监测数字竞选活动:评估英国的透明度生态系统

IF 2.1 3区 社会学 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Politics Pub Date : 2023-03-14 DOI:10.1177/02633957231156084
K. Dommett, S. Power
{"title":"监测数字竞选活动:评估英国的透明度生态系统","authors":"K. Dommett, S. Power","doi":"10.1177/02633957231156084","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Digital election campaigning has undergone increased levels of scrutiny in recent years, with numerous calls for improved transparency. One key innovation has been the creation of online advertising archives offered by social media platforms such as Facebook, Google, and Snapchat. In this article, we compare what we know about digital campaigning in the United Kingdom from official election returns and Facebook and Google’s online advertising archives. We analyse whether both transparency sources provide agreed standards of completeness, consistency, accuracy, and accessibility. We find that – despite the United Kingdom having an effectively world-leading transparency regime – this is not the case. We therefore consider a number of potential reforms to increase knowledge of the workings of campaigns at the national level.","PeriodicalId":47206,"journal":{"name":"Politics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Monitoring digital election campaigns: Assessing the transparency ecosystem in the United Kingdom\",\"authors\":\"K. Dommett, S. Power\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/02633957231156084\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Digital election campaigning has undergone increased levels of scrutiny in recent years, with numerous calls for improved transparency. One key innovation has been the creation of online advertising archives offered by social media platforms such as Facebook, Google, and Snapchat. In this article, we compare what we know about digital campaigning in the United Kingdom from official election returns and Facebook and Google’s online advertising archives. We analyse whether both transparency sources provide agreed standards of completeness, consistency, accuracy, and accessibility. We find that – despite the United Kingdom having an effectively world-leading transparency regime – this is not the case. We therefore consider a number of potential reforms to increase knowledge of the workings of campaigns at the national level.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47206,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Politics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Politics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/02633957231156084\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Politics","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02633957231156084","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

近年来,数字竞选活动受到了越来越多的审查,许多人呼吁提高透明度。一项关键创新是创建了由Facebook、谷歌和Snapchat等社交媒体平台提供的在线广告档案。在这篇文章中,我们比较了我们从官方选举报告、脸书和谷歌的在线广告档案中对英国数字竞选活动的了解。我们分析这两个透明度来源是否提供了完整性、一致性、准确性和可访问性的商定标准。我们发现,尽管英国拥有一个有效的世界领先的透明度制度,但事实并非如此。因此,我们考虑进行一些潜在的改革,以增加对国家一级运动运作的了解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Monitoring digital election campaigns: Assessing the transparency ecosystem in the United Kingdom
Digital election campaigning has undergone increased levels of scrutiny in recent years, with numerous calls for improved transparency. One key innovation has been the creation of online advertising archives offered by social media platforms such as Facebook, Google, and Snapchat. In this article, we compare what we know about digital campaigning in the United Kingdom from official election returns and Facebook and Google’s online advertising archives. We analyse whether both transparency sources provide agreed standards of completeness, consistency, accuracy, and accessibility. We find that – despite the United Kingdom having an effectively world-leading transparency regime – this is not the case. We therefore consider a number of potential reforms to increase knowledge of the workings of campaigns at the national level.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Politics
Politics Multiple-
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: Politics publishes cutting-edge peer-reviewed analysis in politics and international studies. The ethos of Politics is the dissemination of timely, research-led reflections on the state of the art, the state of the world and the state of disciplinary pedagogy that make significant and original contributions to the disciplines of political and international studies. Politics is pluralist with regards to approaches, theories, methods, and empirical foci. Politics publishes articles from 4000 to 8000 words in length. We welcome 3 types of articles from scholars at all stages of their careers: Accessible presentations of state of the art research; Research-led analyses of contemporary events in politics or international relations; Theoretically informed and evidence-based research on learning and teaching in politics and international studies. We are open to articles providing accounts of where teaching innovation may have produced mixed results, so long as reasons why these results may have been mixed are analysed.
期刊最新文献
Legacies of States and Social Revolutions Decolonising politics curricula: Exploring the experiences and views of racially minoritised students ‘Importing’ the personal vote to maximise the party vote? ‘Parachute personalization’ in an intraparty preference electoral system The European Union, immigration and the Left–Right divide: Explaining voting preferences for Western European radical right parties Reflections on an anniversary
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1