271–280 of 354 posts
Especially ones that have children, veterans, or old people, usually with big frowns or drooping flags. "Don't disappoint this stock image! Vote no on prop blah-blah"
It works. This strategy actually works
interesting that the company that has the most viewed ads for 2024[1] ("FORCE VECTOR COMMUNICATIONS") has a total of 3 matches when you search for them[2] [1] https://adstransparency.google.com/political?region=US&topic... [2] https://www.google.com/search?q=%22force+vector+communicatio...
Just shell companies for various PACs and how rich people donate through dark pools. The Citizens United vs FEC ruling is a sham.
Have people in the US proposed such a cap to prevent corporations from buying elections, or is that too foreign of a concept ?
Fascinating stuff. I went down a rabbit hole with this particlar ad: https://adstransparency.google.com/advertiser/AR132650406472... It links to a website called fultongrandjury.com, which I at first thought would be an official government website, and what initially made me curious was the idea of spending money to advertise a government website, getting this additional credibility. Like, if the facts are so strongl…
Looking at that smalltowntruth website reminds me of someone I met in 2015. I stayed at a guy's airbnb in Denver. He was in breach of his renting agreement by hosting the airbnb and had previously spent about a year in jail (forget for what). He said he had 2 websites that he was promoting on Facebook and were making him money. On one website he posted lots of pro-Trump content and on the other he posted lots of pro-…
I'm still amazed these stock images with highlighted text don't send off immediate red flags in everyone's mind that they're being tricked. Especially ones that have children, veterans, or old people, usually with big frowns or drooping flags. "Don't disappoint this stock image! Vote no on prop blah-blah" It works. This strategy actually works
It works because, in any context, people are easily persuaded that something that they want to believe is true. Willingly or not, people are often looking for excuses to believe something, not evidence to help determine whether it is true. (Of course, you and I are included in this; believing oneself immune to propaganda is just a way of being more vulnerable to the kind of propaganda targeted at people who pride themselves on this supposed immunity.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? Do you know something I don’t? Intuitively to me it seems like “unverified identities are usually fake” is the core tenant of post-internet media literacy.
Have you interacted with any political organizations in the last 10 years offline? If/when you interact with them online, do they claim provenance through some actual recognized body or just some vagaries around how they want to depict their alignments? If this was such a big deal, where is the hubbub about pretty much every email in my inbox? NGPVan (for instance, on the Dem side) doesn't require much except the bar…
Kudos to Google. We also need this for all the non-Google outlets.
Here's the equivalent from Meta: https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/?active_status=active&a...
I searched for some ads for a congressional race in 2018, obviously inactive, and they were all there, but I couldn't view them because: "This content was removed because the disclaimer didn’t follow our policy for ads about social issues, elections or politics."
For what conceivable reason would they block historical ads, ads that actually ran in the past but are no longer active? Those ads probably didn't meet the disclaimer rules because the rules were different back in 2018.
In France we limit campaign budgets to 50M$ (population adjusted) and the state fully reimburses it. US presidential campaigns are 60x more expensive per capita! Have people in the US proposed such a cap to prevent corporations from buying elections, or is that too foreign of a concept ?