in all, I had a great time. I won’t lie, I still felt the length of the episode, but ultimately, I was having fun for the majority of it, and this is truly the most perfect episode this iteration of the franchise has to offer, at least in my eyes. 

14. The Phantom of the Country Music Hall

To me, this is maybe one of the most forgettable episodes from this season. It’s not awful, hell, I loved the opening half of this episode! However, nothing about it leaves much of an impression on me. 

Jerry Reed is a fine guest star to me, he adds more than he takes away, but he also left very little of a mark on me. He was a country singer and an actor, and I do appreciate when they use musicians and include music within the episode; Jerry sings "Pretty Mary Sunlight" which first appeared in “Don’t Fool with a Phantom”, sung there by George Robertson Jr. It’s simply a good device to incorporate the guest deeper into the episode's membrane, rather than simply having them appear and go along with the mystery. 

Actually, one of the best aspects of this episode is that the mystery revolves around the guest star's disappearance, a close friend of the gang. It's a breath of fresh air amidst the rest of the series, I appreciate them doing something different with the formula! By doing this they also skate the line of having meaningful commentary on the music industry, which feels more incidental than anything, but I found it funny regardless. Especially in the context of the series' previous love for bubblegum pop, music churned out, sometimes without the bands being aware of such. For example, The Monkees second album released without their knowing, they found out while on tour, it was forced to release early to capitalise on the band's popularity, fearing it would soon decline. 

I have very little to discuss in the way of the villains. The pair take on the mantle of a set of mannequins - a Viking and Davy Crockett. They work alongside the setting well, although, there’s something simply lifeless feeling about the pair. Both are simply what they say they are, a Viking and Davy Crockett, an American soldier and politician whose stories had been adapted by Disney in the early 50s. He is, or at least was, hailed as a hero, a figure to be praised, although in my brief research I imagine this is contested now given his history with slavery. It’s always so weird whenever Scooby-Doo uses villains like these in their episodes, historical figures steeped in controversy and horrific actions. Their specifics on it being Davy are curious too, especially when contrasted with the viking. I appreciate how they differ, yet, having a specific character and caricature feels somewhat off. Regardless, they’re fairly dull, their designs radiate with an air of being fine, meanwhile also lacking any personality. 

As I mentioned in the opening, this episode feels so forgettable. Despite enjoying the first half, then finding the second half completely dull, I feel like there are two main reasons I forgot I even watched this one! The villain’s are boring and the guest hardly appears. The latter works well in the context of the episode, but there’s nothing left to elevate this forty minutes, the gang walk around, and that’s kind of it. 

15. The Caped Crusader Caper

Watching this episode transported me back to being a child, I used to have a small boxy TV in my bedroom, it sat atop my Chester drawers. Growing up I had an old VHS player in my room - we had a DVD player downstairs by this point - and so all my brother's old VHS tapes, and my own too, became a frequent nightly rotation. One such I would watch a lot was the Scooby-Doo Meets Batman VHS tape, containing the pair of episodes from this series. Despite watching this so often, if someone had asked me before I sat back down to watch this the plot of it, I would have struggled to tell you. Rewatching it unveils why, given that it suffers from the same problems as the episodes that have come prior, the long and dreary pacing, uninteresting mysteries that make these forty minute episodes into a drag. 

Despite this, I did enjoy the rush of nostalgia, patchy old memories flooded back to me, specifically the rotating house and the troll. Regardless of my thoughts on the rest of the episode, there is something special waiting for me within this animation, the sound, the story, it’s like candy floss, a short burst of joy that quickly fades, leaving an odd taste in your mouth, but nothing real. 

Something I came to like about this episode is the way it almost entirely parts ways with the mystery formula, it breaks away from the confines of the Scooby structure and it is able to tell a more interesting story as a result. It’s far from perfect, likely some of the weaker writing both franchises have seen, however, it’s something, it’s experimenting and I appreciate that a whole lot more than half hearted attempts at shoe horning lifeless mysteries alongside a guest star that’s the real focal point. The issue usually is that the gang are somewhat frail characters, characters I adore, but at this point in the shows run, Fred and Daphne especially find themselves feeling rough around the edges, they have their roles, their purposes, but they’re constantly overshadowed by the far more interestingly characterised rest of the gang. As such, it’s difficult for these characters to exist outside of the mysteries they’re built for, it then makes it more difficult to bounce them off a celebrity guest. 

For so long I have deemed Daphne and Fred as being bland characters, which I think is somewhat unfair. Fred is the driver and leader, meanwhile Daphne is a clutz, but also always a detective. I think it’s something that is often ignored - hell I ignored it - but even when Daphne is captured or falls into a trap, she never gives up, she constantly attempts to continue with the mystery. She’s a stark juxtaposition to Shaggy and Scooby in this sense. Yet, over time, she will become more of this one note ���danger prone” character. 

Regardless, I would argue that through all the flanderization, changes in characterisation and reinvention this set of characters go through during this franchise, across every single iteration of the series, this is the most bland they feel, the least alive the characters have ever and will ever feel. There’s worse versions of them, but I would take that over this iteration where often it feels like the characters are never given enough room to do anything interesting, or sometimes, too much time to do nothing interesting. 

However, one of my favourite dynamics is when the gang is placed opposite Batman and Robin, they’re definitely some of the most interesting guests in the series. There's a reason that to this day we see crossovers with this set of characters, and it’s because they have very fun chemistry, there’s so much joy in watching them interact! 

Joker and Penguin are once again the villains of this episode, likely a cost cutting measure, however, they’re fun to see again! Although Batman does reintroduce them to the gang despite their previous meeting, of course, this is done so the episodes can air in any order without viewers being left confused as to how Shaggy and the Joker are enemies, but it returns to the series constant selective continuity which is funny. Personally, I like to read this as Batman just constantly overexplains things. 

The duo do dress up in disguises here! There’s the Dryad and Troll. Dryad’s are nature spirits in Greek Mythology, a topic that I am always excited to discuss. This depiction of the spirits is a very literal image of a forest spirit, a tree that is alive, the concept of the Dryad already is very flexible which allows for very creative ways to spin these creatures, often depicted as feminine spirits. Drawing from the swampy and bushy face of the Dryad, the creature feels evocative of other monsters we’ve seen such as the Yeti, their face shape is almost identical and they command a similar animalistic presence, although the small arms of this Dryad gives a far less menacing presence to the villain. 

The Troll meanwhile is another fairly derivative design, this is a troll, short with ginger hair and green tinted skin. Everything about this pair’s designs work perfectly, from the proportions to the way they compliment each other with a fairy tale theme. 

Also, this episode is featured in the Batman: The Brave and the Bold episode Bat-Mite Presents: Batman's Strangest Cases! 

There’s a reason I haven’t discussed much about the actual content of the episode - there’s not loads. Again, this episode is above the others to me because of nostalgia, but also because it’s at the very least trying something different, and after watching every episode prior, I am very glad about this. 

16. The Lochness Mess

I adore Uncle Nathaniel. I have so little else to discuss about this episode, it’s very similar to the previous Globetrotters episode in that there’s a lot of basketball playing that I find boring, but if there’s one thing I don’t find boring, it’s Uncle Nathaniel. Shaggy’s uncle’s design takes Shaggy’s face, and makes him grey haired. Perfect. It’s not a lazy design either, his hair is different, as is his beard and costume, it’s instead a very funny design, it’s so great to see them be able to craft such a funny character both in design and characterisation after how bland so many other side characters have felt this season. Nathaniel is the stand out of this episode, every second he spends on screen is a delight! I believed wholeheartedly that he and Shaggy were from the same family beyond simple design motifs. 

Everything else is kind of whatever. 

If Nathaniel isn’t in the scene, it’s likely not doing much for me - we get a little drop of lore here, we see young Scooby and Shaggy! Weirdly, a lot of the lore for the series stays pretty consistent for a while. For the first few series, there’s a few lines that allude to the passing of time, that these series follow on from one another, which I really enjoy. 

The sea serpent is the most interesting of the villains, she’s a riff on the Loch Ness Monster, given a very dragon like appearance although her hands are webbed which instantly turns her into a more interesting design. I also adore the deep shade of forest green paired with the lilac they use for her design, again, this works perfectly for the swampy waters that she would be in, and all in all, this creates such a great and cohesive design. 

There’s also three confederate ghosts, because of course there is! I don’t know what to say, they’ll use this archetype again in Zombie Island and it’s always very gross, don’t get me wrong I love that movie so much, but it’s just not a great type of villain. It returns back to my prior point about Davy Crocket, it just makes bad characters for a Scooby Doo episode. 

In my notes I only actually wrote about Nathaniel and also that I like watching Scooby swim. This episode leaves very little impact beyond these factors which are amazing, perfect even. It’s just a shame that everything else does nothing. 

This rounds out season one! To discuss my thoughts very briefly, I really disliked this season, and this iteration of the show as a whole. I will say that I like it better than season two, which is something I guess! There’s a few stand out episodes in here, but as a whole, I am glad to be done with this season! 

Episode Ranking:

The Haunted Horseman of Hagglethorn Hall

The Caped Crusader Caper

The Loch Ness Mess

The Phantom of the Country Hall

Villain Ranking:

Haunted Horseman

Moat Monster

Dryad

Troll

Loch Ness Monster

Possessed Viking Mannequin

Possessed Davy Crockett Mannequin

Next Review: The New Scooby Doo Movies S2 E1-4

Previous Review: The New Scooby Doo Movies S1 E9-12

[crookedfurycoffee-blog]

Unpaid Strategies in Locating Missing Animals

Snoopy, Lassie, Marmaduke, Beethoven, UnderDog, and also Huckleberry Hound all had their time in sunlight over the years. Some were flashes in the skillet and others have become societal icons. how to find a lost dog  of these people are no problem finding, but how about a few of the more unknown canine pets? For each and every superstar, there were at the very least ten not too popular pups that can work with a small recognition. A number of them have grown to be enduring icons and others are just what they're allowed to be, man's companion, actually by our part and never seeking acceptance for his or her achievements.

Because the start of the Twentieth Century, there have been films and famous artists portraying pets of breeds doing heroic and amusing items that have made them worthy of at the least a mention. Before 1900, there have been musicians who painted dogs, a few of whom became well-known for other works. That also occurred lately, as you'll read below. If you're your dog fan and trivia fan, this is one record you'll certainly want to check out. It's not numbered or rated, because there is number method to charge one dog as somehow more essential than others. It's but, a list of essential furry four-legged buddies who've quietly created history. You will definitely be amazed by a few of the little known facts contained here.

Rover's Actual Name was Blair

Hollywood has glamorized dogs since they first started creating movies back early Twentieth Century. In 1905, a quiet picture named Saved by Rover shown a heroic collie preserving a child from the beggar woman who kidnapped her while the household nanny was distracted and speaking to a fine soldier. The picture is generally regarded as the first movie of any kind to use paid actors. The nanny, the soldier, and the beggar person were all given fifty per cent of a guinea to enjoy their roles. The movie was therefore successful that the filmmaker, Britain's Cecil Hepworth, had to throw it twice. The negative from the initial firing used out following many showings. In equally versions, Hepworth applied his household pet and his own baby child. The dog's title wasn't Rover. It absolutely was Blair.

Wherever Could Annie have now been Without Sandy?

Small Orphan Annie, a popular comic reel personality created by Harold Gray, first appeared on the net on July 5, 1924 and was published almost uninterrupted till June 13, 2010. All through that point, she was loved and hated, respected and scorned, pitied and envied, but there clearly was generally one constant - her dog Sandy. Like a bit of good canine partner, Sandy stood beside her through thick and slim, never wavering even though Gray's politics threatened to sink their fledgling career. In their radio decades, from 1930 to 1942, Sandy had a talking role in the intro and a typical place through the fifteen second afternoon show. Who did Sandy's style? Beginning in 1936, it absolutely was only a little known NBC worker named Orson Welles. He was two decades old when he was initially appointed for the part, just couple of years before his famous War of the Sides broadcast.

Robert, Fritzi, Rags, Bozo, or Homer?

Most people have experienced the film pet poster from Disney's 1955 animated movie Lady and the Tramp, and most only think the stray's name is merely "The Tramp ".You can find helpful individuals that supply him and call him Scott or Fritzi, but neither of these is his true name. During the movie, he isn't exclusively addressed by any name other than "The Tramp ".The throw of the picture, those that did the comments, attempted several various tickets, including Rags and Bozo, but decided not to designate the indegent puppy one once the film was ultimately released. For people that are trivia buffs, his true title, one that they wrote in to the initial program, is Homer. Exactly why is this historic? Homer and his pals were all the main first lively feature shot in CinemaScope Widescreen, a progressive search that could modify the scope of filmmaking for the decades that used - the 1960s and 70s.

Andy Warhol and Maurice

Andy Warhol was an American painter and filmmaker whose 1963 painting The Nine Elvises sold for accurate documentation $100 million. The purchase produced Warhol a star, on level with Pablo Picasso and Garcia Pollock. The painting, which is really a silkscreen, is a portrait of Elvis Presley which was held during the time of the sale by Italian art enthusiast Annibale Berlingieri. The buyer is unknown. Warhol also produced another painting named, Symbol of Maurice, a interpretation of a dachshund that belonged to friend and fellow artwork collector Gabrielle Keiller. You can find copies of Maurice anywhere wherever dog posters can be purchased for less than $10 apiece. You won't but, discover him shown on any of many web lists of popular Warhol's, but overall income of the image far surpass the offering value of The Nine Elvises. It seems that small amounts do add up around time.

[anchorarcade]

Congress's New Bill Can't Eliminate Russian Influence Online

http://ryanguillory.com/congresss-new-bill-cant-eliminate-russian-influence-online/

Congress's New Bill Can't Eliminate Russian Influence Online

A bipartisan group of senators introduced a bill Thursday that would require online political advertisers to provide additional disclosures about who’s paying for their ads, but the measure may prove a half-step toward preventing foreign adversaries from influencing US elections online.

During a press conference Thursday, Democratic senators Mark Warner and Amy Klobuchar introduced the much-anticipated Honest Ads Act, cosponsored by Republican senator John McCain.

“Our entire democracy was founded on the simple idea that the people in our country should be self governing,” Klobuchar said. “Now 240 years later, our democracy is at risk. Russia attacked our elections, and they and other foreign powers and interests will continue to divide our country if we don’t act now.”

The bill arrives amid continuing revelations about how Russian operatives used tech companies, including Facebook, Twitter, and Google, to advertise political messages to American voters around the 2016 election. The bill is the first move by Congress to require political advertisers online to comply with the same disclosure standards already required of broadcast, radio, and print advertisers. But the design of digital platforms, which unlike radio and television allow virtually anyone to create content, means rules aimed only at advertisements will have limited effect.

“It’s a good piece of legislation to address the modern realities of campaign financing and the need for disclosure,” says Adam Sharp, former head of news, government, and elections at Twitter. “But I’m skeptical of how it will tamp down on behavior by bad actors like we saw in the 2016 election.” Warner himself described the bill as “common sense light-touch regulation.”

The bill amends the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, which governs political ad spending. It would require tech platforms with at least 50 million monthly users in the United States to “maintain and make available for online public inspection” a record of advertisers who spend at least $500 on the platform advertising on campaign issues, or issues of “national legislative importance.” Those ads would be required to include disclosures citing who paid for the ads. The bill leaves it up to the platforms to decide how to implement those disclosures, requiring only that the recipients of ads can access the information with “minimal effort.”

The publicly available record would include an ad’s content, a description of the target audience, the number of views, and the date it was first and last displayed. It would also include the average rate charged for the ad, the name of the candidate mentioned, if any, and contact information for the purchaser of the ad. Platforms would have to compile these records “as soon as possible” and retain them for four years. Finally, it would require platforms to make “reasonable efforts” to ensure foreign entities aren’t behind those ads.

The legislation aims to address a major regulatory blind spot that has left online political ads virtually unregulated, largely as a result of government inaction. Facebook in 2011 asked the Federal Election Commission for an exemption to rules that would have required it to include disclosures on every political ad, detailing who paid for the ad. Facebook argued the rule was impractical and that Facebook ads ought to be regulated as “small items,” like campaign buttons and pens, which require no such disclaimers. The FEC was split and never reached a decision. Ever since, Facebook and other platforms have not required disclaimers from political advertisers.

Now, that lack of oversight is drawing harsh scrutiny after the company revealed that a Russian propaganda group known as the Internet Research Agency created 470 fake Facebook accounts, with which it purchased $100,000 worth of politically divisive ads, aimed at Americans. Twitter has similarly pinpointed roughly 200 accounts linked to the same propaganda group, in addition to hundreds of bot accounts that researchers say have direct connections to Russian operatives. Meanwhile, Google has reportedly discovered at least $4,700 worth of ads linked to Russian influence groups.

The new bill would modernize the regulatory environment so that Facebook, Google, Twitter, and other tech platforms require the same disclosures of political advertisers as other media. “This is a substantive legislative proposal that addresses the online disclosure gap that we and other good-government advocates and campaign-finance experts have talked about for years,” says Alex Howard, deputy director of the Sunlight Foundation, a government transparency advocacy group.

Substantive as this legislation may be in addressing advertising, though, it’s far from comprehensive. The most effective way to influence people online often is not through ads, but with viral content.

Facebook says that the ads purchased by those Russia-linked pages reached some 10 million people. But researchers say the unpaid, organic posts created by those same pages reached many times that number. According to Jonathan Albright, research director at Columbia University’s Tow Center for Digital Journalism, just six of the 470 fake account pages that Facebook identified reached roughly 340 million people through regular Facebook posts, eliciting some 19.1 million interactions in the form of likes, shares, and comments.

Albright says it’s unclear whether the Russians paid to “boost” any of those posts, a form of advertising that guarantees the post will be shown to more people. Even if they did, once the posts were published, they took on a life of their own. On the pro-veteran page Being Patriotic, which Facebook identified as being connected to Internet Research Agency, one post read, “At least 50,000 homeless veterans are starving, dying in the streets, but liberals want to invite 620,000 refugees and settle them among us.” It received more than 724,000 shares, likes, and comments.

“When you say ‘ads’ people think of a display ad. When really this is more insidious,” says Albright. “It’s content. It’s news.”

At a time when anyone can start a media company overnight and use Facebook to expand its audience, there’s little reason for someone to register a Super PAC and comply with whatever oversight comes with it, says Andrew Bleeker, CEO of Bully Pulpit Interactive, who ran Hillary Clinton’s digital-advertising operation. “I’m not worried about the Trump campaign,” he says. “I’m worried about the billionaire who, rather than starting a Super PAC, starts a media company that’s not regulated, because there are huge free speech issues.”

On Wednesday, the Daily Beast reported that members of President Trump’s inner circle, including campaign digital director Brad Parscale, adviser Kellyanne Conway and Trump’s son, Donald Trump Jr., retweeted posts from an account called @Ten_GOP before the election. That account has since been reported by the news outlet to be Russian propaganda and was suspended by Twitter. Whether the retweets were innocent mistakes or intentional is something investigators will, no doubt, examine.

The point is: organic posts can do just as much damage as ads, and the Honest Ads Act does very little address that fact. Not that it could. These open platforms now pervade our lives, and there’s likely no amount of legislation that could stop a malicious actor from exploiting them. “Like a lot of regulation, the good actors who follow the rules wind up being boxed in and the bad actors don’t care and will find other ways around it,” Sharp says.

One problem, Sharp says, is that the sponsors are rhetorically framing what is essentially a campaign-finance reform bill as national-security legislation. That’s largely to do with the fact that the Democratic senators who first drafted the bill wanted Republican support—in this case, from McCain—in order to introduce it. “On the Republican side there’s resistance to additional campaign finance regulation, but some receptiveness to the idea that this is necessary from a national-security standpoint,” says Sharp.

Klobuchar acknowledged as much during the press conference. “If you ask John McCain why he would get involved in a bill like that,” she said, “his main answer would be: national security.”

While this bill may not stop every foreign adversary who might like to infiltrate American elections, Albright says there are ways in which it could be improved. He suggests that in addition to making “reasonable efforts” to identify foreign entities attempting to advertise on their platforms, tech companies should be required to tell individual users if they have been exposed to ads purchased by a foreign entity. It would be similar to the way, say, businesses are required to alert customers of a data breach.

In some cases, Albright says, the Russians may have been able to amass equally, or more, sensitive information from users from their phony pages. One post on the page, LGBT United, asked members, “Straight girls, would you ever experiment with a lesbian?”

“People commented back,” Albright says. “Facebook needs to reach out to every single person who provided anything on those pages.” Right now, there’s a petition circulating on Change.org demanding Facebook do that.

Facebook, for its part, has announced changes to its election integrity policies. Going forward, it will require political ads to disclose on an ad who paid for it, and it will create a public repository of different variations of ads, which will be housed on the advertiser’s Page. But questions remain about how, exactly, these new policies will be implemented and what will constitute a political ad. On Nov. 1, representatives of Facebook, Google, and Twitter will appear at two congressional hearings to answer questions about how Russia was able to use their services to influence the election.

Whether the Honest Ads Act makes it through a highly divided Congress already saddled with addressing marquee issues like the budget, the healthcare system, and immigration, is unclear. But if it does advance, the bill ought to be the beginning, not the end, of the conversation.

Source link

[awesomefelicitylewis-blog]

Congress's New Bill Can't Eliminate Russian Influence Online

http://ryanguillory.com/congresss-new-bill-cant-eliminate-russian-influence-online/

Congress's New Bill Can't Eliminate Russian Influence Online

A bipartisan group of senators introduced a bill Thursday that would require online political advertisers to provide additional disclosures about who’s paying for their ads, but the measure may prove a half-step toward preventing foreign adversaries from influencing US elections online.

During a press conference Thursday, Democratic senators Mark Warner and Amy Klobuchar introduced the much-anticipated Honest Ads Act, cosponsored by Republican senator John McCain.

“Our entire democracy was founded on the simple idea that the people in our country should be self governing,” Klobuchar said. “Now 240 years later, our democracy is at risk. Russia attacked our elections, and they and other foreign powers and interests will continue to divide our country if we don’t act now.”

The bill arrives amid continuing revelations about how Russian operatives used tech companies, including Facebook, Twitter, and Google, to advertise political messages to American voters around the 2016 election. The bill is the first move by Congress to require political advertisers online to comply with the same disclosure standards already required of broadcast, radio, and print advertisers. But the design of digital platforms, which unlike radio and television allow virtually anyone to create content, means rules aimed only at advertisements will have limited effect.

“It’s a good piece of legislation to address the modern realities of campaign financing and the need for disclosure,” says Adam Sharp, former head of news, government, and elections at Twitter. “But I’m skeptical of how it will tamp down on behavior by bad actors like we saw in the 2016 election.” Warner himself described the bill as “common sense light-touch regulation.”

The bill amends the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, which governs political ad spending. It would require tech platforms with at least 50 million monthly users in the United States to “maintain and make available for online public inspection” a record of advertisers who spend at least $500 on the platform advertising on campaign issues, or issues of “national legislative importance.” Those ads would be required to include disclosures citing who paid for the ads. The bill leaves it up to the platforms to decide how to implement those disclosures, requiring only that the recipients of ads can access the information with “minimal effort.”

The publicly available record would include an ad’s content, a description of the target audience, the number of views, and the date it was first and last displayed. It would also include the average rate charged for the ad, the name of the candidate mentioned, if any, and contact information for the purchaser of the ad. Platforms would have to compile these records “as soon as possible” and retain them for four years. Finally, it would require platforms to make “reasonable efforts” to ensure foreign entities aren’t behind those ads.

The legislation aims to address a major regulatory blind spot that has left online political ads virtually unregulated, largely as a result of government inaction. Facebook in 2011 asked the Federal Election Commission for an exemption to rules that would have required it to include disclosures on every political ad, detailing who paid for the ad. Facebook argued the rule was impractical and that Facebook ads ought to be regulated as “small items,” like campaign buttons and pens, which require no such disclaimers. The FEC was split and never reached a decision. Ever since, Facebook and other platforms have not required disclaimers from political advertisers.

Now, that lack of oversight is drawing harsh scrutiny after the company revealed that a Russian propaganda group known as the Internet Research Agency created 470 fake Facebook accounts, with which it purchased $100,000 worth of politically divisive ads, aimed at Americans. Twitter has similarly pinpointed roughly 200 accounts linked to the same propaganda group, in addition to hundreds of bot accounts that researchers say have direct connections to Russian operatives. Meanwhile, Google has reportedly discovered at least $4,700 worth of ads linked to Russian influence groups.

The new bill would modernize the regulatory environment so that Facebook, Google, Twitter, and other tech platforms require the same disclosures of political advertisers as other media. “This is a substantive legislative proposal that addresses the online disclosure gap that we and other good-government advocates and campaign-finance experts have talked about for years,” says Alex Howard, deputy director of the Sunlight Foundation, a government transparency advocacy group.

Substantive as this legislation may be in addressing advertising, though, it’s far from comprehensive. The most effective way to influence people online often is not through ads, but with viral content.

Facebook says that the ads purchased by those Russia-linked pages reached some 10 million people. But researchers say the unpaid, organic posts created by those same pages reached many times that number. According to Jonathan Albright, research director at Columbia University’s Tow Center for Digital Journalism, just six of the 470 fake account pages that Facebook identified reached roughly 340 million people through regular Facebook posts, eliciting some 19.1 million interactions in the form of likes, shares, and comments.

Albright says it’s unclear whether the Russians paid to “boost” any of those posts, a form of advertising that guarantees the post will be shown to more people. Even if they did, once the posts were published, they took on a life of their own. On the pro-veteran page Being Patriotic, which Facebook identified as being connected to Internet Research Agency, one post read, “At least 50,000 homeless veterans are starving, dying in the streets, but liberals want to invite 620,000 refugees and settle them among us.” It received more than 724,000 shares, likes, and comments.

“When you say ‘ads’ people think of a display ad. When really this is more insidious,” says Albright. “It’s content. It’s news.”

At a time when anyone can start a media company overnight and use Facebook to expand its audience, there’s little reason for someone to register a Super PAC and comply with whatever oversight comes with it, says Andrew Bleeker, CEO of Bully Pulpit Interactive, who ran Hillary Clinton’s digital-advertising operation. “I’m not worried about the Trump campaign,” he says. “I’m worried about the billionaire who, rather than starting a Super PAC, starts a media company that’s not regulated, because there are huge free speech issues.”

On Wednesday, the Daily Beast reported that members of President Trump’s inner circle, including campaign digital director Brad Parscale, adviser Kellyanne Conway and Trump’s son, Donald Trump Jr., retweeted posts from an account called @Ten_GOP before the election. That account has since been reported by the news outlet to be Russian propaganda and was suspended by Twitter. Whether the retweets were innocent mistakes or intentional is something investigators will, no doubt, examine.

The point is: organic posts can do just as much damage as ads, and the Honest Ads Act does very little address that fact. Not that it could. These open platforms now pervade our lives, and there’s likely no amount of legislation that could stop a malicious actor from exploiting them. “Like a lot of regulation, the good actors who follow the rules wind up being boxed in and the bad actors don’t care and will find other ways around it,” Sharp says.

One problem, Sharp says, is that the sponsors are rhetorically framing what is essentially a campaign-finance reform bill as national-security legislation. That’s largely to do with the fact that the Democratic senators who first drafted the bill wanted Republican support—in this case, from McCain—in order to introduce it. “On the Republican side there’s resistance to additional campaign finance regulation, but some receptiveness to the idea that this is necessary from a national-security standpoint,” says Sharp.

Klobuchar acknowledged as much during the press conference. “If you ask John McCain why he would get involved in a bill like that,” she said, “his main answer would be: national security.”

While this bill may not stop every foreign adversary who might like to infiltrate American elections, Albright says there are ways in which it could be improved. He suggests that in addition to making “reasonable efforts” to identify foreign entities attempting to advertise on their platforms, tech companies should be required to tell individual users if they have been exposed to ads purchased by a foreign entity. It would be similar to the way, say, businesses are required to alert customers of a data breach.

In some cases, Albright says, the Russians may have been able to amass equally, or more, sensitive information from users from their phony pages. One post on the page, LGBT United, asked members, “Straight girls, would you ever experiment with a lesbian?”

“People commented back,” Albright says. “Facebook needs to reach out to every single person who provided anything on those pages.” Right now, there’s a petition circulating on Change.org demanding Facebook do that.

Facebook, for its part, has announced changes to its election integrity policies. Going forward, it will require political ads to disclose on an ad who paid for it, and it will create a public repository of different variations of ads, which will be housed on the advertiser’s Page. But questions remain about how, exactly, these new policies will be implemented and what will constitute a political ad. On Nov. 1, representatives of Facebook, Google, and Twitter will appear at two congressional hearings to answer questions about how Russia was able to use their services to influence the election.

Whether the Honest Ads Act makes it through a highly divided Congress already saddled with addressing marquee issues like the budget, the healthcare system, and immigration, is unclear. But if it does advance, the bill ought to be the beginning, not the end, of the conversation.

Source link