skip to main content
10.1145/3411764.3445082acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Best Paper

Clandestino or Rifugiato?Anti-immigration Facebook Ad Targeting in Italy✱

Published:07 May 2021Publication History

ABSTRACT

Monitoring advertising around controversial issues is an important step in ensuring accountability and transparency of political processes. To that end, we use the Facebook Ads Library to collect 2312 migration-related advertising campaigns in Italy over one year. Our pro- and anti-immigration classifier (F1=0.85) reveals a partisan divide among the major Italian political parties, with anti-immigration ads accounting for nearly 15M impressions. Although composing 47.6% of all migration-related ads, anti-immigration ones receive 65.2% of impressions. We estimate that about two thirds of all captured campaigns use some kind of demographic targeting by location, gender, or age. We find sharp divides by age and gender: for instance, anti-immigration ads from major parties are 17% more likely to be seen by a male user than a female. Unlike pro-migration parties, we find that anti-immigration ones reach a similar demographic to their own voters. However their audience change with topic: an ad from anti-immigration parties is 24% more likely to be seen by a male user when the ad speaks about migration, than if it does not. Furthermore, the viewership of such campaigns tends to follow the volume of mainstream news around immigration, supporting the theory that political advertisers try to “ride the wave” of current news. We conclude with policy implications for political communication: since the Facebook Ads Library does not allow to distinguish between advertisers intentions and algorithmic targeting, we argue that more details should be shared by platforms regarding the targeting configuration of socio-political campaigns.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

3411764.3445082_videopreview.mp4

Preview video

mp4

3.3 MB

References

  1. Muhammad Ali, Piotr Sapiezynski, Miranda Bogen, Aleksandra Korolova, Alan Mislove, and Aaron Rieke. 2019. Discrimination through Optimization: How Facebook’s Ad Delivery Can Lead to Biased Outcomes. In CSCW ’19: Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, Vol. 3. ACM, USA, 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359301Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Silvia Amaro. 2020. Salvini’s Return? A Regional Vote in Italy Risks Further Chaos in Rome. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/13/matteo-salvini-return-a-regional-vote-in-italy-risks-further-chaos-in-rome.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Stephen Ansolabehere and Shanto Iyengar. 1994. Riding the wave and claiming ownership over issues: The joint effects of advertising and news coverage in campaigns. Public Opinion Quarterly 58, 3 (1994), 335–357.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Scott R Baker, Nicholas Bloom, and Steven J Davis. 2016. Measuring economic policy uncertainty. The quarterly journal of economics 131, 4 (2016), 1593–1636.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. David Beer, Joanna Redden, Ben Williamson, and Simon Yuill. 2019. Landscape summary: Online targeting: What is online targeting, what impact does it have, and how can we maximise benefits and minimise harms?Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Giorgia Bulli and Sorina Christina Soare. 2018. Immigration and crisis in a new immigration country: The case of Italy. Hrvatska i komparativna javna uprava: časopis za teoriju i praksu javne uprave 18, 1 (2018), 127–156.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Arthur Capozzi, Gianmarco De Francisci Morales, Yelena Mejova, Corrado Monti, André Panisson, and Daniela Paolotti. 2020. Facebook Ads: Politics of Migration in Italy. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Social Informatics, SocInfo 2020(Lecture Notes in Computer Science). Springer, Pisa, Italy, 43–57.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Ana Caraban, Evangelos Karapanos, Daniel Gonçalves, and Pedro Campos. 2019. 23 ways to nudge: A review of technology-mediated nudging in human-computer interaction. In CHI ’19: Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, UK, 1–15.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Benedetta Carlotti and Stella Gianfreda. 2020. Do Populists Talk the Same? A Multilevel Analysis of the Northern League and Five Star Movements’ Positions on Immigration and the European Union. In Anti-Europeanism. Springer, Germany, 163–183.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Commissione Europea. 2019. Opinione pubblica nell’Unione europea, Italia, Autunno 2019. https://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/index.cfm/ResultDoc/download/DocumentKy/89541Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Alessio Cornia. 2019. Digital News Report 2019. http://www.digitalnewsreport.org/survey/2019/italy-2019/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Fabrizio Coticchia and Valerio Vignoli. 2020. Populist parties and foreign policy: The case of Italy’s Five Star Movement. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations (2020), 1369148120922808.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Eugenio Cusumano and Kristof Gombeer. 2020. In deep waters: The legal, humanitarian and political implications of closing Italian ports to migrant rescuers. Mediterranean Politics 25, 2 (2020), 245–253.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Kareem Darwish, Walid Magdy, and Tahar Zanouda. 2017. Trump vs. Hillary: What went viral during the 2016 US presidential election. In International conference on social informatics. Springer, Canada, 143–161.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Michela Del Vicario, Gianna Vivaldo, Alessandro Bessi, Fabiana Zollo, Antonio Scala, Guido Caldarelli, and Walter Quattrociocchi. 2016. Echo Chambers: Emotional Contagion and Group Polarization on Facebook. Scientific reports 6(2016), 37825.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Patrick Diamond. 2019. The Italian Democratic Party and Social Democratic Parties in Europe.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Katharine Dommett and Sam Power. 2019. The political economy of Facebook advertising: Election spending, regulation and targeting online. The Political Quarterly 90, 2 (2019), 257–265.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Vincenzo Emanuele, Nicola Maggini, and Aldo Paparo. 2020. The times they are a-changin’: party campaign strategies in the 2018 Italian election. West European Politics 43, 3 (2020), 665–687.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Adam Entous, Craig Timberg, and Elizabeth Dwoskin. 2017. Russian operatives used Facebook ads to exploit America’s racial and religious divisions.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Motahhare Eslami, Sneha R. Krishna Kumaran, Christian Sandvig, and Karrie Karahalios. 2018. Communicating Algorithmic Process in Online Behavioral Advertising. In CHI ’18: Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Canada. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174006Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Facebook. 2020. New Steps to Protect the US Elections. https://about.fb.com/news/2020/09/additional-steps-to-protect-the-us-elections/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Francesca Falk. 2010. Invasion, infection, invisibility: An iconology of illegalized immigration. Technical Report. Basel University Library.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Brian J Fogg. 2002. Persuasive technology: using computers to change what we think and do. Ubiquity 2002, December (2002), 2.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Lucio Formigoni and Mattia Forni. 2018. Elezioni Politiche. https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2018-03/elezioni_politiche_2018_-_analisi_post-voto_ipsos-twig_0.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. FRONTEX. 2020. Migratory Routes. https://frontex.europa.eu/along-eu-borders/migratory-routes/central-mediterranean-routeGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Kiran Garimella, Gianmarco De Francisci Morales, Aristides Gionis, and Michael Mathioudakis. 2018. Political discourse on social media: Echo chambers, gatekeepers, and the price of bipartisanship. In Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference. 913–922.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Andrew Geddes and Andrea Pettrachin. 2020. Italian migration policy and politics: Exacerbating paradoxes. Contemporary Italian Politics1 (2020), 1–16.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. April Glaser. 2019. When Things Go Wrong for Blind Users on Facebook, They Go Really Wrong. Slate (2019). https://slate.com/technology/2019/11/facebook-blind-users-no-accessibility.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Google. 2020. Political advertising in the United States. https://transparencyreport.google.com/political-ads/region/USGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Beppe Grillo. 2013. The Citizen in Power. http://www.beppegrillo.it/en/2012/06/the_citizen_in_power.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Ivan Habernal and Iryna Gurevych. 2017. Argumentation mining in user-generated web discourse. Computational Linguistics 43, 1 (2017), 125–179.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Jason Hannan. 2018. Trolling ourselves to death? Social media and post-truth politics. European Journal of Communication 33, 2 (2018), 214–226.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Ariel Hasell and Brian E Weeks. 2016. Partisan provocation: The role of partisan news use and emotional responses in political information sharing in social media. Human Communication Research 42, 4 (2016), 641–661.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Anthony Heath, Peter Schmidt, Eva GT Green, Alice Ramos, Eldad Davidov, and Robert Ford. 2014. Attitudes towards Immigration and their Antecedents.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Alex Hern. 2019. Facebook to curb microtargeting in political advertising. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/nov/22/facebook-to-curb-microtargeting-in-political-advertisingGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Gilles Ivaldi, Maria Elisabetta Lanzone, and Dwayne Woods. 2017. Varieties of Populism across a Left-Right Spectrum: The Case of the Front National, the Northern League, Podemos and Five Star Movement. Swiss Political Science Review 23, 4 (2017), 354–376.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Jeff Johnson, Manoj Hastak, Bernard J. Jansen, and Devesh Raval. 2018. Analyzing Advertising Labels. In Extended Abstracts of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3170427.3188533Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Christian Joppke 1998. Challenge to the nation-state: Immigration in Western Europe and the United States. Oxford University Press on Demand.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Justin O. Frosini and Erik Jones and Gianfranco Pasquino. 2020. Emilia-Romagna: a setback for Salvini or a comeback for the left?Johns Hopkins University SAIS Europe. https://www.bipr.eu/PROFILESUMMARIES/20200130.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Daphne Keller and Paddy Leerssen. 2020. Facts and Where to Find Them: Empirical Research on Internet Platforms and Content Moderation. Social Media and Democracy: The State of the Field, Prospects for Reform (2020), 220.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Heike Klüver and Iñaki Sagarzazu. 2016. Setting the agenda or responding to voters? Political parties, voters and issue attention. West European Politics 39, 2 (2016), 380–398.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. Daniel Kreiss and Shannon C McGregor. 2019. The “arbiters of what our voters see”: Facebook and Google’s struggle with policy, process, and enforcement around political advertising. Political Communication 36, 4 (2019), 499–522.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. Klaus Krippendorff. 2011. Agreement and information in the reliability of coding. Communication Methods and Measures 5, 2 (2011), 93–112.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Will Kymlicka. 2010. The rise and fall of multiculturalism? New debates on inclusion and accommodation in diverse societies. International social science journal 61, 199 (2010), 97–112.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. Changjun Lee, Jieun Shin, and Ahreum Hong. 2018. Does social media use really make people politically polarized? Direct and indirect effects of social media use on political polarization in South Korea. Telematics and Informatics 35, 1 (2018), 245–254.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. Min Kyung Lee, Sara Kiesler, and Jodi Forlizzi. 2011. Mining behavioral economics to design persuasive technology for healthy choices. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 325–334.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Kalev Leetaru and Philip A Schrodt. 2013. Gdelt: Global data on events, location, and tone. , 49 pages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Robert G Magee and Sriram Kalyanaraman. 2010. The perceived moral qualities of web sites: implications for persuasion processes in human–computer interaction. Ethics and Information Technology 12, 2 (2010), 109–125.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Maxwell McCombs and Amy Reynolds. 2002. News influence on our pictures of the world. In Media effects. Routledge, 11–28.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Lorenzo Mosca and Filippo Tronconi. 2019. Beyond left and right: the eclectic populism of the Five Star Movement. West European Politics 42, 6 (2019), 1258–1283.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  51. Paolo Natale. 2014. The birth, early history and explosive growth of the Five Star Movement. Contemporary Italian Politics 6, 1 (2014), 16–36.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  52. Simone Natale and Andrea Ballatore. 2014. The web will kill them all: new media, digital utopia, and political struggle in the Italian 5-Star Movement. Media, Culture & Society 36, 1 (2014), 105–121.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  53. Lata Nott. 2020. Political Advertising on Social Media Platforms. American Bar Association(2020). https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/voting-in-2020/political-advertising-on-social-media-platforms/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Nando Pagnoncelli, Luca Comodo, and Mattia Forni. 2019. Elezioni Europee 2019 Analisi Post-Voto. https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2019-05/elezioni_europee_2019_-_analisi_post-voto_ipsos-twig.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Chankyung Pak. 2017. News Company’s Link Sharing on Twitter as Informative Advertising and Content Signaling. In Extended Abstracts of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 312–315.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. Nicola Pasini and Marta Regalia. 2019. The 2018 Italian General Elections: Focus on Immigration. The Twenty-fourth Italian Report on Migrations 2018 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Charlie Pinder. 2017. The Anti-Influence Engine: Escaping the Diabolical Machine of Pervasive Advertising. In Extended Abstracts of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 770–781.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. Fabio Poletto, Valerio Basile, Cristina Bosco, Viviana Patti, and Marco Stranisci. 2019. Annotating hate speech: Three schemes at comparison. In 6th Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics, CLiC-it 2019, Vol. 2481. CEUR-WS, 1–8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. Kairania Qalbi and Gita Prasulistiyono Putra. 2020. Aranyani. id–The Design of Reforestation Funding Program Using Mobile Advertising Application. In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–6.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  60. David Ramsay and Joseph A Paradiso. 2019. YourAd: A User Aligned, Personal Advertising System. In Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–6.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. Marilyn Roberts and Maxwell McCombs. 1994. Agenda setting and political advertising: Origins of the news agenda. Political communication 11, 3 (1994), 249–262.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. Bryan C Semaan, Scott P Robertson, Sara Douglas, and Misa Maruyama. 2014. Social media supporting political deliberation across multiple public spheres: towards depolarization. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work & social computing. 1409–1421.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  63. John Sides and Jack Citrin. 2007. European opinion about immigration: The role of identities, interests and information. British journal of political science(2007), 477–504.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  64. Anthony Smith. 2013. Nations and nationalism in a global era. John Wiley & Sons.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  65. Till Speicher, Muhammad Ali, Giridhari Venkatadri, Filipe Ribeiro, George Arvanitakis, Fabrício Benevenuto, Krishna Gummadi, Patrick Loiseau, and Alan Mislove. 2018. Potential for discrimination in online targeted advertising. In FAT 2018-Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, Vol. 81. 1–15.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  66. Nick Squires. 2019. Italy’s League files no confidence motion in prime minister in bid to trigger election. The Telegraph (2019). https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/08/09/italys-league-files-no-confidence-motion-prime-minister-inbid/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  67. Cass R Sunstein. 2018. # Republic: Divided democracy in the age of social media. Princeton University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  68. Michael Swart, Ylana Lopez, Arunesh Mathur, and Marshini Chetty. 2020. Is This An Ad?: Automatically Disclosing Online Endorsements On YouTube With AdIntuition. In CHI ’2020: Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–12.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  69. Esther Thorson, Samuel Tham, and Weiyue Chen. 2018. Attention to Political Advertising During High-Salience Political News Events. In American Academy of Advertising. Conference. Proceedings (Online). American Academy of Advertising, 174–175.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  70. Joshua A Tucker, Andrew Guess, Pablo Barberá, Cristian Vaccari, Alexandra Siegel, Sergey Sanovich, Denis Stukal, and Brendan Nyhan. 2018. Social media, political polarization, and political disinformation: A review of the scientific literature. Political polarization, and political disinformation: a review of the scientific literature (March 19, 2018)(2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  71. Siva Vaidhyanathan. 2017. Facebook wins, democracy loses. New York Times 8(2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  72. Marjan Van de Kauter, Bart Desmet, and Véronique Hoste. 2015. The good, the bad and the implicit: a comprehensive approach to annotating explicit and implicit sentiment. Language resources and evaluation 49, 3 (2015), 685–720.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  73. Marijn Van Klingeren, Hajo G Boomgaarden, and Claes H De Vreese. 2017. Will conflict tear us apart? The effects of conflict and valenced media messages on polarizing attitudes toward EU immigration and border control. Public Opinion Quarterly 81, 2 (2017), 543–563.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  74. Human Rights Watch. 2020. European Union, Events of 2019. https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2020/country-chapters/european-unionGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  75. Patrick Wintour. 2017. Italian minister defends methods that led to 87% drop in migrants from Libya. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/07/italian-minister-migrants-libya-marco-minnitiGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  76. Samuel C Woolley and Philip N Howard. 2018. Computational propaganda: political parties, politicians, and political manipulation on social media. Oxford University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Clandestino or Rifugiato?Anti-immigration Facebook Ad Targeting in Italy✱
        Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          CHI '21: Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
          May 2021
          10862 pages
          ISBN:9781450380966
          DOI:10.1145/3411764

          Copyright © 2021 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 7 May 2021

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article
          • Research
          • Refereed limited

          Acceptance Rates

          Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

          Upcoming Conference

          CHI PLAY '24
          The Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play
          October 14 - 17, 2024
          Tampere , Finland

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader

        HTML Format

        View this article in HTML Format .

        View HTML Format