Why Facebook Should Ban Political Ads In India

Facebook, Google and other platforms are not doing enough to make political ads more transparent.

Facebook, Google and other platforms are not doing enough to make political ads more transparent.
Facebook, Google and other platforms are not doing enough to make political ads more transparent.
Sreemoyee Mukherjee


NEW DELHI — Recently, Facebook was mired in controversy for refusing to fact-check political advertisements. Twitter, on the other hand, announced that it would ban all kinds of political advertisements on the platform. Jack Dorsey, Twitter's CEO, explained the move on October 31, saying: "We believe the political message should be earned, not bought." This ruling – set to take effect from November 22 – is expected to put pressure on Facebook which has categorically refused to take down misinformation that has been paid for.

A close study of how India's ruling party used social media advertisement gives us a clue on how such advertisements actually affect the users. According to a detailed survey by the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS) on social media and political behavior in India in 2019, one in every three people said that they read political news on social media and only one in five shares that same news. The survey found that social media users seem to be relatively more comfortable in just being passive recipients of news on social media sites.

News today is heavily entwined with influence operations and opinion formation

The CSDS report notes that 41% of daily Facebook users surveyed were likely to vote for (Bharatiya Janata Party) BJP and nearly half of those who said they share political news daily or sometimes on social networking sites were found to have voted for the (National Democratic Alliance) NDA. It is commonly known that BJP did effectively influence opinion on social media.

The CSDS report also says that only 3% respondents said that social media was their primary source for ‘news'. However, Sukumar Muralidharan, in an opinion piece in Hindu Business Line says that it is faulty because there is a difference between influence building and ‘news."

"The older understanding of the news as something the media industry produces is yielding to a new construct. News is now a collective outpouring of angst at the betrayal of all the promises that liberal democracy functions on," he said. News today is heavily entwined with influence operations and opinion formation. And these are controlled by visibility which, in the case of an advertisement, is directly proportional to money.

In 2019, BJP and their supporters spent nearly 270 million rupees on online advertisements which accounts for 50% of the pre-campaign social media ad spending in India, according to calculations done by BOOM on google transparency reports and Facebook Ad Library Reports.

As per data released by the Facebook Ad Library report, between February and November 2019, BJP's official Facebook page has spent 40.3 million rupees on political advertisements on Facebook alone.

When a party is asking for your vote, they are also asking you to pass certain ideologies

Political advertisements are not like regular advertisements pushing you to endorse or buy a commodity, it is a part of a system called an ‘influence operation." When a party is asking for your vote, they are also asking for your willingness to pass certain ideologies and mandates.

"Since influence operations rely on the dissemination of partisan viewpoints, they often make use of platforms that appeal to their audience's patriotic fervor. Therefore instead of questioning the veracity of the information, these campaigns appeal to an individual's patriotic duty to share this information widely," Apar Gupta writes in The Hindu.

Jack Dorsey, CEO of Twitter, announced complete ban on political advertising. — Photo: Rolf Vennenbernd/ZUMA

A political advertisement decides whether you vote for clean air or cow-hospitals, for air-strikes or employment, for transparency or a powerful troll army. It is an advertisement to choose who will decide the legislation and regulation for your country. Even what we do not actively understand as ‘news' is influencing us in opinion formation.

CSDS results confirm that political biases are cemented by social media consumption. But the case against political advertisement is not just a whine against the violation of Article 19 (hegemonic flooding of a space with one narrative by paying money is an indirect violation of freedom of expression for all), it is also about a growing fear of selling our government to massive corporate interests.

The money behind the advertisement is either corporate-backed or a big mystery

The danger of campaign funding is that no one knows where the money comes from. We do not know who is backing this well-oiled machine of propaganda, and what kind of regulation has been promised to these donors in return for their patronage. These bonds are seen as one of the most retrograde steps in electoral transparency.

Besides the opaque backing of political advertisement, there are clear lines that lead most electoral funding to big corporates. For example, BJP's biggest donor is Prudent Electoral Trust. The Prudent Electoral Trust is funded by Bharti Enterprises, GMR and DLF Groups, along with JMMCO, Jubilant Foodworkds and National Engineering Industries.

The money behind the advertisement is either corporate-backed or a big mystery. In the face of that, banning political ads does seem like a step forward, despite arguments about boosting incumbency and difficulty defining a political ‘issue."

In the West, banning political advertisements is a way for greater campaign transparency, maybe but for a country like India, with a very different demographic, it could be a powerful tool in stopping economic hegemony for the matter.

That any party in the country could be bought by hefty donations by massive nameless MNCs that then wreck havoc with the common people, just because they can control and flex public opinion by buying influence through political advertisement seems to be a disservice to the internet that was once dreamt of being the most democratic space in the world. And Twitter just gave us a way to stop it.

Keep up with the world. Break out of the bubble.
Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter!

What It Means When The Jews Of Germany No Longer Feel Safe

A neo-Nazi has been buried in the former grave of a Jewish musicologist Max Friedlaender – not an oversight, but a deliberate provocation. This is just one more example of antisemitism on the rise in Germany, and society's inability to respond.

At a protest against antisemitism in Berlin

Eva Marie Kogel


BERLIN — If you want to check the state of your society, there's a simple test: as the U.S. High Commissioner for Germany, John Jay McCloy, said in 1949, the touchstone for a democracy is the well-being of Jews. This litmus test is still relevant today. And it seems Germany would not pass.

Incidents are piling up. Most recently, groups of neo-Nazis from across the country traveled to a church near Berlin for the funeral of a well-known far-right figure. He was buried in the former grave of Jewish musicologist Max Friedlaender, a gravesite chosen deliberately by the right-wing extremists.

The incident at the cemetery

They intentionally chose a Jewish grave as an act of provocation, trying to gain maximum publicity for this act of desecration. And the cemetery authorities at the graveyard in Stahnsdorf fell for it. The church issued an immediate apology, calling it a "terrible mistake" and saying they "must immediately see whether and what we can undo."

There are so many incidents that get little to no media attention.

It's unfathomable that this burial was allowed to take place at all, but now the cemetery authorities need to make a decision quickly about how to put things right. Otherwise, the grave may well become a pilgrimage site for Holocaust deniers and antisemites.

The incident has garnered attention in the international press and it will live long in the memory. Like the case of singer-songwriter Gil Ofarim, who recently claimed he was subjected to antisemitic abuse at a hotel in Leipzig. Details of the crime are still being investigated. But there are so many other incidents that get little to no media attention.

Photo of the grave of Jewish musicologist Max Friedlaender

The grave of Jewish musicologist Max Friedlaender

Jens Kalaene/dpa/ZUMA

Crimes against Jews are rising

Across all parts of society, antisemitism is on the rise. Until a few years ago, Jewish life was seen as an accepted part of German society. Since the attack on the synagogue in Halle in 2019, the picture has changed: it was a bitter reminder that right-wing terror against Jewish people has a long, unbroken history in Germany.

Stories have abounded about the coronavirus crisis being a Jewish conspiracy; meanwhile, Muslim antisemitism is becoming louder and more forceful. The anti-Israel boycott movement BDS rears its head in every debate on antisemitism, just as left-wing or post-colonial thinking are part of every discussion.

Jewish life needs to be allowed to step out of the shadows.

Since 2015, the number of antisemitic crimes recorded has risen by about a third, to 2,350. But victims only report around 20% of cases. Some choose not to because they've had bad experiences with the police, others because they're afraid of the perpetrators, and still others because they just want to put it behind them. Victims clearly hold out little hope of useful reaction from the state – so crimes go unreported.

And the reality of Jewish life in Germany is a dark one. Sociologists say that Jewish children are living out their "identity under siege." What impact does it have on them when they can only go to nursery under police protection? Or when they hear Holocaust jokes at school?

Germany needs to take its antisemitism seriously

This shows that the country of commemorative services and "stumbling blocks" placed in sidewalks as a memorial to victims of the Nazis has lost its moral compass. To make it point true north again, antisemitism needs to be documented from the perspective of those affected, making it visible to the non-Jewish population. And Jewish life needs to be allowed to step out of the shadows.

That is the first thing. The second is that we need to talk about specifically German forms of antisemitism. For example, the fact that in no other EU country are Jewish people so often confronted about the Israeli government's policies (according to a survey, 41% of German Jews have experienced this, while the EU average is 28%). Projecting the old antisemitism onto the state of Israel offers people a more comfortable target for their arguments.

Our society needs to have more conversations about antisemitism. The test of German democracy, as McCloy called it, starts with taking these concerns seriously and talking about them. We need to have these conversations because it affects all of us. It's about saving our democracy. Before it's too late.

Keep up with the world. Break out of the bubble.
Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter!