In the never-ending battle for consumers’ digital attention, traditional advertisers bid for ad space for custom audiences. They place promotions for toddler clothing on new parents’ social media sidebars and banner ads for video games on websites frequented by teens. Our own behavioral data is used to carry out targeted marketing. However, a degree of regulation and standardization exists in this online commercial space.
But when it comes to regulating social media political influencers, confusion reigns.
A social media influencer is an individual with social influence and significant following on a particular platform, on a particular topic, or within a particular community. They use this influence to promote commercial, social, or political causes, such as during his 2020 US presidential campaign.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) strictly regulates and enforces disclosure rules for influencers who wish to promote commercial products. When tea company Teami touted the health benefits of drinking its tea, regulators slammed the claims as deceptive. The FTC then intervened and filed a lawsuit after some of the influencers paid by Teami failed to disclose their ties to the company.
Similarly, if an influencer recommends investing in securities, this must also be disclosed. Kim Kardashian had to pay $1 million to the Securities and Exchange Commission after promoting an investment in a cryptocurrency company without disclosing that she had received $250,000 from the same organization. I learned this from painful experience.
However, political speech is treated very differently than commercial speech in the United States, and is more difficult to address and regulate.
During previous U.S. election cycles, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (Democratic) used social media influencers to hype his campaign. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Donald Trump, former Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang, and Vice President Kamala Harris have taken similar actions. Recently, Pennsylvania’s new Sen. John Fetterman (D) endorsed former “Jersey Shore” star Nicole “Snooki” Polizzi and defeated Fetterman’s opponent, Mehmet, in a widely viewed video.・I made fun of Mr. Oz.
What are the disclosure requirements? no.
When it comes to political influencers being paid for their political activities, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) is the regulatory agency responsible for creating and enforcing rules regarding political advertising. However, until recently, strict disclosure guidelines for influencers had not been issued. In the fall of 2022, the FEC proposed new rules that would require disclosure when money is paid for political purposes, including influencers.
But in one important respect, the FEC seems uncertain about how to proceed with things. This is relevant in situations where campaign communications fall within the scope of “public communications”. The FEC recently asked whether content that is “paid for promotion” must also be disclosed in addition to content that is “posted for a fee.”
Researchers at policy nonprofits such as New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice and Princeton University’s Information Technology Policy Center argue that regulating paid and promoted digital content would be a major advance for democracy. Meanwhile, other groups, including Citizens United, are less happy about the prospects of such a policy. Of course, this is the same case known as Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court decision that allowed corporations and other groups to spend unlimited amounts on elections as long as they were not aligned with a political party or candidate. It is a non-profit organization. As a result of this decision, super PACs are now decisively determining how U.S. elections play out. Arguments against the proposed FEC rule suggest that it is too broad and could have a chilling effect.
For our research at the Center for Media Engagement’s Propaganda Institute, we spoke to political influencers active on TikTok and Instagram. We also interviewed experts and marketers familiar with the political influencer ecosystem. A recent research article documents how political campaigns use influencers to promote social and political causes. Our research examines how influencers work with political organizers, how they work with each other, and across different hierarchies between mega, nano, and micro-influencers. We document how they work together.
We find that recruiting political influencers is most effective when the influencers themselves believe in the political cause in question, or candidate. In other words, political campaigns that want to hire influencers need to be honest and open about their viewpoints when searching for influencers. Importantly, the relationship must be mutually beneficial. In addition to being compensated financially, influencers often receive campaign swag and digital messages of support from candidates.
Influencers will use tools like “Sharing to organize and coordinate apps, engagement pods, and other platforms” to improve engagement metrics. This means that popularity can be artificially inflated, making a political influencer’s content appear more popular than it actually is. In such cases, this amounts to what Mehta calls coordinated cheating. But political payments to influencers often take place off-platform, making it difficult for law enforcement to reconcile real accounts, especially influencer accounts that are vital to social media companies’ bottom lines.
Disclosure requirements for influencers are important, and the Federal Election Commission is strongly encouraged to continue its current efforts to highlight political influencers as a form of political advertising. But don’t stop here. Instead, the FEC should take a hard look at what other transparency requirements are needed to future-proof its regulations. For example, what happens when influencers leverage automation to amplify partisan messages? There’s little to prevent these power users from using fairly sophisticated bot software to increase engagement.
Many influencers are professionals and make up a fast-growing and lucrative industry. It is important to develop rules as soon as possible that clarify what can and cannot be done in the political realm. Voters who use social media platforms should have the right to know whether people who speak to them about their political positions have been paid to do so.
Dr. Martin Riedl is a postdoctoral fellow in the Propaganda Laboratory in the Media Engagement Center at the University of Texas at Austin and an incoming assistant professor in the School of Journalism and Electronic Media at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Dr. Samuel Woolley CME He is director of the Propaganda Institute and an assistant professor in the School of Journalism and Media at the University of Texas at Austin. He is the author of the new book Manufacturing Consensus: Propaganda in the Era of Automation and Anonymity. ”
Copyright 2024 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.