It was the end of a tumultuous month for US President Donald Trump’s White House. A redacted version of a report by US special counsel Robert Mueller had been released to the public.
Democratic committee leaders were threatening subpoenas. The special counsel had broken his silence to criticize the US attorney general’s handling of the report’s release.
In Washington, Trump’s presidency was under as much pressure as ever.
Illustration: Yusha
However, on Facebook, the Trump circle was asserting another reality.
“While Democrats have spent the last two years wasting your money on a bogus WITCH HUNT that found NO COLLUSION, President Trump has been fighting for YOU,” read the copy in Facebook advertisements run by Trump’s re-election campaign on April 30. “The Democratic Party has sunk so low that they’re embracing Anti Semite [US Representative] Ilhan Omar, who recently minimized the terrorist attacks of 9/11 as ‘some people did something.’ Their party is a disgrace.”
The ads were notable for a number of reasons.
They asked users to donate prior to a “CRUCIAL fundraising deadline” even though the next major deadline would not come until June 30, employing a time-tested marketing trick to create a false sense of urgency.
They were numerous, with more than 200 minor variations of the advertisements running.
They were topical and negative, feeding an intensely divisive controversy earlier that month over out-of-context remarks made by a Muslim US representative about post-9/11 Islamophobia rather than making an affirmative case for Trump’s re-election.
They targeted older Facebook users across the US, in defiance of conventional wisdom about who responds to social media campaigning.
All in all, the advertisements epitomized the unprecedented nature of the massive social media campaign being waged by Trump more than 500 days before the US presidential election next year.
“They’re way ahead of the field this time,” said Eric Wilson, a Republican digital strategist. “They’re building their infrastructure and list and online fundraising more than a year before the election, even without any sort of credible challenge on the right.”
“They are not only better positioned than the Trump campaign was in 2015, but in a much better place than any of the Democrats right now,” Wilson said.
That Trump’s re-election campaign would go all-in on digital became clear in February last year, when Brad Parscale was appointed campaign director.
Parscale was a digital marketing consultant with little political experience when he was tapped to run Trump’s 2016 online operation. He was not shy about taking credit for Trump’s unlikely presidential victory, touting the sophistication of his Facebook strategy, which he said involved running as many as 60,000 advertisement variants at a time, taking the concept of A/B testing to extremes.
In many ways, that 2016 presidential campaign never ended. Trump filed for re-election on the day of his inauguration and has held dozens of campaign rallies since. Evidence of this permanent campaign is even more apparent online.
The Trump campaign’s spending on Facebook and Google advertisements leading up to last year’s midterm elections dwarfed every other candidate besides Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke — and Trump was not even on the ballot.
In the first six months of this year, Trump spent more than US$11.1 million on Facebook and Google advertisements alone, according to disclosures by the social media companies.
For the corresponding six months of the most recent presidential race with an incumbent — January through June 2011 — former US president Barack Obama spent US$850,000 on online advertising, according to Federal Election Commission filings.
A Trump campaign official, who insisted on speaking on background, offered only vague generalities about the current iteration of the digital campaign.
He said it was rooted in a Silicon Valley mindset and was akin to high-frequency trading.
He described the format of the ads as “direct response marketing,” meaning that they are designed to induce a response — either a donation, an e-mail signup, or a mobile phone signup — from the target.
The official denied a Bloomberg report that the 2016 campaign used Facebook ads as part of a voter suppression effort designed to dampen enthusiasm among likely Democratic voters, and refused to commit not to run such advertisements in the 2020 campaign.
An analysis of the content and targeting of Trump presidential campaign advertisements by Bully Pulpit Interactive, a Democratic digital campaigning firm that has built an interactive tool to compare spending across campaigns, found that more than half (54 percent) of Trump’s advertisements have mentioned immigration issues and nearly half (44 percent) are targeting voters over the age of 65.
The campaign’s demographic and geographical targeting so far has not been particularly out of the ordinary, Bully Pulpit partner Mike Schneider said.
However, the general tone of the advertisements has been surprisingly reactive and negative, he said.
Since Facebook began archiving political advertisements in May last year, Trump has run about 26,000 that mention “fake news”; 14,000 that reference the Mexican border; and 3,600 that include the phrase “witch hunt,” the Guardian found.
Advertisements hawking an “executive membership card” (2,700) appear to be more common than those that address issues such as healthcare.
Wilson said that such metrics reveal more about what topics and communication styles resonate with Trump voters on Facebook than they do about the overall message of the campaign.
“The campaign is putting out messages that are going to convert the most donors and supporters at the lowest cost possible,” he said.
“The only thing we can read into Facebook advertising is what’s working on Facebook. There is a science and art to driving conversions on Facebook, and that is separate to a broader political strategy. It’s in harmony, but it’s not wagging the dog,” he said.
While Trump might be dominating the digital field at this stage, his tactics are not particularly groundbreaking, several experts told the Guardian.
His opponents simply have not fully gotten into the game yet.
“I don’t think Trump’s campaign is incredibly sophisticated compared to corporations and how they use digital. It’s just that politics is way behind,” said Jessica Alter, cofounder of Tech for Campaigns, a volunteer organization that is connecting Silicon Valley tech talent with Democratic campaigns.
“Trump spent 44 percent of his media budget on digital. Other campaigns are closer to 6 to 8 percent. Industry standard for corporations is 54 percent. It starts there,” she said.
Alter’s organization undertook a comprehensive analysis of the political advertisements run by both parties in the midterms. Among other things, their findings help explain why the Trump campaign is targeting older people.
“There’s this myth that digital is for young people,” Alter said. “People 55 years and older have a three times higher propensity to click on a digital ad than the younger generation.”
That higher click rate means more donations, more e-mail addresses and more cellphone numbers, all of which are key to staying competitive and, 16 months from now, turning out the vote.
Still, the concerns are many. Digital campaign advertisements, and the data used to target them at tiny subsets of the electorate, were an important part of the Russian troll farm’s efforts to influence the 2016 election, as well as the Cambridge Analytica scandal.
The ability to micro-target various groups with finely tuned messages pushes campaigns toward anti-democratic behavior, said Anthony Nadler, an associate professor of media and communication studies at Ursinus College.
Nadler compared the use of A/B testing on users — whose reaction to an advertisement is recorded whether they click on it or not — to turning Facebook users into “unwitting subjects in what is more or less psychological testing.”
“It has a sort of corrupting influence, turning campaigns as a whole toward trying to mobilize people in very niche ways, trying to influence people in a very niche way and trying to demonize the other side,” Nadler said.
Nadler has called for a ban on A/B testing in online digital campaigning, a somewhat far-fetched proposal that would require campaigns to stick to a single version of an advertisement, rather than constantly test minor variations on users.
While companies like Facebook, Google and Twitter have made it easier following the 2016 election to monitor what campaigns are doing on their platforms by setting up new public transparency tools to monitor the advertisements campaigns are putting out on their platforms, those tools would not be a true bulwark against the kind of dirty tricks that Russia’s Internet Research Agency deployed in 2016, Nadler said.
“Dark money groups are particularly dangerous because they have no reputation to protect,” he said, referring to not-for-profit organizations that can engage in political campaigning without disclosing the source of their funding.
Although Facebook now requires political advertisements to disclose the name of the organization funding the advertisements, Nadler said that it is “pretty easy” for motivated bad actors to create new not-for-profit groups through which to funnel money for campaigning.
“I think they’re going to be the pioneers of pushing these tactics to the furthest reaches,” he said.
These strategies could include efforts to create division or suppress enthusiasm within the opposition.
A dark money group could even pose as being part of a certain political coalition, without it being true, as the Russian troll groups did.
“As opposed to persuading individual voters, you can just get certain groups of people to not be too excited, or cynical and sour,” Nadler said.
“That matters, and that’s what social media can do,” he said.
After nine days of holidays for the Lunar New Year, government agencies and companies are to reopen for operations today, including the Legislative Yuan. Many civic groups are expected to submit their recall petitions this week, aimed at removing many Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers from their seats. Since December last year, the KMT and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) passed three controversial bills to paralyze the Constitutional Court, alter budgetary allocations and make recalling elected officials more difficult by raising the threshold. The amendments aroused public concern and discontent, sparking calls to recall KMT legislators. After KMT and TPP legislators again
Taiwan faces complex challenges like other Asia-Pacific nations, including demographic decline, income inequality and climate change. In fact, its challenges might be even more pressing. The nation struggles with rising income inequality, declining birthrates and soaring housing costs while simultaneously navigating intensifying global competition among major powers. To remain competitive in the global talent market, Taiwan has been working to create a more welcoming environment and legal framework for foreign professionals. One of the most significant steps in this direction was the enactment of the Act for the Recruitment and Employment of Foreign Professionals (外國專業人才延攬及僱用法) in 2018. Subsequent amendments in
US President Donald Trump on Saturday signed orders to impose tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China effective from today. Trump decided to slap 25 percent tariffs on goods from Mexico and Canada as well as 10 percent on those coming from China, but would only impose a 10 percent tariff on Canadian energy products, including oil and electricity. Canada and Mexico on Sunday quickly responded with retaliatory tariffs against the US, while countermeasures from China are expected soon. Nevertheless, Trump announced yesterday to delay tariffs on Mexico and Canada for a month and said he would hold further talks with
Taiwan’s undersea cables connecting it to the world were allegedly severed several times by a Chinese ship registered under a flag of convenience. As the vessel sailed, it used several different automatic identification systems (AIS) to create fake routes. That type of “shadow fleet” and “gray zone” tactics could create a security crisis in Taiwan and warrants response measures. The concept of a shadow fleet originates from the research of Elisabeth Braw, senior fellow at the Washington-based Atlantic Council. The phenomenon was initiated by authoritarian countries such as Iran, North Korea and Russia, which have been hit by international economic