Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

What Americans think companies should do about online political ads

Data privacy

According to a new survey, Americans oppose microtargeting of political ads, which depends on access to user data.

BrianAJackson/Getty Images

A majority of Americans want internet companies to do more to regulate the flow, transparency and content of political advertising.

A Knight Foundation-Gallup survey released Monday revealed surprisingly broad consensus among Americans that social networks, not politicians, should be held accountable for the dissemination of misinformation in campaign ads.

Americans are especially opposed to the microtargeting of political ads, which means putting a spot before a highly segmented slice of the electorate by harnessing user data collected by tech platforms such as Google or Facebook. That has become one of the most hotly disputed practices in a campaign season where deceptive marketing is seen as one of the biggest challenges to a healthy democracy.


Seven out of 10 Americans surveyed opposed such microtargeting by web-based firms, with a strong majority of Democrats (69 percent) and Republicans (75 percent) agreeing that "no information" should be used to tailor online political messaging that appears on websites.

Only 7 percent supported internet companies using "any available information" to microtarget ads at the behest of political candidates.

A majority of Americans also want more insight into the source of online political ads, with three-fifths of those surveyed saying websites should be required to disclose the buyer of the ad, how much it cost, "and who the ad is aimed at."

Republicans were seven times more likely than Democrats, however, to say that online political ads should not be regulated to protect freedom of speech.

The survey also revealed strong support for social media companies banning misleading content in political ads, with 81 percent saying the companies should refuse to run a political ad that provides an inaccurate election date to "supporters of an opposing candidate or cause."

Another 62 percent said the companies should not allow "an ad which says a politician voted for a policy he or she did not vote for" to appear on their platform; 28 percent said the ad should be allowed to run but with a disclaimer warning users it may contain false information.

The researchers noted that Google's policy forbids demonstrably false claims "though examples of this policy falling short of preventing misinformation have been raised."

Facebook has chosen not to fact-check political ads appearing on its platform. Twitter prohibits them entirely.

"The data is clear: Americans are concerned about the possibility of false or misleading content in online ads, and especially concerned about the use of personal information to target ads," Sam Gill, Knight's senior vice president and chief program officer, said in a statement.

Democrats were more likely than Republicans to support social media companies monitoring the content of political ads. Among Democrats, 91 percent said an ad with an inaccurate election date should not run compared to 73 percent of Republican, for example.

The survey of more than 1,600 adults conducted in early December had a sampling margin of error of 3 percentage points.


Read More

Voters lining up to vote.

Voters line up at the Oak Lawn Branch Library voting center on Primary Election Day in Dallas on March 3, 2026. Republicans' decision to hold a split primary from the Democrats and to eliminate countywide voting forced Dallas County voters to cast ballots at assigned neighborhood precincts, leading to confusion. Republicans have now decided to use countywide polling locations for the May 26 runoff election.

Shelby Tauber for The Texas Tribune

Dallas County GOP Will Agree To Use Countywide Voting Sites for May 26 Runoff Election

Dallas County Republicans will agree to allow voters to cast ballots at countywide voting sites for the May 26 runoff election after a switch to precinct-based voting sites caused chaos, the county party chair said Tuesday.

Dallas County Republican Chairman Allen West supported the use of precinct-based sites earlier this month, but said using precincts again for the runoff would expose the county party to “increased risk and voter confusion” because the county is planning to use countywide sites for upcoming municipal elections and early voting.

Keep ReadingShow less
A person signing a piece of paper with other people around them.

Javon Jackson, center, was able to register to vote following passage of a 2019 Nevada law that restored voting rights to formerly incarcerated individuals.

The Nation Is Missing Millions of Voters Due to Lack of Rights for Former Felons

If you gathered every American with a prison record into one contiguous territory and admitted it to the union, you would create the 12th-largest state. It would be home to at least 7 million to 8 million people and hold a dozen votes in the Electoral College.

In a close presidential race, this hypothetical state of the formerly incarcerated could decide who wins the White House.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

An analysis of Trump’s SAVE Act strategy, the voter ID debate, and how Pew data is being misused—exploring election integrity, voter suppression, and the political fight shaping U.S. democracy.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Stop Fighting Voter ID. Start Defining It.

President Trump doesn't need the SAVE America Act to pass. He only needs the debate to continue. Every minute spent arguing about voter suppression repeats the underlying premise — that noncitizen voting is a real and widespread problem — until it feels like an established fact. The question is whether Democrats will contest Republicans’ definition before the frame hardens.

Trump's claim that 88% of Americans support the bill traces to a Pew Research Center survey — a survey that found 83% support a “government-issued photo ID to vote,” not extreme vetting for proof of citizenship. That support included 95% of Republicans and 71% of Democrats, indicating genuine, broad, bipartisan support for a basic civic principle. That's worth taking seriously.

Keep ReadingShow less
People standing at voting booths.

The proposed SAVE Act and MEGA Act would require proof of citizenship to register to vote, risking the disenfranchisement of millions of eligible Americans.

Getty Images, EvgeniyShkolenko

The SAVE Act is a Solution in Search of A Problem

The federal government seems to be barreling toward a federal election power grab. Trump's State of the Union address called for the Senate to push through the SAVE Act, which has already passed the House, in the name of so-called "election integrity." And the SAVE Act isn’t the only such bill. Like the SAVE Act, the Make Elections Great Again (MEGA) Act—introduced in the House—would require voters to provide a document outlined in the Act that allegedly proves their U.S. citizenship. We’ve been down this road before in Texas, and spoiler alert: it was unworkable.

Both the SAVE and MEGA Acts would disenfranchise millions of eligible U.S. citizens without making our federal elections more secure. They seek to roll out a faulty federal voter registration system, despite the existing separate registration and voting process for state and local elections. And these Acts target a minuscule “problem”—but would unleash mass voter purges and confusion.

Keep ReadingShow less