However, one ad targeting Kansas is worth noting. We did not find many paid ads containing incorrect information about the time, place, and manner of voting on Facebook. This type of message was tweeted by supporters of both parties. Many messages provided two different election dates - the correct one for their own party but the incorrect one for the opposing party. We do not yet know who these users spreading misinformation were exactly. Similar to Russian tactics reported in our previous study, some tweets encouraged people (more specifically, anti-Trump voters) to vote via text.Įspecially, #votenovember7th, a hashtag that mobilized turnout but with incorrect election date information, was often paired with other hashtags designed for partisan mobilization such as #bluewave, #redwave, and such. The provision of incorrect information about the election date was very common in unpaid posts on Twitter. We specifically focused on three types of voter suppression campaigns: deception (lying about the time, place, and manner of voting) calls for boycott and voter intimidation or threats. Still, we found noticeable voter suppression campaigns online, especially on Twitter. As Facebook and Twitter proactively removed voter suppression messages in real time, the data provided by the digital platforms do not include posts or accounts that were taken down. voting age population), the information provided here is anecdotal. Unlike our 2016 digital ad tracking and analysis, which was based on large scale, consented-user-based tracking independent from digital platforms (we collected 87 million ads exposed to 17,000 users who represented the U.S. My team monitored the midterm elections in real time over the past several weeks by utilizing publicly accessible Facebook ads and Twitter. Consistent with the findings from our prior research, most of the voter suppression ads were sponsored by groups that had not registered with the FEC and publicly shared no information about who they were. In another study, my team found that voter suppression ads targeting nonwhites residing in minority counties (counties where the proportion of nonwhites is more than 50 percent of the population) in battleground states (where 2016 vote margins were less than +/- 5 percent) were eight times larger than that of their counterparts. The ads, sponsored by the Russian-backed duo Williams & Kalvin, specifically targeted African American voters. The night before Election Day, ads appeared urging people to “boycott the election” because neither of the presidential candidates would serve black voters. In the 2016 elections, my research team found that the Internet Research Agency, a Kremlin-linked, information campaign operation, ran paid Facebook ads to suppress the turnout of nonwhite voters, especially African Americans. Now voter suppression has truly gone digital. More recently, voter suppression takes the form of misinformation campaigns and deceptive practices such as lying about the time, place, and manner of voting.ĭeceptive practices have traditionally been comprised of fliers and phone calls. Piven and colleagues demonstrate that voter suppression tactics took the form of blatant violence and intimidation in the Reconstruction era but have since transformed into regulatory devices such as voter ID laws and racial gerrymandering. Voter suppression has been taking place in various forms over the years. Clearly, the problem has not yet been solved. Just a few days prior to Election Day, Reuters reported that Twitter also purged more than 10,000 automated accounts that discouraged voting. In October, Facebook broadened its election integrity policies to combat voter suppression and committed to taking down such content. Voter suppression messages appeared online despite the platforms’ efforts to stop them. We found three categories of messages: deception about how or when to vote, calls to boycott the election, and attempts to threaten or intimidate potential voters. Online voter suppression in 2018 showed similarities to Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election. My research team at the University of Wisconsin-Madison found hundreds of messages on Facebook and Twitter aimed at voter suppression - designed to discourage or prevent people from voting. Some online activity tried to keep people from voting altogether. Not all of this spending was intended to persuade voters to favor one side or the other, however. This month’s elections were fought online to an unprecedented degree, with an estimated $900 million in digital ad spending - more than two and a half times the 2014 midterms. Advance Constitutional Change Show / hide.National Task Force on Democracy Reform & the Rule of Law.Government Targeting of Minority Communities Show / hide.Campaign Finance in the Courts Show / hide.Gerrymandering & Fair Representation Show / hide.Ensure Every American Can Vote Show / hide.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |