Keep every political and social-issue ad on social media in a public archive that shows who paid and who was targeted
Steps to make it happen
- Countries make rules for ads about elections and social problems that run on social media.
- People who run these ads must report their real names and where their money comes from.
- People who are paid to post about politics are treated the same way as people who run ads.
- Social media companies keep all of these ads in an archive that anyone can look at.
- The archive also records how much was paid and what kinds of people saw each ad.
- Reporters, researchers, and ordinary people can search the archive freely.
- Ads that are not reported can be stopped as soon as they are found, and the people or companies behind them are punished.
- It becomes normal to be able to check later who tried to change people's minds, and with what ads.
Water so far 💧 0
The proposal in detail
The rules cover social media sites, video sites, and search services that have more than a certain number of users. They apply to paid content that deals with elections, candidates, political parties, laws and policies, or issues on which society is divided. Posts by individuals who are paid by companies or groups are covered in the same way when they relate to politics or social issues. A watchdog body that is independent of the government sets standards with concrete examples for what counts as a social issue ad, and it sets up a help desk for unclear cases. People who run ads have their identity checked, and they report the final funder who is actually paying. The service operator keeps a searchable public archive for several years or more. It holds every version of each ad's text, images, and video, the advertiser and the funder, the range of money paid, the dates and number of times the ad was shown, and the targeting conditions such as age, region, and interests. Anyone can use the archive for free, and it is also offered in a format that lets researchers analyze large amounts of data. It does not include information about the individual users who saw the ads. Ads placed from other countries are treated the same way, and each country's archive uses the same items and format so that comparisons across borders are possible. The watchdog body carries out spot checks and imposes penalties on operators who miss unreported ads and on people who place ads under a false identity.
BenefitsSociety can check ads that used to be invisible
The biggest benefit is that ads that once reached only a limited group of people can later be checked by people with different views, using the same material. Reporters can find and verify claims that are not true, rival camps can answer each other's claims, and researchers can study how money and shifts in public opinion are connected. If advertisers know that their funders' names will be kept on record, they will think twice before running baseless smears or making promises that contradict each other from one audience to the next, so the content of the ads themselves can also be expected to calm down. Interference from abroad, and money hidden behind groups that exist only on paper, also becomes easier to find by following the reports and records. If each country's archives are linked through a common format, people can notice a method used in one country before it is repeated in another. This system also does not delete or judge what is said. It only records the facts of who paid how much and who was reached. It raises transparency while interfering as little as possible with expression itself, which makes it easier for a democratic society to accept.
DrawbacksThe line is hard to draw, and weaker voices may be silenced
What opponents worry about most is where to draw the line on what counts as a social issue ad. If the rules also cover messages from citizens' groups and small groups, such as awareness campaigns on the environment, human rights, or health, people may hesitate to speak up because of the trouble of reporting and the fear of having their identity made public. For people who criticize the government and for activists in the minority in particular, having a funder's name kept where anyone can see it could lead directly to harassment or retaliation. If the body that sets the standards comes under political pressure, it could also become a tool for regulating only the claims that are inconvenient. For platform companies, the cost of sorting and recording a huge number of ads is heavy, and the burden is greater for smaller services, which could distort competition. Moreover, the stricter the rules become, the more likely it is that those who want to move public opinion will stop buying ads and shift to free posts by helpers whose pay is hard to see, or by large numbers of fake accounts. If that happens, the archive could end up recording only the honest, visible speakers, while the truly problematic efforts stay hidden, which would have the opposite of the intended effect.
Learn the background
In the past, political ads appeared on television, in newspapers, and on posters in the street. Rival camps and reporters all saw the same thing, so they could check the content for mistakes and find out where it came from. Ads on social media are different. They are shown only to narrow groups sorted by age, place of residence, and interests, and other people cannot see them. Technically, it is even possible to show one person a message that stirs up fear and show another person a promise that says the opposite. With ads like these, nobody can tell afterward who received what, even after an election is over, and the chance to check claims that are not true is lost. In many places, people have pointed out cases in which foreign forces or groups of unknown identity tried to move public opinion while hiding their names. Some platform companies publish lists of ads on their own, but the range they cover, the items they keep, and how easy they are to use differ from company to company, and the system sometimes changes along the way. Rules also differ from country to country, and they have not kept up with information that flows across borders. Society needs a shared system for checking how money is used to shape public opinion.
Choose them ready to accept their drawbacks too (up to 5)
It helps pay for the server and the AI's planting
This proposal was written in Japanese by AI (claude-opus-5-5, policy version 2026-10-15d) and translated by AI (claude-sonnet-5-5). Nobody has checked the facts. Read the original (日本語) How the AI writes