We don't have enough money to do that, sorry
March 5, 2019 4:19 AM Subscribe
Google won't run Canadian election ads. The decision comes in response to the Liberals’ signature election measure, Bill C-76, which passed in December. Among other things, it requires online platforms to keep a registry of all political and partisan ads they directly or indirectly publish. ... Democratic Institutions Minister Karina Gould said the decision was “very disappointing” in an e-mailed statement. ... “We know that Google is enormously capable both technically and financially," Ms. Gould said. "It should apply these resources to producing a registry in Canada that complies with Canada’s laws.” ... Because of how Google’s advertising systems work, the company argued, it doesn’t know which ads get displayed, making a registry impossible.
An alternate link in case the main link is paywalled for you.
An alternate link in case the main link is paywalled for you.
Since the right are selling a mindset rather than a specific candidate, this hurts them not at all. We are so fucked.
posted by seanmpuckett at 4:33 AM on March 5, 2019 [6 favorites]
posted by seanmpuckett at 4:33 AM on March 5, 2019 [6 favorites]
Because of how Google’s advertising systems work, the company argued, it doesn’t know which ads get displayed, making a registry impossible.
This is either a) transparent bullshit from a company that believes that it should not be regulated, or b) Exhibit A in a massive fraud and deception lawsuit by advertisers against Google that breaks the company's back. Because if they are telling the truth, and cannot track where these ads are shown, then they are committing fraud against the advertisers that contract with them.
posted by NoxAeternum at 4:35 AM on March 5, 2019 [32 favorites]
This is either a) transparent bullshit from a company that believes that it should not be regulated, or b) Exhibit A in a massive fraud and deception lawsuit by advertisers against Google that breaks the company's back. Because if they are telling the truth, and cannot track where these ads are shown, then they are committing fraud against the advertisers that contract with them.
posted by NoxAeternum at 4:35 AM on March 5, 2019 [32 favorites]
Google is cost-per-click advertising, not cost-per-view. They are selling clicks, and advertisers pay when a click happens, and they don't guarantee a particular number of views, so this isn't evidence of fraud.
posted by mmoncur at 4:57 AM on March 5, 2019 [5 favorites]
posted by mmoncur at 4:57 AM on March 5, 2019 [5 favorites]
Google is cost-per-click advertising, not cost-per-view. They are selling clicks, and advertisers pay when a click happens, and they don't guarantee a particular number of views, so this isn't evidence of fraud.
The issue isn't the number of views, but that Google is literally claiming to be unable to track one of the most important statistics in advertising - where your ad is shown. It is so transparently bullshit, the fact that they think it will work is insulting.
posted by NoxAeternum at 5:08 AM on March 5, 2019 [16 favorites]
The issue isn't the number of views, but that Google is literally claiming to be unable to track one of the most important statistics in advertising - where your ad is shown. It is so transparently bullshit, the fact that they think it will work is insulting.
posted by NoxAeternum at 5:08 AM on March 5, 2019 [16 favorites]
I'm seeing this as a hissy-fit attempt to get JT to put pressure on Toronto to let the Sidewalk deal glide through. Some of the lands are under Toronto Port Authority control (a joint federal agency), so the Sidewalk subsidy billions need GC support.
But yeah, groups like Ontario Proud must be having a good day today
posted by scruss at 5:14 AM on March 5, 2019 [4 favorites]
But yeah, groups like Ontario Proud must be having a good day today
posted by scruss at 5:14 AM on March 5, 2019 [4 favorites]
I think, in terms of compliance, there may be a difference between where Google thinks an ad is shown and where it is shown. Google might know the geo location of where an IP address for a particular ISP is located - and if a viewer is signed in to their account - it may know where it thinks they live or where it thinks they are. But it will be wrong - or unsure- in these assumptions enough times to be caught out if it has to record this data in a definitive register.
posted by rongorongo at 5:20 AM on March 5, 2019 [3 favorites]
posted by rongorongo at 5:20 AM on March 5, 2019 [3 favorites]
Don't they need a way to distinguish e.g. dish soap ads from election ads in order to implement the ban? If so, they've already done all the hard technical work needed to create the registry.
posted by LiteOpera at 5:22 AM on March 5, 2019 [3 favorites]
posted by LiteOpera at 5:22 AM on March 5, 2019 [3 favorites]
Because of how Google’s advertising systems work, the company argued, it doesn’t know which ads get displayed, making a registry impossible.
This type of thing is going to make it quite difficult for historians of the First AI War to compile lists of those interned at the human-powered battery farms.
posted by Telf at 5:22 AM on March 5, 2019 [3 favorites]
This type of thing is going to make it quite difficult for historians of the First AI War to compile lists of those interned at the human-powered battery farms.
posted by Telf at 5:22 AM on March 5, 2019 [3 favorites]
Reading between the lines, it looks like Google doesn't always know what advert was served, because it doesn't always have the data. We think of Google as handling the entire advertising process, but it may sell advertising SlotA to AgencyB to place AdvertC for OrgD. At that point, Google only knows about SlotA and AgencyB, not what AdvertC was or who OrgD is.
If that's the case, their statement that they don't always know what gets shown where makes perfect sense when the rules state "directly or indirectly".
Also... Company decides not to do business in market where it doesn't like the rules - News at 11.
posted by sodium lights the horizon at 5:26 AM on March 5, 2019 [8 favorites]
If that's the case, their statement that they don't always know what gets shown where makes perfect sense when the rules state "directly or indirectly".
Also... Company decides not to do business in market where it doesn't like the rules - News at 11.
posted by sodium lights the horizon at 5:26 AM on March 5, 2019 [8 favorites]
sodium lights the horizon wrote:
"Also... Company decides not to do business in market where it doesn't like the rules - News at 11."
Sure, but in this case the quantity might have its own quality. What I mean is that this becomes a bit more of news when we're talking about the dominant medium of advertising that is responsible for 48% of these sorts of ads. (That might be the wrong figure.)
That's sort of like if Hurst owned 48% of all newspapers in America and decided not to run a certain type of ad. I'm not saying it's good or bad, but it is significant.
posted by Telf at 5:30 AM on March 5, 2019 [1 favorite]
"Also... Company decides not to do business in market where it doesn't like the rules - News at 11."
Sure, but in this case the quantity might have its own quality. What I mean is that this becomes a bit more of news when we're talking about the dominant medium of advertising that is responsible for 48% of these sorts of ads. (That might be the wrong figure.)
That's sort of like if Hurst owned 48% of all newspapers in America and decided not to run a certain type of ad. I'm not saying it's good or bad, but it is significant.
posted by Telf at 5:30 AM on March 5, 2019 [1 favorite]
Don't they need a way to distinguish e.g. dish soap ads from election ads in order to implement the ban? If so, they've already done all the hard technical work needed to create the registry.
Which is why the "too technically onerous" argument is bullshit. Again, the information on where one's ads run is one of the most basic and important pieces of information in advertising. It stretches credulity that this information is not being captured, because if it isn't, then there would be grounds for lawsuits.
Reading between the lines, it looks like Google doesn't always know what advert was served, because it doesn't always have the data. We think of Google as handling the entire advertising process, but it may sell advertising SlotA to AgencyB to place AdvertC for OrgD. At that point, Google only knows about SlotA and AgencyB, not what AdvertC was or who OrgD is.
Which would mean that Google is not performing due diligence, which is (again) grounds for a lawsuit. Again, this stretches credulity because of the potential impact of what they are arguing about would have.
Also... Company decides not to do business in market where it doesn't like the rules - News at 11.
This is a really unhelpful attitude. The reality is that tech firms like Google routinely oppose public interest regulations by trying to claim they are "technically impossible", hoping that the public will just accept that answer. We need to push back on this, and point out how their "technically impossible" argument opens up the door to legal action - and thus show why they are are lying.
posted by NoxAeternum at 5:37 AM on March 5, 2019 [6 favorites]
Which is why the "too technically onerous" argument is bullshit. Again, the information on where one's ads run is one of the most basic and important pieces of information in advertising. It stretches credulity that this information is not being captured, because if it isn't, then there would be grounds for lawsuits.
Reading between the lines, it looks like Google doesn't always know what advert was served, because it doesn't always have the data. We think of Google as handling the entire advertising process, but it may sell advertising SlotA to AgencyB to place AdvertC for OrgD. At that point, Google only knows about SlotA and AgencyB, not what AdvertC was or who OrgD is.
Which would mean that Google is not performing due diligence, which is (again) grounds for a lawsuit. Again, this stretches credulity because of the potential impact of what they are arguing about would have.
Also... Company decides not to do business in market where it doesn't like the rules - News at 11.
This is a really unhelpful attitude. The reality is that tech firms like Google routinely oppose public interest regulations by trying to claim they are "technically impossible", hoping that the public will just accept that answer. We need to push back on this, and point out how their "technically impossible" argument opens up the door to legal action - and thus show why they are are lying.
posted by NoxAeternum at 5:37 AM on March 5, 2019 [6 favorites]
Google, Amazon and Facebook were all built on the idea that you don't need to pay humans to make editorial decisions. The wisdom of the crowds will give you the highest quality reviews and recommendations. The wisdom of the marketplace will give you the highest quality advertising placement.
It worked for a while. Remember when Google offered ads that were more effective, more useful, and less intrusive than anyone else had been able to? And Amazon offered more useful opinions about more products than anyone ever had before? And Facebook offered a longer stream of endlessly interesting personalized content than anyone ever had before?
It started out as good, useful content, and it was magnitudes cheaper than anything that came before. As a result, tens of thousands of editors and reviewers and journalists lost their jobs at thousands of news outlets. They were just too expensive compared to automated processes.
But... when you don't pay your editors and reviewers, we've learned that someone else eventually will.
We ultimately need human-quality editorial control over election advertising, because algorithmic control and AI review has turned out to be shit at figuring out what's true. That's going to cost money. That might even require hiring some humans, and giving them a lot more time to review content than the 30 seconds per item than Facebook's content moderators get. Keeping democracy alive might require some judgement and expertise, some knowledge and historical understanding.
posted by clawsoon at 5:41 AM on March 5, 2019 [22 favorites]
It worked for a while. Remember when Google offered ads that were more effective, more useful, and less intrusive than anyone else had been able to? And Amazon offered more useful opinions about more products than anyone ever had before? And Facebook offered a longer stream of endlessly interesting personalized content than anyone ever had before?
It started out as good, useful content, and it was magnitudes cheaper than anything that came before. As a result, tens of thousands of editors and reviewers and journalists lost their jobs at thousands of news outlets. They were just too expensive compared to automated processes.
But... when you don't pay your editors and reviewers, we've learned that someone else eventually will.
We ultimately need human-quality editorial control over election advertising, because algorithmic control and AI review has turned out to be shit at figuring out what's true. That's going to cost money. That might even require hiring some humans, and giving them a lot more time to review content than the 30 seconds per item than Facebook's content moderators get. Keeping democracy alive might require some judgement and expertise, some knowledge and historical understanding.
posted by clawsoon at 5:41 AM on March 5, 2019 [22 favorites]
LiteOpera: Don't they need a way to distinguish e.g. dish soap ads from election ads in order to implement the ban?
Google has raised concerns about their ability to do that, too:
posted by clawsoon at 5:46 AM on March 5, 2019 [15 favorites]
Google has raised concerns about their ability to do that, too:
Aside from the ad registry requirement, Google also expressed concerns about how it would detect ads of a partisan nature, which may not specifically mention a candidate or party by name. “The challenge for us is that that definition is extremely broad,” Mr. McKay said.Easy for a human with a liberal arts degree and some knowledge of Canadian history. Hard for AI.
posted by clawsoon at 5:46 AM on March 5, 2019 [15 favorites]
Reading between the lines, it looks like Google doesn't always know what advert was served, because it doesn't always have the data. We think of Google as handling the entire advertising process, but it may sell advertising SlotA to AgencyB to place AdvertC for OrgD. At that point, Google only knows about SlotA and AgencyB, not what AdvertC was or who OrgD is.Yeah, I think that's probably the answer, and the journalist just got a bit confused about which "platforms" are covered by the law. As far as I can tell the obligation to keep a registry of all political advertising applies to the individual websites (the platforms) that display the ads, and Google would need to basically redesign their system from the ground up to be able to give them the information they'd need to comply with the law. And even then they probably couldn't, because there's no way of determining which ads are covered by the law other than identifying *every single ad* shown to Canadians and manually checking all of them.
If that's the case, their statement that they don't always know what gets shown where makes perfect sense when the rules state "directly or indirectly".
It's difficult to see how any site that shows programmatically-determined ads will be able to comply with this law (there are activity thresholds for sites to be covered, but they're not very high - there are links in the article to Google's comments on the law, which go into more detail), but I'm not sure that the law even applies to Google except on Google's own sites. Maybe the ban is mostly to try to avoid some kind of secondary liability for participating in contraventions by third parties? It's hard to tell.
I mean, programmatic advertising is a blight on the world and it would be great if it stopped, but let's not pretend that there's some simple solution that Google is just avoiding out of spite.
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 5:47 AM on March 5, 2019 [12 favorites]
Which would mean that Google is not performing due diligence, which is (again) grounds for a lawsuit. Again, this stretches credulity because of the potential impact of what they are arguing about would have.
I disagree. I'd expect Google to demand that their suppliers not advertise anything illegal or in specific categories. They don't then care what advert is served. It's just a view and/or click on a collection of pixels. to be billed to AgencyB.
Besides, how much do you trust the categorisation of content from a 3rd party? It's much easier to say "don't do X" than to watch every single advert and decide if it's tagged as something you don't like. If for no other reason than humans are annoying bastards who insist on trying to bend the rules.
posted by sodium lights the horizon at 5:52 AM on March 5, 2019 [1 favorite]
I disagree. I'd expect Google to demand that their suppliers not advertise anything illegal or in specific categories. They don't then care what advert is served. It's just a view and/or click on a collection of pixels. to be billed to AgencyB.
Besides, how much do you trust the categorisation of content from a 3rd party? It's much easier to say "don't do X" than to watch every single advert and decide if it's tagged as something you don't like. If for no other reason than humans are annoying bastards who insist on trying to bend the rules.
posted by sodium lights the horizon at 5:52 AM on March 5, 2019 [1 favorite]
Something that might come into play that might make the outcome different from an attempt to impose similar rules in the US: Our constitution says that limits can be placed on speech if they can be "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." For example, our Supreme Court has upheld limits on third-party election spending (yes, the Harper in Harper v. Canada is former Prime Minister Stephen Harper) on those grounds.
posted by clawsoon at 6:11 AM on March 5, 2019
posted by clawsoon at 6:11 AM on March 5, 2019
I disagree. I'd expect Google to demand that their suppliers not advertise anything illegal or in specific categories. They don't then care what advert is served. It's just a view and/or click on a collection of pixels. to be billed to AgencyB.
Google might not "care", but you know who does? The advertisers paying the freight. Which means that, in fact, Google does care, because they would like those advertisers to keep paying them money. (If you want a demonstration of exactly how much they care, please see the recent thread on the comment moderation fiasco over at YouTube.)
This is why their argument doesn't hold up under scrutiny - the data that they are claiming to be unable to capture is literally the lifeblood of their advertising business.
posted by NoxAeternum at 6:12 AM on March 5, 2019 [3 favorites]
Google might not "care", but you know who does? The advertisers paying the freight. Which means that, in fact, Google does care, because they would like those advertisers to keep paying them money. (If you want a demonstration of exactly how much they care, please see the recent thread on the comment moderation fiasco over at YouTube.)
This is why their argument doesn't hold up under scrutiny - the data that they are claiming to be unable to capture is literally the lifeblood of their advertising business.
posted by NoxAeternum at 6:12 AM on March 5, 2019 [3 favorites]
Google might not "care", but you know who does? The advertisers paying the freight.
Yes. I agree. But they aren't asking *Google* for that information. They're asking the advert pedlar they use. That might be Google Adsense (or whatever it's called today) but it could be any of the ad pedlars.
* Google announces they have a space for auction on example.com
* twenty ad pedlars bid for it.
* one wins, and Google takes their pixels and displays them.
* someone clicks on the advert and Google tells the relevant ad pedlar who clicked it.
The company/organisation doing the advertising gets all the data they want because it comes from the Ad Pedlar, not because it comes from Google.
posted by sodium lights the horizon at 6:17 AM on March 5, 2019 [5 favorites]
Yes. I agree. But they aren't asking *Google* for that information. They're asking the advert pedlar they use. That might be Google Adsense (or whatever it's called today) but it could be any of the ad pedlars.
* Google announces they have a space for auction on example.com
* twenty ad pedlars bid for it.
* one wins, and Google takes their pixels and displays them.
* someone clicks on the advert and Google tells the relevant ad pedlar who clicked it.
The company/organisation doing the advertising gets all the data they want because it comes from the Ad Pedlar, not because it comes from Google.
posted by sodium lights the horizon at 6:17 AM on March 5, 2019 [5 favorites]
From the article:
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 6:18 AM on March 5, 2019 [2 favorites]
In Google’s system, ads can be targeted to users in an automated way, often through a real-time bidding process. When users visit a web page, as the page loads their profile is shared with an advertising exchange, such as Google’s AdEx platform. Through that exchange, the web page’s publisher then auctions off the ads that will be shown to those users. Finally, the winning bidder displays an ad to the user.So it looks like all Google and the "platform" know is that an ad has been displayed. The advertiser knows this too, but they also know which ad that was.
This entire process often lasts less than two tenths of a second.
Under this system, Google argues the publisher may not know which ads were displayed. Similarly, the advertising exchange itself may not know which ad was shown — only that one advertiser beat out another during the auction. In cases where advertisers are running dozens or hundreds of advertising campaigns at once, this wouldn’t be enough information to build the legally mandated registry.
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 6:18 AM on March 5, 2019 [2 favorites]
So it looks like all Google and the "platform" know is that an ad has been displayed. The advertiser knows this too, but they also know which ad that was.
So you're telling me that infamous data Hoover Google - a company which has outright stated that their mission objective is to organize all known knowledge - is leaving key information on the table in a business transaction they are moderating because...why, exactly?
Again, the argument they are putting forth does not make sense.
posted by NoxAeternum at 6:25 AM on March 5, 2019 [7 favorites]
So you're telling me that infamous data Hoover Google - a company which has outright stated that their mission objective is to organize all known knowledge - is leaving key information on the table in a business transaction they are moderating because...why, exactly?
Again, the argument they are putting forth does not make sense.
posted by NoxAeternum at 6:25 AM on March 5, 2019 [7 favorites]
We think of Google as handling the entire advertising process, but it may sell advertising SlotA to AgencyB to place AdvertC for OrgD. At that point, Google only knows about SlotA and AgencyB, not what AdvertC was or who OrgD is.
This would make sense in a world where google just had no idea about people indirectly using their platform in this way to spam people with kiddie porn or to take out ads asserting that Larry Page gets off on fucking puppies or that we should all rise up and take violent action against the US government.
That ain't this world.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 6:26 AM on March 5, 2019 [5 favorites]
This would make sense in a world where google just had no idea about people indirectly using their platform in this way to spam people with kiddie porn or to take out ads asserting that Larry Page gets off on fucking puppies or that we should all rise up and take violent action against the US government.
That ain't this world.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 6:26 AM on March 5, 2019 [5 favorites]
Google gives advertisers the ability to limit which content their ads appear beside. Somehow they found a way to do that after being boycotted by AT&T, Verizon, GSK, Pepsi, Walmart, Johnson & Johnson, and Enterprise. I'm sure that ability was previously "technically impossible", too, right up until they started losing money because of it.
posted by clawsoon at 6:34 AM on March 5, 2019 [5 favorites]
posted by clawsoon at 6:34 AM on March 5, 2019 [5 favorites]
So you're telling me that infamous data Hoover Google - a company which has outright stated that their mission objective is to organize all known knowledge - is leaving key information on the table in a business transaction they are moderating because...why, exactly?
What, the knowledge that a particular ad is a Canadian political advertisement? Working that out involves parsing a complex legal definition that requires an assessment of, among other things, whether the person placing the advertisement might be a potential candidate for an election. They can't necessarily just look at the ad itself, and there's no requirement for knowledge or bad faith so they can't rely on anything the advertiser tells them.
Again, they simply cannot assure publishers that they will be compliant with this law.
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 6:40 AM on March 5, 2019 [2 favorites]
What, the knowledge that a particular ad is a Canadian political advertisement? Working that out involves parsing a complex legal definition that requires an assessment of, among other things, whether the person placing the advertisement might be a potential candidate for an election. They can't necessarily just look at the ad itself, and there's no requirement for knowledge or bad faith so they can't rely on anything the advertiser tells them.
Again, they simply cannot assure publishers that they will be compliant with this law.
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 6:40 AM on March 5, 2019 [2 favorites]
Silly Canadians, all ads are political!
But not all political ads are election ads. :-)
posted by clawsoon at 6:40 AM on March 5, 2019 [1 favorite]
But not all political ads are election ads. :-)
posted by clawsoon at 6:40 AM on March 5, 2019 [1 favorite]
A Thousand Baited Hooks : What, the knowledge that a particular ad is a Canadian political advertisement? Working that out involves parsing a complex legal definition that requires an assessment of, among other things, whether the person placing the advertisement might be a potential candidate for an election. They can't necessarily just look at the ad itself, and there's no requirement for knowledge or bad faith so they can't rely on anything the advertiser tells them. Again, they simply cannot assure publishers that they will be compliant with this law.
Funny thing is: They're saying that they won't show any Canadian election advertising, but that also requires the ability to detect whether a particular ad is a Canadian election ad.
posted by clawsoon at 6:44 AM on March 5, 2019 [15 favorites]
Funny thing is: They're saying that they won't show any Canadian election advertising, but that also requires the ability to detect whether a particular ad is a Canadian election ad.
posted by clawsoon at 6:44 AM on March 5, 2019 [15 favorites]
is leaving key information on the table in a business transaction they are moderating because...why, exactly?
Because the companies involved don't give it to them, and would probably be pretty peeved if they used invasive methods to grab it? So the ad platforms would have to redesigned to be more invasive, and said third parties would probably want better rates. And this would probably cause the value given to Google to go from so many percents of a penny, to negative percents of a penny.
Much like the Youtube comment issue, when a company says they can't do something, find and replace that with would not be profitable.
Again, they simply cannot assure publishers that they will be compliant with this law.
And much like every other system that tries to game Google, it would be adversarial. People would be constantly trying, and succeeding, at getting through the cracks. Which means eternal vigilance, and constant re-engineering of systems to fix things, and constant discussions with third parties ad networks.
posted by zabuni at 6:45 AM on March 5, 2019
Because the companies involved don't give it to them, and would probably be pretty peeved if they used invasive methods to grab it? So the ad platforms would have to redesigned to be more invasive, and said third parties would probably want better rates. And this would probably cause the value given to Google to go from so many percents of a penny, to negative percents of a penny.
Much like the Youtube comment issue, when a company says they can't do something, find and replace that with would not be profitable.
Again, they simply cannot assure publishers that they will be compliant with this law.
And much like every other system that tries to game Google, it would be adversarial. People would be constantly trying, and succeeding, at getting through the cracks. Which means eternal vigilance, and constant re-engineering of systems to fix things, and constant discussions with third parties ad networks.
posted by zabuni at 6:45 AM on March 5, 2019
In a different, less bizarre world this thread would be a celebration that the web would be freed of a raft of political advertising and maybe a call to make this happen in the US.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 6:45 AM on March 5, 2019 [5 favorites]
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 6:45 AM on March 5, 2019 [5 favorites]
What, the knowledge that a particular ad is a Canadian political advertisement? Working that out involves parsing a complex legal definition that requires an assessment of, among other things, whether the person placing the advertisement might be a potential candidate for an election. They can't necessarily just look at the ad itself, and there's no requirement for knowledge or bad faith so they can't rely on anything the advertiser tells them.
Yes, it's not like they're the 800 pound gorilla of Internet advertising today, and can demand that information from the agencies putting in bids, with the threat of delisting hung over their heads to ensure good faith.
Oh, wait. That's exactly what Google is.
Because the companies involved don't give it to them, and would probably be pretty peeved if they used invasive methods to grab it?
See above. These companies don't exactly have options (which is a major problem with internet advertising today, but that's a topic for another thread.)
posted by NoxAeternum at 6:48 AM on March 5, 2019 [4 favorites]
Yes, it's not like they're the 800 pound gorilla of Internet advertising today, and can demand that information from the agencies putting in bids, with the threat of delisting hung over their heads to ensure good faith.
Oh, wait. That's exactly what Google is.
Because the companies involved don't give it to them, and would probably be pretty peeved if they used invasive methods to grab it?
See above. These companies don't exactly have options (which is a major problem with internet advertising today, but that's a topic for another thread.)
posted by NoxAeternum at 6:48 AM on March 5, 2019 [4 favorites]
The Supreme Court of Canada recently upheld a similar advertising registry for ad sponsors (rather than ad platforms, as in this case) in British Columbia.
posted by clawsoon at 6:57 AM on March 5, 2019
posted by clawsoon at 6:57 AM on March 5, 2019
Funny thing is: They're saying that they won't show any Canadian election advertising, but that also requires the ability to detect whether a particular ad is a Canadian election ad.
I'm not a Canadian lawyer, but my guess is that while Google may not be directly liable for the offences in the new law (which apply to platforms, i.e. websites that publish ads), it may be indirectly liable for aiding the commission of the offences - but this indirect liability may have a knowledge requirement that doesn't apply to the direct liability.
That's just a guess, though.
Yes, it's not like they're the 800 pound gorilla of Internet advertising today, and can demand that information from the agencies putting in bids, with the threat of delisting hung over their heads to ensure good faith.
Can they? With enough certainty to risk prison time over it? Maybe. I haven't seen any evidence for that, though.
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 6:57 AM on March 5, 2019 [1 favorite]
I'm not a Canadian lawyer, but my guess is that while Google may not be directly liable for the offences in the new law (which apply to platforms, i.e. websites that publish ads), it may be indirectly liable for aiding the commission of the offences - but this indirect liability may have a knowledge requirement that doesn't apply to the direct liability.
That's just a guess, though.
Yes, it's not like they're the 800 pound gorilla of Internet advertising today, and can demand that information from the agencies putting in bids, with the threat of delisting hung over their heads to ensure good faith.
Can they? With enough certainty to risk prison time over it? Maybe. I haven't seen any evidence for that, though.
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 6:57 AM on March 5, 2019 [1 favorite]
... the point of the knowledge requirement thing being that by explicitly banning all election advertising they may be able to argue a lack of knowledge. Perhaps. I don't know if it would work.
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 6:58 AM on March 5, 2019
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 6:58 AM on March 5, 2019
NoxAeternum Again, the argument they are putting forth does not make sense.
No. It doesn't make sense to you. That is a different thing entirely.
GCU Sweet and Full of Grace This would make sense in a world where google just had no idea about people indirectly using their platform in this way to spam people with kiddie porn or to take out ads asserting that Larry Page gets off on fucking puppies or that we should all rise up and take violent action against the US government.
Oh, it most definitely is. Have you not noticed how everything is reactively moderated? There's so much content that big media companies don't want to know what is being served. Not knowing is a hell of a lot cheaper and it gives you plausible deniability. Why else do you think there are so many adverts that try and hijack your browser if you're on a mobile device? They wouldn't get through if things were proactively monitored.
Additionally, how the hell does AI know what an advert consists of? You've seen the farce that has come from Tumblr's attempts at porn recognition, and that's not even attempting to deal with natural language, weasel words, and dog whistle politics. Or whatever lies behind the link which could be changing at every second depending on the browser demographics.
People seem to forget that the internet isn't a small thing made up by pals who agree what they're doing with their hand coded static html pages.
posted by sodium lights the horizon at 6:59 AM on March 5, 2019 [6 favorites]
No. It doesn't make sense to you. That is a different thing entirely.
GCU Sweet and Full of Grace This would make sense in a world where google just had no idea about people indirectly using their platform in this way to spam people with kiddie porn or to take out ads asserting that Larry Page gets off on fucking puppies or that we should all rise up and take violent action against the US government.
Oh, it most definitely is. Have you not noticed how everything is reactively moderated? There's so much content that big media companies don't want to know what is being served. Not knowing is a hell of a lot cheaper and it gives you plausible deniability. Why else do you think there are so many adverts that try and hijack your browser if you're on a mobile device? They wouldn't get through if things were proactively monitored.
Additionally, how the hell does AI know what an advert consists of? You've seen the farce that has come from Tumblr's attempts at porn recognition, and that's not even attempting to deal with natural language, weasel words, and dog whistle politics. Or whatever lies behind the link which could be changing at every second depending on the browser demographics.
People seem to forget that the internet isn't a small thing made up by pals who agree what they're doing with their hand coded static html pages.
posted by sodium lights the horizon at 6:59 AM on March 5, 2019 [6 favorites]
I've worked in the tech part of the online ad industry, both at a major industry player and for companies that rely on Google's ad platforms and rankings to make money, going back to before there was an online ad industry. I have two things to say about all this.
First, on knowing which ads have run: Google has enough weight to have pushed the entire industry to https by threatening to lower the ranking relevance of/refuse to run ads for anyone who did not comply, and to make or break entire companies with an algorithm change. Even if advertisers are the only ones who know which ads run, Google has the leverage to make them cough up that info, if they considered it a priority. Clearly they do not.
Second, re human oversight of advertising: one of Google's main competitors back in the day, Overture, prided itself on having some human oversight in the system, and they still made money until being bought out and marginalized by a company notorious for that sort of thing. That oversight was considered a huge part of quality control, and they proudly kept an internal mailing list of Google's automation screw-ups, like running ads for luggage on a web site article about a severed head found in luggage at a bus terminal.
In short: Google created this situation in advertising, it was not just the natural order of things, and pretending they don't have the leverage or technical tools to address this problem is disingenuous at best.
posted by davejay at 7:02 AM on March 5, 2019 [12 favorites]
First, on knowing which ads have run: Google has enough weight to have pushed the entire industry to https by threatening to lower the ranking relevance of/refuse to run ads for anyone who did not comply, and to make or break entire companies with an algorithm change. Even if advertisers are the only ones who know which ads run, Google has the leverage to make them cough up that info, if they considered it a priority. Clearly they do not.
Second, re human oversight of advertising: one of Google's main competitors back in the day, Overture, prided itself on having some human oversight in the system, and they still made money until being bought out and marginalized by a company notorious for that sort of thing. That oversight was considered a huge part of quality control, and they proudly kept an internal mailing list of Google's automation screw-ups, like running ads for luggage on a web site article about a severed head found in luggage at a bus terminal.
In short: Google created this situation in advertising, it was not just the natural order of things, and pretending they don't have the leverage or technical tools to address this problem is disingenuous at best.
posted by davejay at 7:02 AM on March 5, 2019 [12 favorites]
Apparently Google does actually manually pre-check ads, although maybe not very well. But they do it to "keep ads safe and appropriate for everyone", which is a little different from assessing compliance with a list of fairly subtle legislative requirements.
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 7:07 AM on March 5, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 7:07 AM on March 5, 2019 [2 favorites]
So it looks like all Google and the "platform" know is that an ad has been displayed. The advertiser knows this too, but they also know which ad that was.
It has been a number of years since I worked in RTB, but when you bid, you do supply a specific ad. (If you're bored, you can read the protocol yourself.) I don't think the site showing the ad knows which ad was shown--you can ban broad categories of ads/advertisers and you can ban specific advertisers, but that's it, afaik. Your "creatives" are individually approved by Google before you can bid with them--I don't know how much of this is automated vs manual, but there is a step where one could ask "Is this an election ad?".
This is 100% a business decision. The information is available to Google, likely just not in the required form. There might even be enough time to build the thing. But how much money are they really going to lose by not running Canadian election ads? I see a parallel to GDPR--hard deadline, substantial penalties for getting it wrong--but, unlike GDPR, the cost of saying "Nah, we'll just not bother" isn't that high.
posted by hoyland at 7:08 AM on March 5, 2019 [3 favorites]
It has been a number of years since I worked in RTB, but when you bid, you do supply a specific ad. (If you're bored, you can read the protocol yourself.) I don't think the site showing the ad knows which ad was shown--you can ban broad categories of ads/advertisers and you can ban specific advertisers, but that's it, afaik. Your "creatives" are individually approved by Google before you can bid with them--I don't know how much of this is automated vs manual, but there is a step where one could ask "Is this an election ad?".
This is 100% a business decision. The information is available to Google, likely just not in the required form. There might even be enough time to build the thing. But how much money are they really going to lose by not running Canadian election ads? I see a parallel to GDPR--hard deadline, substantial penalties for getting it wrong--but, unlike GDPR, the cost of saying "Nah, we'll just not bother" isn't that high.
posted by hoyland at 7:08 AM on March 5, 2019 [3 favorites]
In short: Google created this situation in advertising, it was not just the natural order of things, and pretending they don't have the leverage or technical tools to address this problem is disingenuous at best.
Yep, the problem is that Google does not have the desire to do this sort of filtering, for a number of reasons they'd rather not disclose to us. The problem is that they also know that refusal would not go over well and would have people asking questions they'd rather not answer. So they go back to the perennial Silicon Valley excuse - "technical difficulties". And the reason they do this is because it works, because people are too ready to give them the benefit of the doubt, instead of looking at what's happening and seeing how everything doesn't actually add up.
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:12 AM on March 5, 2019 [3 favorites]
Yep, the problem is that Google does not have the desire to do this sort of filtering, for a number of reasons they'd rather not disclose to us. The problem is that they also know that refusal would not go over well and would have people asking questions they'd rather not answer. So they go back to the perennial Silicon Valley excuse - "technical difficulties". And the reason they do this is because it works, because people are too ready to give them the benefit of the doubt, instead of looking at what's happening and seeing how everything doesn't actually add up.
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:12 AM on March 5, 2019 [3 favorites]
But how much money are they really going to lose by not running Canadian election ads?
None, in significant-to-them terms. But as was pointed out, they have to at least partially solve this problem to be able to do even that. I'm curious to see if Canada's legal system will try and take them to task for that, as it doesn't have the leverage of a Europe or China.
posted by Jon Mitchell at 8:05 AM on March 5, 2019
None, in significant-to-them terms. But as was pointed out, they have to at least partially solve this problem to be able to do even that. I'm curious to see if Canada's legal system will try and take them to task for that, as it doesn't have the leverage of a Europe or China.
posted by Jon Mitchell at 8:05 AM on March 5, 2019
Related: How Banned Google Ads Influenced a Spokane Ballot Measure Fight.
posted by Slothrup at 8:09 AM on March 5, 2019
posted by Slothrup at 8:09 AM on March 5, 2019
zabuni: "Much like the Youtube comment issue, when a company says they can't do something, find and replace that with would not be profitable."
Or merely less profitable. Like all those businesses that miraculously don't go out of business when the minimum wage goes up despite the predictions of wasteland.
posted by Mitheral at 8:13 AM on March 5, 2019 [2 favorites]
Or merely less profitable. Like all those businesses that miraculously don't go out of business when the minimum wage goes up despite the predictions of wasteland.
posted by Mitheral at 8:13 AM on March 5, 2019 [2 favorites]
But as was pointed out, they have to at least partially solve this problem to be able to do even that.
I'm not convinced they do. If they announce that political adverts are banned then they can probably get away with pretending none exist until someone complains. As long as they take reasonable steps to react, they'll probably get away with it.
Otherwise Google / Facebook would be fined massively each time an advert for opium poppy seeds snuck through...
posted by sodium lights the horizon at 8:14 AM on March 5, 2019
I'm not convinced they do. If they announce that political adverts are banned then they can probably get away with pretending none exist until someone complains. As long as they take reasonable steps to react, they'll probably get away with it.
Otherwise Google / Facebook would be fined massively each time an advert for opium poppy seeds snuck through...
posted by sodium lights the horizon at 8:14 AM on March 5, 2019
Why else do you think there are so many adverts that try and hijack your browser if you're on a mobile device?
Because google doesn't care in the slightest about stopping those.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 8:34 AM on March 5, 2019 [2 favorites]
Because google doesn't care in the slightest about stopping those.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 8:34 AM on March 5, 2019 [2 favorites]
Otherwise Google / Facebook would be fined massively each time an advert for opium poppy seeds snuck through...
And this would be bad...why? Let's also not forget that Google was fined half a billion dollars for knowingly allowing online pharmacies selling medications without prescriptions to advertise through Adwords.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:40 AM on March 5, 2019 [2 favorites]
And this would be bad...why? Let's also not forget that Google was fined half a billion dollars for knowingly allowing online pharmacies selling medications without prescriptions to advertise through Adwords.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:40 AM on March 5, 2019 [2 favorites]
I used to work on a major real time advertising system with over 100 Billion edge transactions daily. Google’s response is bullshit on multiple levels, a few of which have already been pointed out. Real time bidding happens blazingly fast and Google demands much of its advertising technology partners. Our SLA was 300ms, but Google started sending us emails asking what was going on if we broke 100ms because the average was 3ms.
There are situations in which Google, as the broker between an ad seller and an ad slot seller, may not know what ad gets shown. But they are in the process and could dictate it easily.
Programmatic ad selling usually has a process for content approval where the ad is vetted (via checksum) against the approved content.
Profiling and matching algorithms work very hard to identify what ads someone has seen. And I don’t mean just some of them.
There are going to be holes, but they are the exceptions to the rules of surveillance capitalism.
posted by Revvy at 8:47 AM on March 5, 2019 [11 favorites]
There are situations in which Google, as the broker between an ad seller and an ad slot seller, may not know what ad gets shown. But they are in the process and could dictate it easily.
Programmatic ad selling usually has a process for content approval where the ad is vetted (via checksum) against the approved content.
Profiling and matching algorithms work very hard to identify what ads someone has seen. And I don’t mean just some of them.
There are going to be holes, but they are the exceptions to the rules of surveillance capitalism.
posted by Revvy at 8:47 AM on March 5, 2019 [11 favorites]
Man, people sure are desperate to make sure they get to see more goddamn ads.
posted by aramaic at 10:32 AM on March 5, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by aramaic at 10:32 AM on March 5, 2019 [1 favorite]
If Google are claiming that they can't track ad views, then I'm sure that there are some account execs in the Canadian treasury board who might like a word about the roughly $10 M spent by the government every year on inline, search engine and real-time online advertising.
Real-time ads are only 10% of the annual Federal ad expenditure. This won't be representative of the election political spending breakdown, but it does indicate that not all of Google's ad placement is the kind they claim to be unable to track.
posted by scruss at 10:35 AM on March 5, 2019 [1 favorite]
Real-time ads are only 10% of the annual Federal ad expenditure. This won't be representative of the election political spending breakdown, but it does indicate that not all of Google's ad placement is the kind they claim to be unable to track.
posted by scruss at 10:35 AM on March 5, 2019 [1 favorite]
Man, people sure are desperate to make sure they get to see more goddamn ads.
No, the point is that Google is trying to lie their way out of regulation, which is very much something that needs to be nipped in the bud.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:36 AM on March 5, 2019 [4 favorites]
No, the point is that Google is trying to lie their way out of regulation, which is very much something that needs to be nipped in the bud.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:36 AM on March 5, 2019 [4 favorites]
I'm not convinced they do. If they announce that political adverts are banned then they can probably get away with pretending none exist until someone complains. As long as they take reasonable steps to react, they'll probably get away with it.
IANAL, but that probably won't work, though, since the legislation treats it as a strict liability offence.
This is something Google was specifically objecting to in its proposed amendments to the legislation, and in its presentation to the Senate (linked in the article, both links are pdfs).
But yeah, I'm flashing back to the last Ontario election and the inundation of Ontario Proud advertising via Youtube. It will likely be the same scenario at the federal level this time around, with the "Trudeau is flooding the country with brown people" rhetoric that's de rigeur amongst the yellow vest fascists these days.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 10:39 AM on March 5, 2019 [4 favorites]
IANAL, but that probably won't work, though, since the legislation treats it as a strict liability offence.
This is something Google was specifically objecting to in its proposed amendments to the legislation, and in its presentation to the Senate (linked in the article, both links are pdfs).
But yeah, I'm flashing back to the last Ontario election and the inundation of Ontario Proud advertising via Youtube. It will likely be the same scenario at the federal level this time around, with the "Trudeau is flooding the country with brown people" rhetoric that's de rigeur amongst the yellow vest fascists these days.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 10:39 AM on March 5, 2019 [4 favorites]
We need to push back on this, and point out how their "technically impossible" argument opens up the door to legal action - and thus show why they are are lying.
This misunderstands how regulations are written and work in Canada.
There's no pressing national requirement that Google function as an ad company here. There are other companies international and Canadian that could fill this gap.
There is a pressing national need to ensure that election advertising is legal. CSIS has demonstrated that foreign interests were active in the 2015 Federal campaign, and may have been influential. There is good reason to believe, from reports of agents like twutter and reddit that foreign interests, both Russian and Chinese at least were active during the Ontario 2017 election too. There's very good reason to believe that the elections in Alberta and nationally this year are at risk.
This is similar to the argument that polluters use: a little corruption of the public commons is necessary for business to exist.
That's both not proven, and secondly, not, on balance worth the undue influence on our electoral process that's already under threat.
When a forest is on fire, sometimes the best thing to do is to simply cut it off from the rest and let it burn itself out. The regulations should target the essential electoral environment we need without reference to non-essential businesses. This is a national security issue. The government needn't demonstrate or prove anything else. Google can burn.
posted by bonehead at 10:41 AM on March 5, 2019 [9 favorites]
This misunderstands how regulations are written and work in Canada.
There's no pressing national requirement that Google function as an ad company here. There are other companies international and Canadian that could fill this gap.
There is a pressing national need to ensure that election advertising is legal. CSIS has demonstrated that foreign interests were active in the 2015 Federal campaign, and may have been influential. There is good reason to believe, from reports of agents like twutter and reddit that foreign interests, both Russian and Chinese at least were active during the Ontario 2017 election too. There's very good reason to believe that the elections in Alberta and nationally this year are at risk.
This is similar to the argument that polluters use: a little corruption of the public commons is necessary for business to exist.
That's both not proven, and secondly, not, on balance worth the undue influence on our electoral process that's already under threat.
When a forest is on fire, sometimes the best thing to do is to simply cut it off from the rest and let it burn itself out. The regulations should target the essential electoral environment we need without reference to non-essential businesses. This is a national security issue. The government needn't demonstrate or prove anything else. Google can burn.
posted by bonehead at 10:41 AM on March 5, 2019 [9 favorites]
Otherwise Google / Facebook would be fined massively each time an advert for opium poppy seeds snuck through...
And this would be bad...why?
Well in that particular case because they should be legal to purchase for personal use (but actually in practice I'm not sure they aren't?)
posted by atoxyl at 11:32 AM on March 5, 2019
And this would be bad...why?
Well in that particular case because they should be legal to purchase for personal use (but actually in practice I'm not sure they aren't?)
posted by atoxyl at 11:32 AM on March 5, 2019
Google's advertising algorithm explained, previously.
posted by hilberseimer at 5:44 PM on March 5, 2019
posted by hilberseimer at 5:44 PM on March 5, 2019
So if this means Canada doesn’t get polical ads the same way we don’t get US medicine ads (ask your doctor!) then I think I’m all for it.
posted by furtive at 7:30 PM on March 5, 2019
posted by furtive at 7:30 PM on March 5, 2019
So if this means Canada doesn’t get polical ads the same way we don’t get US medicine ads (ask your doctor!) then I think I’m all for it.
In case any of our US friends are wondering about this, the only ads you are allowed for most pharmaceuticals on Canadian channels is a "reminder ad" that names the product but cannot show what the product is for. These attempt to impressionistically convey a non-specific sense of wellbeing with mostly boring but occasionally funny results.
posted by lookoutbelow at 7:26 PM on March 6, 2019
In case any of our US friends are wondering about this, the only ads you are allowed for most pharmaceuticals on Canadian channels is a "reminder ad" that names the product but cannot show what the product is for. These attempt to impressionistically convey a non-specific sense of wellbeing with mostly boring but occasionally funny results.
posted by lookoutbelow at 7:26 PM on March 6, 2019
« Older I can see you're lying, your ears glow green! | Soviet Synthpop Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Evstar at 4:26 AM on March 5, 2019 [13 favorites]