Right to Vote v. Voter Suppression - How to combat online voter suppression

Constitutional Rights #3 Right to Vote v. Voter Suppression How to combat online voter suppression June 25, 2020 Yaël Eisenstat https://www.brookings.edu/techstream/how-to-combat-online-voter-suppression/?utm_campaign=Brookings%20Brief&utm_medium=email&utm_content=90453885&utm_source=hs_email 7.2.2 The Brookings Institute article quoted in the last posting goes on to offer recommendations: 1. Updating campaign finance laws to include digital advertising. In addition to setting enforceable rules for companies like Facebook and Google to follow, this would allow the Federal Election Commission to fulfill its mandate of tracking money in political advertising. One lingering piece of legislation that addresses some of this is the bipartisan Honest Ads Act, which seeks to ensure “that political ads sold online are covered by the same rules as ads sold on TV, radio, and satellite.” 2. Limiting the ability of advertisers to target users based on criteria—which the civil rights community could help define—that would allow campaigns to broadcast divisive ads about voting to the those who are most receptive while reducing public scrutiny of those ads. Just as the U.S. government sued Facebook in 2019 for violating the Fair Housing Act by allowing housing ads to target users by race and gender, the U.S. government should ensure that the platforms do not allow political ads that violate the tenets of the Voting Rights Act. 3. Demanding transparency about how ads are targeted that goes beyond the basic details contained in the Facebook ads library, such as whether custom audiences and “look-alike tools” are used, whether the company algorithms amplify the ads, and whether the advertiser listed in the “paid for by” disclaimer is verified and matches the actual name of the authorized advertiser. “A politician abusing social media platforms to intentionally spread false information about voting procedures and sow distrust in our electoral system is, in my view, one of the biggest threats to our November election. Facebook has gone a long way to solve for the threat of 2016—Russian manipulation of the platform to sway voters—but it has not solved for the threat of 2020.” The author seems to have anticipated my reaction when he states he sees little likelihood that legislation will be passed and policies for execution put in place in time for the November, 2020 election.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Sec. of State Handles Calls for Help from Other States

On Behalf of WEA’s More Conservative Members #60 Examples of Sec. of State Wyman’s Media Appearances #3 - NBC - Coronavirus 'worst-case scenario': Could the presidential vote be done by mail? 3/26/2020 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/coronavirus-worst-case-scenario-could-presidential-vote-be-done-mail-n1168151 8.24.20 This series is in response to WA State Democratic Party Chairperson’s claiming Sec. of State Kim Wyman has not been “championing vote by mail across the country” . •Wyman said she's been inundated with calls from colleagues in other states seeking advice. •"The first thing I say is people need to understand the context," she said. "I am probably the biggest champion of vote by mail in the country, but it took us five years to move from polling places to vote-by-mail." •Every state that isn't used to voting primarily by mail will have to prepare for a huge increase in volume. •Voters need to be told not only how to v
Read more

ARE THE ATTACKS ON USPS AN ATTACK ON THE CONSTITUTION?

SERIOUSLY! ARE YOU KIDDIN’ ME!! #10 ARE THE ATTACKS ON USPS AN ATTACK ON THE CONSTITUTION? Aren’t These People Supposed to Know Better? 8.26.20 -The US Postal Service was created by an enabling act in the US Constitution. (Article I, Section 8, Clause 7). -Under the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution, election protocols are the responsibility of the States, subject to the US Constitution. (The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.) It is, therefore, my opinion that the recent actions taken by Pres. Trump’s recently appointed Postmaster General Louis DeJoy constitute a double assault on the US Constitution. Furthermore, the timing and targeting of mail sorting and delivery capabilities are clearly intended to disrupt the upcoming General Election and set the scene for a refusal by Pres. Trump to honor the results of the election, should he be defeated.
Read more

The Righteous US v. The Evil Them

Could This Be the Beginning of a Trend? #15 The Righteous US v. The Evil Them 7.8.20 There’s a great line, spoken by Ben Franklin, in the stage play/movie “1776”. I’m paraphrasing here, but it goes something like this…. “Revolution in the first person, our revolution, is always good. It’s only bad in the third person, their revolution.” As I look at the text of President Trump’s Mt. Rushmore speech, I see this concept in the form of an effort to emphasize an “US v. Them” scenario. On the Fourth of July, I would imagine a speech would emphasize the “WE”, but that does not seem to be the case. For example: "Our nation is witnessing a merciless campaign to wipe out our history, defame our heroes, erase our values, and indoctrinate our children." To start with, I’m struck by the scenario of “our nation”, not theirs; the “our history”, not theirs; “our heroes”, not theirs; “our values”, not theirs; and “our children”, not theirs. It implies “they” are not p
Read more