Skip to main content

Sign up for our newsletter.

Quality journalism. Progressive values. Direct to your inbox.

There are less than 48 hours left in this Mid-Year Campaign and our independent journalism needs your help today.
If you value our work, please support Common Dreams. This is our hour of need.

Join the small group of generous readers who donate, keeping Common Dreams free for millions of people each year. Without your help, we won’t survive.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg speaks to an audience in 2018. (Photo: Anthony Quintano/Flickr/cc)

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg speaks to an audience in 2018. (Photo: Anthony Quintano/Flickr/cc)

Facebook to Ban Political Ads After Polls Close on Nov. 3, 'Just in Time to Have No Impact Whatsoever'

Critics noted that the social media giant also recently announced an algorithm change that could "make the site more toxic and less usable while endangering democracy and human rights."

Jessica Corbett

In Facebook's latest attempt to limit the spread of electoral misinformation on its platform, the social media giant announced Wednesday that it will ban political advertisements in the United States after polls close on Election Day—but critics raised concerns about the timing of the policy and other recent moves by the company.

The ad ban was revealed in a new blog post from Guy Rosen, Facebook's VP of integrity, detailing the company's preparations for the U.S. general election.

Rosen wrote that "while ads are an important way to express voice, we plan to temporarily stop running all social issue, electoral, or political ads in the U.S. after the polls close on November 3, to reduce opportunities for confusion or abuse. We will notify advertisers when this policy is lifted."

The advocacy group Public Citizen responded to the move on Twitter by casting doubt on the effectiveness of imposing such a ban after voting is over:

In a pair of tweets, Sleeping Giants, another advocacy organization, was similarly critical of the timing and called for making the ban permanent:

New York Times technology correspondent Mike Isaac reported that the move came after weeks of Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and his lieutenants watching the race between President Donald Trump and Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden "with an increasing sense of alarm."

According to Isaac:

Executives have held meetings to discuss President Trump's evasive comments about whether he would accept a peaceful transfer of power if he lost the election. They watched Mr. Trump tell the Proud Boys, a far-right group that has endorsed violence, to "stand back and stand by." And they have had conversations with civil rights groups, who have privately told them that the company needs to do more because Election Day could erupt into chaos, Facebook employees said.

The new ad policy comes after the company introduced "measures to reduce election misinformation and interference on its site just last month," Isaac noted. "At the time, Facebook said it planned to ban new political ads for a contained period—the week before Election Day—and would act swiftly against posts that tried to dissuade people from voting. Mr. Zuckerberg also said Facebook would not make any other changes until there was an official election result."

Fight for the Future suggested in a series of tweets that the ad ban "isn't going to fix the problem at all," pointing to recently announced changes to Facebook's recommendation algorithm which the digital rights advocacy group claims "will make the site even more toxic and ruin one of the last parts of it that are still actually kind of useful: Facebook groups."

"This is just silly. No one is going to need to use paid advertising to make disinformation go wildly viral in the immediate aftermath of November 3rd. They can just ... post it," tweeted Fight for the Future deputy director Evan Greer. "Facebook needs to put an immediate moratorium on algorithmic amplification."

Greer's group has launched a petition urging the social media company to immediately reverse its algorithm decision, warning that "turning on algorithmic amplification for Facebook group posts will make the site more toxic and less usable while endangering democracy and human rights."

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

Just a few days left in our crucial Mid-Year Campaign and we might not make it without your help.
Who funds our independent journalism? Readers like you who believe in our mission: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. No corporate advertisers. No billionaire founder. Our non-partisan, nonprofit media model has only one source of revenue: The people who read and value this work and our mission. That's it.
And the model is simple: If everyone just gives whatever amount they can afford and think is reasonable—$3, $9, $29, or more—we can continue. If not enough do, we go dark.

All the small gifts add up to something otherwise impossible. Please join us today. Donate to Common Dreams. This is crunch time. We need you now.

Naomi Klein: The US Is in the Midst of a 'Shock-and-Awe Judicial Coup'

"The rolling judicial coup coming from this court is by no means over," warned the author of "The Shock Doctrine."

Jake Johnson ·

Markey, Bowman Join Climate Coalition in Urging SCOTUS Expansion

"We cannot sit idly by," said Markey, "as extremists on the Supreme Court eviscerate the authorities that the government has had for decades to combat climate change and reduce pollution."

Brett Wilkins ·

Ocasio-Cortez Says US 'Witnessing a Judicial Coup in Process'

"It is our duty to check the Court's gross overreach of power in violating people's inalienable rights and seizing for itself the powers of Congress and the president."

Brett Wilkins ·

Critics Say Biden Drilling Bonanza 'Won't Lower Gas Prices' But 'Will Worsen Climate Crisis'

"President Biden's massive public lands giveaway in the face of utter climate catastrophe is just the latest sign that his climate commitments are mere rhetoric," said one campaigner.

Kenny Stancil ·

Grave Warnings as Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case That Threatens 'Future of Voting Rights'

"Buckle up," implores one prominent legal scholar. "An extreme decision here could fundamentally alter the balance of power in setting election rules in the states and provide a path for great threats to elections."

Brett Wilkins ·

Common Dreams Logo