Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

My questions are for Mr. Dualta Ó Broin. Facebook's submission to the committee is very disappointing. The proposition in the legislation is incredibly modest. All it is proposing is that for the three or four weeks of a general election campaign, election ads or ads that are designed to have an impact on the electoral outcome should be designated as such; information about the way in which those ads are being targeted and funded should be made public; and there should be an onus on the platform that publishes these ads to take responsibility and ensure that the advertiser is compliant with the law. Those are basic propositions. I am concerned that Facebook is proposing to the committee watering down what is already a very weak proposal. I want to put that on the record.

I agree that we need to get the definition of political advertising right, as NGOs and the Irish Council for Civil Liberties have highlighted. I do not see how Mr. Dualta Ó Broin's definition addresses any of those issues. In fact, subsection 3 includes most of the areas about which NGOs and human rights organisations would seek to be able to advertise. Why does he believe his definition, as outlined in annex A, is better than the Government's? In other words, what could the Government's definition capture that his does not?

At no point in the general scheme are data protection concerns mentioned, nor does it mention anybody's home address. It refers to a name and postal address, but election agents and election posters often use an office address. Some of us might have used our county council addresses when we were elected councillors. In the same way that candidates' and-or election agents' information is made public, I do not see why it should not be the case here.

Mr. Dualta Ó Broin made a spurious argument by stating that the regulations on postering are different and less onerous than microtargeting. However, when a candidate spends five times more money on posters than anybody else, we see the posters on the streets and the lampposts whereas there is not public visibility on microtargeting. Therefore, I do not see how that is a valid concern. I ask him to give a bit more detail on that.

My biggest concern relates to Mr. Dualta Ó Broin's comments about head 122. He seems to suggest that rather than Facebook having a responsibility to ensure that people, who place ads on its platform and from whom it profits, comply with the law, it should be the responsibility of the electoral commission. Only when there is - I quote the Facebook submission - "persistent refusal or non-compliance with warnings" would it reach an escalation. That suggests that people would be able to break the law and persistently be non-compliant. Facebook would profit from it but at some point, because of its warnings, it would escalate to the electoral commission. That seems to absolve Facebook of any responsibility for the content on its platform. I do not see how having a person responsible is anything other than a natural safeguard.

Mr. Dualta Ó Broin keeps describing Facebook as an intermediary, but ultimately his company is profiting from the ads that any of us places. Like Deputy McAuliffe, I place ads on Facebook. As Facebook is profiting from the ads we place, there should be an obligation. I ask Mr. Dualta Ó Broin to address some of those concerns and I may come back in the next round if there is time.