Tag: Archive

The great significance of the meeting held tonight in the Queen’s Hall by the National Council of Women and the National Union of Societies for Equal Citizenship was this, that for the first time leading men of all the political parties declared in unison their belief that more women were needed in parliament. From the archive, 7 February 1918: Some (but not all) women get vote Read more The Premier was unable to keep his conditional promise to be present, but Mrs Lloyd George read a letter from him. Your meeting is called specially to advocate the need for women in parliament. “I hope and believe that Lady Astor is the first of a noble band of women representing every grade and class who will endow the House with their presence and their service to the State with the great qualities of sympathy and enthusiasm.” Mr Arthur Henderson wrote: “There are many questions upon which, in these difficult days, the House of Commons needs the help and advice of women. It is essential that in the making of legislation the influence of women should make itself felt. I speak for all the members of the Parliamentary Labour party in saying that we should welcome the return of women Labour members to the House, and regard them not as competitors but as comrades in the work we have in hand.” Sir Hamar Greenwood, who came as substitute for Mr Lloyd George, said that the issue lay not in London, but among the constituencies. It was the constituencies that must nominate, and there that the majorities must be gained. From the archive, 2 December 1919: First Woman Member Read more Lady Astor, MP, had a great reception, the audience rising to its feet and cheering her. She made a sparkling speech. It was a very formidable list – and in view of the fact that she is the only woman MP, a pathetic one - dealing with all the questions of child welfare, women’s welfare, marriage reforms, health, housing and hospitals, penal reform, social reforms, food prices, and labour conditions for women.

Instead, it’s now launching its previously announced “paid for by” labels on political and issue ads on Facebook and Instagram in the U.S. and its publicly searchable archive of all these politics-related ads that run in the U.S. That includes ads run by news publishers or others that promote articles with political content. The labeling won’t just apply to candidate and election ads, but those dealing with political issues such as “abortion, guns, immigration or foreign policy.” Clicking through the labels that appear at the top of these News Feed ads will lead to the archive, which isn’t backdated and will only include ads from early May 2018 and after. It also will display the ad’s budget, and the number of people who saw it, plus aggregated, anonymized data on their age, gender and location. Any advertiser that wants to run political ads must now go through Facebook’s authorization process that requires them to reveal their identity and location, and advertisers will only have a week’s grace period starting today before those unauthorized will have their ads paused. The reviewers and AI will analyze these ads’ images, text and the outside websites to which they point to look for political content. Their buyer will then be required to go through the authorization process before they can buy more. As part of work with Facebook’s new commission investigating social media’s impact on elections, it plans to provide a database available via a forthcoming API that will let watchdog groups, academics and researchers review how ads are being used. Simply listing those organizations in the Paid For By labels or archive won’t necessarily give users a lot of information about who the people behind the money are unless they’re willing to go digging across the internet themselves. An example of a “Paid for by” label on an Instagram ad For example, the notorious conservative political donors the Koch brothers funnel cash through a PAC called Prosperity Action to fund Republican candidates like Paul Ryan. But Harbath described on the call how even though all the monitoring of political ads will cost more than the revenue the company earns from them, Facebook felt it necessary to “make sure people have a way to express themselves and engage in political discourse in a transparent way.” Self-policing in this manner could reduce the urgency of calls to pass the Honest Ads Act that was unveiled last year to bring online advertising disclosures in line with those for television, though Congress has yet to hold a hearing about.