CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 30Social Media and PoliticsMedia Influence and PoliticsMisinformation and Its Impacts

Ad Delivery Algorithms: The Hidden Arbiters of Political Messaging

Open access
Ali, Muhammad, Sapiezynski, Piotr, Korolova, Aleksandra, Mislove, Alan, Rieke, Aaron·2019·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.1912.04255arXiv 1912.04255
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Political campaigns are increasingly turning to digital advertising to reach voters. These platforms empower advertisers to target messages to platform users with great precision, including through inferences about those users' political affiliations. However, prior work has shown that platforms' ad delivery algorithms can selectively deliver ads within these target audiences in ways that can lead to demographic skews along race and gender lines, often without an advertiser's knowledge. In this study, we investigate the impact of Facebook's ad delivery algorithms on political ads. We run a series of political ads on Facebook and measure how Facebook delivers those ads to different groups, depending on an ad's content (e.g., the political viewpoint featured) and targeting criteria. We find that Facebook's ad delivery algorithms effectively differentiate the price of reaching a user based on their inferred political alignment with the advertised content, inhibiting political campaigns' ability to reach voters with diverse political views. This effect is most acute when advertisers use small budgets, as Facebook's delivery algorithm tends to preferentially deliver to the users who are, according to Facebook's estimation, most relevant. Our findings point to advertising platforms' potential role in political polarization and creating informational filter bubbles. Furthermore, some large ad platforms have recently changed their policies to restrict the targeting tools they offer to political campaigns; our findings show that such reforms will be insufficient if the goal is to ensure that political ads are shown to users of diverse political views. Our findings add urgency to calls for more meaningful public transparency into the political advertising ecosystem.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1912.04255

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Algorithmic ad delivery algorithms are not neutral and favor, within a defined audience segment, the targets most likely to click on the ad, producing filter bubble effects.

    “Research has shown that these algorithms are not neutral and favor, within a defined audience segment, the targets most likely to click on the ad, producing filter bubble effects (Ali, Sapiezynski, Korolova, et al., 2019).”

    From How online advertising targets consumers: The uses of categories and algorithmic tools by audience planners (2024) · cites this paper as Ali, Sapiezynski, Korolova, et al., 2019

    The Introduction (p. 3) and Related Work (p. 5) support the claim that Facebook's ad delivery can favor users whose inferred views align with an ad, creating political-ad filter bubble effects within a targeted audience. But §2.3 (p. 4) says delivery to users most likely to click is the objective of a specific ‘Traffic’ setting; the paper also studies ‘Reach’ campaigns. The claim overgeneralizes click likelihood as the reason for the observed skews. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 20

  1. [4][4] Ali, M., Sapiezynski, P., Bogen, M., Korolova, A., Mislove, A., and Rieke, A. Discrimination through Optimization: How Facebook's Ad Delivery Can Lead to Biased Outcomes. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3 , CSCW (2019), ACM. -
  2. [5][5] An Update on Senator Kyl's Review of Potential Anti-Conservative Bias. https:// newsroom.fb.com/news/2019/08/update-on-potential-anti-conservative-bias/. -
  3. [10][10] Datta, A., Tschantz, M. C., and Datta, A. Automated Experiments on Ad Privacy Settings: A Tale of Opacity, Choice, and Discrimination. In Privacy Enhancing Technologies Symposium (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, June 2015). -
  4. [11][11] Eckles, D., Gordon, B. R., and Johnson, G. A. Field studies of psychologically targeted ads face threats to internal validity. PNAS: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 115 , 23 (2018). -
  5. [12][12] Edelson, L., Sakhuja, S., Dey, R., and McCoy, D. An Analysis of United States Online Political Advertising Transparency. https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.04385. - · arXiv
  6. [22][22] Faizullabhoy, I. and Korolova, A. Facebook's Advertising Platform: New Attack Vectors and the Need for Interventions. Computing Research Repository (Mar. 2018), https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.10099, Workshop on Technology and Consumer Protection (ConPro). - · arXiv
  7. [29][29] Hirsh, J. B., Kang, S. K., and Bodenhausen, G. V. Personalized persuasion: Tailoring persuasive appeals to recipients' personality traits. Psychological science 23 , 6 (2012), Sage Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA. -
  8. [28][28] Hannak, A., Sapiezyński, P., Molavi Kakhki, A., Krishnamurthy, B., Lazer, D., Mislove, A., and Wilson, C. Measuring Personalization of Web Search. In International World Wide Web Conference (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, May 2013). -
  9. [30][30] K, W. A. and M, R. A. Fool Me Once: Regulating Fake News and Other Online Advertising. Southern California Law Review 91 (2017), HeinOnline. -
  10. [32][32] Kosinski, M., Stillwell, D., and Graepel, T. Private traits and attributes are predictable from digital records of human behavior. PNAS: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 110 , 15 (2013). -
  11. [31][31] Korolova, A. Privacy Violations Using Microtargeted Ads: A Case Study. Journal of Privacy and Confidentiality 3 , 1 (2011). -
  12. [33][33] Kreiss, D. and Mcgregor, S. C. The 'Arbiters of What Our Voters See": Facebook and Google's Struggle with Policy, Process, and Enforcement around Political Advertising. Political Communication 0 , 0 (2019), Routledge. -
  13. [34][34] Lambrecht, A. and Tucker, C. E. Algorithmic bias? An empirical study into apparent gender-based discrimination in the display of STEM career ads. (2018). https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract\_id=2852260. -
  14. [39][39] Pariser, E. The Filter Bubble: What the Internet is Hiding from You. (London, UK, 2011), Penguin Press. -
  15. [42][42] Ribeiro, F. N., Saha, K., Babaei, M., Henriqe, L., Messias, J., Benevenuto, O. G. F., Gummadi, K. P., and Redmiles, E. M. On Microtargeting Socially Divisive Ads: A Case Study of Russia-Linked Ad Campaigns on Facebook. In Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (Atlanta, Georgia, USA, Jan. 2019). -
  16. [46][46] Speicher, T., Ali, M., Venkatadri, G., Ribeiro, F. N., Arvanitakis, G., Benevenuto, F., Gummadi, K. P., Loiseau, P., and Mislove, A. On the Potential for Discrimination in Online Targeted Advertising. In Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (New York, New York, USA, Feb. 2018). -
  17. [51][51] Venkatadri, G., Liu, Y., Andreou, A., Goga, O., Loiseau, P., Mislove, A., and Gummadi, K. P. Privacy Risks with Facebook's PII-based Targeting: Auditing a Data Broker's Advertising Interface. In IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (San Francisco, California, USA, May 2018). -
  18. [53][53] Venkatadri, G., Sapiezyński, P., Redmiles, E. M., Mislove, A., Goga, O., Mazurek, M., and Gummadi, K. P. Auditing Offline Data Brokers via Facebook's Advertising Platform. In International World Wide Web Conference (San Francisco, California, USA, May 2019). -
  19. [52][52] Venkatadri, G., Lucherini, E., Sapiezyński, P., and Mislove, A. Investigating sources of PII used in Facebook's targeted advertising. In Privacy Enhancing Technologies Symposium (Stockholm, Sweden, July 2019). -
  20. [56][56] Youngme, M. Personalization and personality: Some effects of customizing message style based on consumer personality. Journal of Consumer Psychology 12 , 4 (2002), Elsevier. -

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ali, M., Sapiezynski, P., Korolova, A., Mislove, A., & Rieke, A.
Affiliations
  • Northeastern University (US)
  • University of Southern California (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2019
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1912.04255
arXiv
1912.04255
OpenAlex
W2992494379
Cited by
30
References
3
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 5
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
Keywords
political advertising, Facebook, political polarization, filter bubbles, audience targeting, political targeting, platform transparency, digital campaigning

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review