Connect with us

Published

on

A woman walks past a polling station during early voting for the US midterm elections on October 28, 2022 in Silver Spring, Maryland.

Brendan Smialowski | AFP | Getty Images

In the 2020 election cycle, the Democratic Governors Association spent roughly 75% of its advertising budget on Facebook, taking advantage of the app’s ubiquity and its ability to deliver hyper-targeted ads to potential voters.

For the 2022 midterm elections, which include many key gubernatorial contests and will determine control of the House and Senate, the group has steered much of its money elsewhere. Ahead of Election Day on Nov. 8, just half of its spending is taking place on Facebook.

“I think the throughline that you’ll see overall is Facebook has become a much less effective platform over the past two years,” said Laura Carlson, digital director of the Democratic Governors Association.

Facebook has been mired in political controversy for over a half decade, since the platform was abused during the 2016 election campaign by foreign actors spreading disinformation. The 2020 season wasn’t much better, and ultimately led to Facebook’s banning of ex-President Donald Trump from the app following the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection on the U.S. Capitol.

But none of that explains why political campaigns have been turning away from Facebook. Rather, Carlson said the changes that Apple made to iOS last year, which limited the targeting capabilities for advertisers, have made Facebook a less valuable tool for disseminating political messages to the correct audience.

“I think the real culprit that you see is the privacy changes on the iPhone,” Carlson said. She said her organization is pushing the other half of its $10 million budget to areas like traditional email and text campaigns as well as newer platforms like connected TV and streaming services.

The retreat from Facebook by political advertisers mirrors the broader challenge the company faces now that brands can no longer rely on key pieces of user data to promote their products and services. Facebook parent Meta just reported its second straight quarter of declining revenue and said another decline is coming in the fourth quarter. The stock has lost 72% of its value year to date and closed on Monday at its lowest point since early 2016.

Political ads have always been a small part of Facebook’s overall business. An analysis by CNBC ahead of the 2020 election, based on data from Facebook’s ad library and the Center for Responsive Politics, showed that at least 3% of the company’s estimated revenue for the third quarter of that year was from politicians and campaigns.

Protestors demonstrate with an art installation of body bags during a protest against Facebook and what they claim is disinformation regarding coronavirus disease (COVID-19) on the social media giant’s platform, outside the front doors of Facebook headquarters in Washington, U.S., July 28, 2021.

Jim Bourg | Reuters

For many campaigns, Facebook had become the go-to spot for ads because of the reach and the ability to both distribute messages and raise money from wide swaths of people. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., berated fellow Democratic nominees after the 2020 election, telling The New York Times that the party lost seats in Congress because candidates didn’t spend enough on Facebook.

The math has since changed.

Annie Levene, a partner for the democratic advertising firm Rising Tide Interactive, said her organization has slashed its Facebook budget for the midterms compared to the last cycle from around 10% to between 3% and 5%.

Levene said Facebook is still useful for running relatively simple fundraising ads where it’s easy to track return on investment. But for the more complicated persuasion ads, Levene said Facebook doesn’t offer a lot of value since the iOS change.

“We have to do what is best for our clients,” Levene said. She said she’ll use Facebook for raising money, because “it would be sort of malpractice to say here’s a channel that we could be really successful for you on fundraising, but we’re not going to do it.”

Ethan Eilon, the president of digital marketing firm IMGE, which works with Republicans, said the Apple iOS update is a major reason his group is “investing considerably less in Facebook advertising compared to other platforms and channels than we were last cycle.”

However, it’s not just about Apple. Advertisers told CNBC that they also learned an important lesson from a turbulent 2020 cycle, when platforms including Facebook banned new political ads from running the week before the election. Facebook said its ban, announced about two months before Election Day, was intended to “connect people with authoritative information” and to “fight misinformation.”

‘A big shake-up’

Grace Briscoe, senior vice president at marketing technology firm Basis Technologies, said the short notice was particularly concerning in tight races like the Georgia Senate runoff elections in January 2021.

“That was a big shake-up, I think, in a lot of our clients’ minds of being overly reliant on a platform that might sort of pull the rug out from under you,” Briscoe said. “That’s not helping with that sort of trust level between the political advertisers for sure and the platforms.”

Basis, whose technology is used by political campaigns, saw a 1,500% increase in spending on connected TV devices in the first half of 2022 compared to the first half of 2020, Briscoe said. That’s especially significant considering there’s no presidential contest this cycle, which typically means lower turnout.

Two years ago, streaming platforms made up a small share of overall political ad spending, though many experts predicted it would grow over time. The pandemic accelerated that trend since so many consumers turned to streaming platforms while stuck at home, and content for cord-cutters proliferated.

Total ad spending on connected TV platforms climbed 57% in 2021 to $15.2 billion and is expected to jump another 39% this year to $21.2 billion, according to the Interactive Advertising Bureau. Ad tracking firm AdImpact projected that of the $9.7 billion spent on political ads this cycle, $1.4 billion would go to connected TVs.

John Padua, vice president of media buying at Trilogy Interactive, said some of his agency’s spending that had been on Facebook has been redirected toward streaming.

That last week of ads before an election is so important, Padua said, because you’re “trying to find those last five, 10 thousand votes that could make the biggest difference in a congressional election, particularly in a potential wave year.”

He added that you get a last chance to respond to a “bit of polling that tells us that we need to shore up a certain demographic or people who have certain issues.”

Padua, whose agency has worked for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Sen. Raphael Warnock, D-Ga, said Trilogy is still going to do last-minute ads, but “we’re going to just put that message out on different platforms, and Facebook is just going to be cut out of buying.”

Sen. Warnock holds slight lead in tight Georgia race

Facebook parent company Meta declined to comment for this story.

Advertisers stressed that spending on Facebook and other social platforms is still valuable and an important part of the overall mix. Political groups and lawmakers spent around $84 million on Facebook ads during the third quarter of 2022, with around $58 million spent on direct response advertising, according to Ad Impact.

But every source who spoke on the topic to CNBC said Facebook is not as effective as in past cycles, leading many to search out other options like streaming.

Smart TVs provide a medium that’s already quite familiar to political advertisers: television. Advertisers said that TV ads tend to be more about persuasion and telling a story than ads on Facebook.

Interest in connected TV and over-the-top platforms has “skyrocketed” since the 2020 presidential elections, said Joe Marino, the head of client success at Madhive, which helps companies run and manage ad campaigns across streaming services. “Going into this cycle now, streaming is literally a part of every single buy, and it’s a big part of it,” Marino said.

He added that the platforms have matured dramatically and have made it much simpler to run campaigns than in the past, approaching Facebook-like ease.

“The beauty in digital is that budgets can be fluid,” Marino said, contrasting streaming with traditional linear television. “You can cancel them on a dime and move them on a dime.”

Briscoe said the targeting has gotten much better as well. Streaming services now have the type of location and behavioral click-through data that advertisers highly value in efficiently getting their message out.

“It is actually much easier for campaigns to scale connected TV, even down to like a state legislative district, which was not possible two years ago even,” Briscoe said. “Two years ago, we were excited if a connected-TV campaign could scale in a congressional district. Now, you’re getting much more narrow.”

Roku CEO Anthony Wood said after his company’s second-quarter earnings report in July that “political is a good vertical for us, a scenario that’s growing” even though it was “not a huge business” at the time. Roku and Amazon lead the U.S. market for streaming devices.

‘Completely performative’

Just as new ad avenues are popping up, a persisting issue for Facebook, advertisers say, is that the restrictions the company put on political campaigns in 2020 haven’t been effective at slowing the spread of misinformation.

Hate speech and conspiracy theories have continued to run rampant on Facebook, despite community guidelines that ban such behavior. But much of that content comes from people who post it for free, rather than paid placements.

“I don’t think the problem on these platforms, whether it’s Facebook or Google, was ever advertising,” said Patrick McHugh, a partner at Gambit Strategies, which focuses on online mobilization for Democratic causes and candidates. He called Facebook’s policies “completely performative.”

“They’ve utilized political advertising as sort of the facade that they then use to put restrictions on because they like to claim that fixes the problem,” McHugh added. “The truth is, if they really did fix the actual problem, that is rooted in their algorithm that will cost them money.”

It doesn’t help that Facebook has turned into a punching bag on Capitol Hill by many of the same politicians who relied on the site for prior campaigning.

Facebook co-founder, Chairman and CEO Mark Zuckerberg testifies before the House Energy and Commerce Committee in the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill April 11, 2018 in Washington, DC.

Yasin Ozturk | Anadolu Agency | Getty Images

Facebook executives have been called to Washington numerous times in recent years to testify about the legal liability that protects social media, antitrust issues facing Big Tech and, most recently, the whistleblower revelations last year about the company’s unwillingness to make changes despite knowing some of the content it hosts is harming users.

Marino said that during past crises advertisers have shifted budgets away from Facebook, only to come back when the temperature cooled. That occurred after the Cambridge Analytica scandal of 2018, which was explosive at the time and eventually led the company to settle a lawsuit. Facebook’s business momentum quickly recovered, however.

“If you see any press about Facebook that’s negative, generally budgets flow out of that really quickly into other channels,” Marino said. “They’ll flow back once people pretend to forget.”

This cycle has a distinctly different tone, though. So many changes have taken place with Facebook’s business and the broad ad ecosystem that advertisers are suggesting the latest shift away to other platforms seems more permanent.

Republican political consultant Luke Thompson said that while Facebook is still “essential for fundraising and volunteer organizing,” it no longer has the tools necessary to attract broader campaigns.

Apple’s crackdown has indeed diminished Facebook’s position in political advertising. But Thompson said it started with the “reputational damage from the Cambridge Analytica scandal,” which he described as a cynical effort by lawmakers to try and convince the public of election interference.

“Since then, the platform has become much less open, more rigid, and less willing to share outcome data,” Thompson said.

WATCH: Meta’s Horizon World active user expectations are a clear disappointment.

Meta's Horizon World active user expectations are a clear disappointment, says Loup's Munster

Continue Reading

Technology

Why it’s time to take warnings about using public Wi-Fi, in places like airports, seriously

Published

on

By

Why it's time to take warnings about using public Wi-Fi, in places like airports, seriously

Over the years, travelers have repeatedly been warned to avoid public Wi-Fi in places like airports and coffee shops. Airport Wi-Fi, in particular, is known to be a hacker honeypot, due to what is typically relatively lax security. But even though many people know they should stay away from free Wi-Fi, it proves as irresistible to travelers as it is to hackers, who are now updating an old cybercrime tactic to take advantage.

An arrest in Australia over the summer set off alarm bells in the United States that cybercriminals are finding new ways to profit from what are called “evil twin” attacks. Also classified within a type of cybercrime called “Man in the Middle” attacks, evil twinning occurs when a hacker or hacking group sets up a fake Wi-Fi network, most often in public settings where many users can be expected to connect.

In this instance, an Australian man was charged with conducting a Wi-Fi attack on domestic flights and airports in Perth, Melbourne, and Adelaide. He allegedly set up a fake Wi-Fi network to steal email or social media credentials.

“As the general population becomes more accustomed to free Wi-Fi everywhere, you can expect evil twinning attacks to become more common,” said Matt Radolec, vice president of incident response and cloud operations at data security firm Varonis, adding that no one reads the terms and conditions or checks the URLs on free Wi-Fi.

“It’s almost a game to see how fast you can click “accept” and then ‘sign in’ or ‘connect.’ This is the ploy, especially when visiting a new location; a user might not even know what a legitimate site should look like when presented with a fake site,” Radolec said.

Today’s ‘evil twins’ can more easily hide

One of the dangers of today’s twinning attacks is that the technology is much easier to disguise. An evil twin can be a tiny device and can be tucked behind a display in a coffee shop, and the small device can have a significant impact.

“A device like this can serve up a compelling copy of a valid login page, which could invite unwary device users to enter their username and password, which would then be collected for future exploitation,” said Cincinnati-based IT consultant Brian Alcorn. 

The site doesn’t even have to actually log you in. “Once you’ve entered your information, the deed is done,” Alcorn said, adding that a harried, weary traveler probably would just think the airport Wi-Fi is having issues and not give it another thought.  

People who are not careful with passwords, such as use of pet’s names or favorite sports teams as their password for everything, are even more vulnerable to an evil twin attack. Alcorn says for individuals who reuse username and password combinations online, once the credentials are obtained they can be fed into AI, where its power can quickly give cybercriminals the key.

“You are susceptible to exploitation by someone with less than $500 in equipment and less skill than you might imagine,” Alcorn said. “The attacker just has to be motivated with basic IT skills.”

How to avoid becoming a victim of this cybercrime

When in public places, experts say it’s best to use alternatives to public WiFi networks.

“My favorite way to avoid evil twin attacks is to use your phone’s mobile hotspot if possible,” said Brian Callahan, Director of the Rensselaer Cybersecurity Collaboratory at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.

Users would be able to spot an attack if through a phone relying on its mobile data and sharing it via a mobile hotspot.

“You will know the name of that network since you made it, and you can put a strong password that only you know on it to connect,” Callahan said.

If a hotspot isn’t an option, a VPN can also provide some protection, Callahan said, as traffic should be encrypted to and from the VPN.

“So even if someone else can see the data, they can’t do anything about it,” he said.

Airport, airline internet security issues

At many airports, the responsibility for WiFi is outsourced and the airport itself has little if any involvement in safeguarding it. At Dallas Fort Worth International Airport, for example, Boingo is the Wi-Fi provider.

“The airport’s IT team does not have access to their systems, nor can we see usage and dashboards,” For said an airport spokesman. “The network is isolated from DAL’s systems as it is a separate standalone system with no direct connection to any of the City of Dallas’ networks or systems internally.” 

A spokeswoman for Boingo, which provides service to approximately 60 airports in North America, said it can identify rogue Wi-Fi access points through its network management. “The best way passengers can be protected is by using Passpoint, which uses encryption to automatically connect users to authenticated Wi-Fi for a safe online experience,” she said, adding that Boingo has offered Passpoint since 2012 to enhance Wi-Fi security and eliminate the risk of connecting to malicious hotspots.

Alcorn says evil twin attacks are “definitely” occurring with regularity in the United States, it’s just rare for someone to get caught because they are such stealth attacks.  And sometimes hackers use these attacks as a learning model. “Many evil twin attacks may be experimental by individuals with novice-to-intermediate skills just to see if they can do it and get away with it, even if they don’t use the collected information right away,” he said.

The surprise in Australia wasn’t the evil twinning attack itself, but the arrest.

“This incident isn’t unique, but it is unusual that the suspect was arrested,” said Aaron Walton, threat analyst at Expel, a managed services security company. “Generally, airlines are not equipped and prepared to handle or mediate hacking accusations. The typical lack of arrests and punitive action should motivate travelers to exercise caution with their own data, knowing what a tempting and usually unguarded -target it is — especially at the airport.”

In the Australian case, according to Australian Federal Police, dozens of people had their credentials stolen.

According to a press release from the AFP, “When people tried to connect their devices to the free WiFi networks, they were taken to a fake webpage requiring them to sign in using their email or social media logins. Those details were then allegedly saved to the man’s devices.”  

Once those credentials were harvested, they could be used to extract more information from the victims, including bank account information.

For hackers to be successful, they don’t have to dupe everyone. If they can persuade only a handful of people – statistically easy to do when thousands of harried and hurried people are milling around an airport – they will succeed.

“We expect WI-Fi to be everywhere. When you go to a hotel, or an airport, or a coffee shop, or even just out and about, we expect there to be Wi-Fi and often freely available WI-FI,” Callahan said. “After all, what’s yet another network name in the long list when you’re at an airport? An attacker doesn’t need everyone to connect to their evil twin, only some people who go on to put credentials into websites that can be stolen.”

The next time you’re at the airport, the only way to be 100% sure you’re safe is to bring your own Wi-Fi.

Continue Reading

Technology

Inside one of the first all-female hacker houses in San Francisco

Published

on

By

Inside one of the first all-female hacker houses in San Francisco

For Molly Cantillon, living in a hacker house wasn’t just a dream, but a necessity.

“I had lived in a few hacker houses before and wanted to replicate that energy,” said Cantillon, 20, co-founder of HackHer House and founder of the startup NOX. “A place where really energetic, hardcore people came together to solve problems. But every house I lived in was mostly male. It was obvious to me that I wanted to do the inverse and build an all-female hacker house that created the same dynamic but with women.”

Cantillon, who has lived in several hacker houses over the years, saw a need for a space dedicated exclusively to women. That’s why she co-founded HackHer House, the first all-female hacker house in the San Francisco Bay Area.

“A hacker house is a shared living space where builders and innovators come together to work on their own projects while collaborating with others,” said Jennifer Li, General Partner at Andreessen Horowitz and sponsor of the HackHer House. “It’s a community that thrives on creativity and resource sharing, making it a cost-effective solution for those in high-rent areas like Silicon Valley, where talented founders and engineers can easily connect and support each other.”

Founded by Cantillon, Zoya Garg, Anna Monaco and Anne Brandes, this house was designed to empower women in a tech world traditionally dominated by men. 

“We’re trying to break stereotypes here,” said Garg, 21, a rising senior at Stanford University. “This house isn’t just about living together; it’s about creating a community where women can thrive in tech.”

Located in North Beach, HackHer House was home this summer to seven women, all of whom share the goal of launching successful ventures in tech. 

Venture capital played a key role in making HackHer House possible. With financial backing, the house offered subsidized rent, allowing the women to focus on their projects instead of struggling with the Bay Area’s notoriously high living costs.

“New grad students face daunting living expenses, with campus costs reaching the high hundreds to over a thousand dollars a month,” said Li. “In the Bay Area, finding a comfortable room typically starts at $2,000, and while prices may have eased slightly, they remain significantly higher than the rest of the U.S. This reality forces many, including founders, to share rooms or crash on friends’ couches just to make ends meet.” 

Hacker houses aren’t new to the Bay Area or cities like New York and London. These live-in incubators serve as homes and workspaces, offering a collaborative environment where tech founders and innovators can share ideas and resources. In a city renowned for tech advancements, hacker houses are viewed as critical for driving the next wave of innovation. By providing affordable housing and a vibrant community, these spaces enable entrepreneurs to thrive in an otherwise cutthroat and expensive market.

Watch this video to see how Hacker House is shaping the future of women in tech.

Continue Reading

Technology

Elon Musk’s X will be allowed back online in Brazil after paying one more fine

Published

on

By

Elon Musk's X will be allowed back online in Brazil after paying one more fine

The Federal Supreme Court (STF) in Brazil suspends Elon Musk’s social network after it fails to comply with orders from Minister Alexandre de Moraes to block accounts of those being investigated by the Brazilian justice system. 

Cris Faga | Nurphoto | Getty Images

X has to pay one last fine before the social network owned by Elon Musk is allowed back online in Brazil, according to a decision out Friday from the country’s top justice, Alexandre de Moraes.

The platform was suspended nationwide at the end of August, a decision upheld by a panel of judges on Sept. 2. Earlier this month, X filed paperwork informing Brazil’s supreme court that it is now in compliance with orders, which it previously defied.

As Brazil’s G1 Globo reported, X must now pay a new fine of 10 million reals (about $2 million) for two additional days of non-compliance with the court’s orders. X’s legal representative in Brazil, Rachel de Oliveira, is also required to pay a fine of 300,000 reals.

The case dates back to April, when de Moraes, the minister of Brazil’s supreme court, known as Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF), initiated a probe into Musk and X over alleged obstruction of justice.

Musk had vowed to defy the court’s orders to take down certain accounts in Brazil. He called the court’s actions “censorship,” and railed online against de Moraes, describing the judge as a “criminal” and encouraging the U.S. to end foreign aid to Brazil.

In mid-August, Musk closed down X offices in Brazil. That left his company without a legal representative in the country, a federal requirement for all tech platforms to do business there.

By Aug. 28, de Moraes’ court threatened a ban and fines if X didn’t appoint a legal representative within 24 hours, and if it didn’t comply with takedown requests for accounts the court said had engaged in plots to dox or harm federal agents, among other things.

Earlier this month, the STF froze the business assets of Musk companies, including both X and satellite internet business Starlink, operating in Brazil. The STF said in court filings that it viewed Starlink parent SpaceX and X as companies that worked together as related parties.

Musk wrote in a post on X at that time that, “Unless the Brazilian government returns the illegally seized property of and SpaceX, we will seek reciprocal seizure of government assets too.”

On August 29, 2024, in Brazil, the Minister of the Supreme Court, STF Minister Alexandre de Moraes, orders the blocking of the accounts of another company, Starlink, of Elon Musk, to guarantee the payment of fines imposed by the STF due to the lack of representatives of X in Brazil. 

Ton Molina | Nurphoto | Getty Images

As head of the STF, de Moraes has long supported federal regulations to rein in hate speech and misinformation online. His views have garnered pushback from tech companies and far-right officials in the country, along with former President Jair Bolsonaro and his supporters.

Bolsonaro is under investigation, suspected of orchestrating a coup in Brazil after losing the 2022 presidential election to current President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.

While Musk has called for retribution against de Moraes and Lula, he has worked with and praised Bolsonaro for years. The former president of Brazil authorized SpaceX to deliver satellite internet services commercially in Brazil in 2022.

Musk bills himself as a free speech defender, but his track record suggests otherwise. Under his management, X removed content critical of ruling parties in Turkey and India at the government’s insistence. X agreed to more than 80% of government take-down requests in 2023 over a comparable period the prior year, according to analysis by the tech news site Rest of World.

X faces increased competition in Brazil from social apps like Meta-owned Threads, and Bluesky, which have attracted users during its suspension.

Starlink also faces competition in Brazil from eSpace, a French-American firm that gained permission this year from the National Telecommunications Agency (Anatel) to deliver satellite internet services in the country.

Lukas Darien, an attorney and law professor at Brazil’s Facex University Center, told CNBC that the STF’s enforcement actions against X are likely to change the way large technology companies will view the court.

“There is no change to the law here,” Darien wrote in a message. “But specifically, big tech companies are now aware that the laws will be applied regardless of the size of a business and the magnitude of its reach in the country.”

Musk and representatives for X didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on Friday.

Late Thursday, X Global Government Affairs posted the following statement:

“X is committed to protecting free speech within the boundaries of the law and we recognize and respect the sovereignty of the countries in which we operate. We believe that the people of Brazil having access to X is essential for a thriving democracy, and we will continue to defend freedom of expression and due process of law through legal processes.”

WATCH: X is a financial ‘disaster’

Elon Musk's X is a financial 'disaster,' co-authors of new book 'Character Limit' say

Continue Reading

Trending