Prevention, Detection, and Response: Feasibility of Honest Ads Act in Digital Space
Schneier on Security says security is:
An Honest Ads Act for digital platforms would have to:
Verdict: implementation is feasible.
Prevention, detection and most importantly, response, would quell much of the tension between platforms and users.
Some company cultures are more resistant to response on principle, either due to scale, blind spots or they see it as a form of submission. Others would be eager to practice (within reason) response and engagement at critical intervals, as trust-building and brand-burnishing disciplines.
With this framework and vocabulary more widely circulated, we the people could advance conversations around frustration and accountability for digital platforms that circle back or stall at impasse.
Thoughts? Feedback?
----------------
Further Reading:
Zuckerberg told a CNN reporter "“If you look at how much regulation there is around advertising on TV and print, it’s just not clear why there should be less on the internet." What is the Honest Ads Act?: admonsters.com
This work by AJ Fish is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
- Prevention
- Detection
- Response
An Honest Ads Act for digital platforms would have to:
- PREVENT dishonest ad uploads (without "I'm 'Keith Kandidate' and I approve this message" or "Paid for by 'Robotic Rights Foundation'".) Minimum technology: a policy statement on the ad uploading screen.
- Provide users who DETECT dishonest ads means to flag them for review. Minimum technology: the upper right corner menu "this ad appears to violate Honest Ads Act" item. Require users flagging ad to jump through hoops (series of screens with questions, form fields to fill,) to cut false positive reports queue from growing too long.
- RESPOND. A law must allow platforms a time window within which to confirm violations, remove the ad and suspend account of the user who uploaded it. Say 72 hours. Technology: human ad violation reviewers. Then
- REPEAT. PREVENT the DETECTED violation from happening again (suspend the account if it's verified violator; give advertisers a chance to fix the ad; within reason, automate - add filter to your ad uploading algorithm to catch what version 1.0 did not.)
Verdict: implementation is feasible.
Prevention, detection and most importantly, response, would quell much of the tension between platforms and users.
Some company cultures are more resistant to response on principle, either due to scale, blind spots or they see it as a form of submission. Others would be eager to practice (within reason) response and engagement at critical intervals, as trust-building and brand-burnishing disciplines.
With this framework and vocabulary more widely circulated, we the people could advance conversations around frustration and accountability for digital platforms that circle back or stall at impasse.
Thoughts? Feedback?
----------------
Further Reading:
Zuckerberg told a CNN reporter "“If you look at how much regulation there is around advertising on TV and print, it’s just not clear why there should be less on the internet." What is the Honest Ads Act?: admonsters.com
This work by AJ Fish is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
