What’s your candidate’s position on Israel? Depends what demographic you’re in

Why would a Republican group run an ad for Kamala Harris? The series of YouTube ads calling Harris a “strong leader” and saying she’s “ standing up for what’s right, supporting Israel,” were paid for by Future Coalition, a Republican PAC.

The ads also showed Doug Emhoff, Harris’ Jewish husband, wearing a kippah and visiting Oskar Schindler’s factory; an Israeli flag flashed in the background.

But this ad was not shown to Jewish audiences who might have been excited about a Jewish first spouse; it was targeted to Arab-Americans in Michigan, a battleground state with a large Arab population that has been sharply critical of the Biden-Harris White House’s support for Israel. (Harris’ campaign is now running ads, targeted to the same population, stating that she will “not be silent about human suffering in Gaza.”)

It’s not news that data is mined from our every click online. Advertisers are no longer limited to targeting ads based on demographics like age or gender; they know each person’s hobbies and preferences, all to make sure someone who prefers natural cleaning products never sees an ad for heavily scented laundry detergent.

That same logic is now being applied to political advertising . While campaigns used to try to appeal to anyone watching a certain channel, now they are able to be far more specific. One ad can be shown to a narrow slice of people on whom it’s most likely to work, while a different ad that might be anathema to the first group can be shown to the second.

Both Harris and Donald Trump support Israel, but not all populations approve of that position. With targeting, they can each run ads aiming different sound bites at the audiences they’re most likely to appeal to.

There’s little regulation on targeting, and different companies take different approaches. Hulu allows targeting based on broad demographics such as location, age and gender, while Facebook enables advertisers to target their ads to voters’ specific interests, down to details such as their favorite singers or preferred car.

Rep. Elissa Slotkin, a Michigan Democratic candidate for Senate who has spent over a million dollars on Facebook ads, targeted nine of her campaign ads on the social media site to users who had indicated an interest in “Islamic studies,” and three ads were targeted to people with an interest in “Gaza,” “Palestine” and “Syrian cuisine.” Nine ads also excluded users who had an interest in “Jewish studies.” Facebook’s data does not specify whether these were the same nine ads that were targeted toward those interested in Islamic studies.

Slotkin also targeted ads based on numerous other interests. Some correlated with conservative beliefs, such as “hunting (sport)” and “Fox Broadcasting Company,” which were excluded from seeing 13 ads. Others have less obvious political affiliations: people interested in “musical theater” were excluded from three of Slotkin’s ads.

None of Slotkin’s ads explicitly mention Israel or the Middle East; they largely focus on issues such as border security, healthcare costs, abortion and union support. Nevertheless, the campaign clearly found correlation with ads that were more likely to play better with Arab voters than with Jewish ones.

Of course, every advertiser targets its ads — politicians are not alone in this. Facebook doesn’t release targeting data on non-political advertisements, but I’m certain that the ads I get for waffle-weave towels are not going to every user.

But politics are not a product, however much they might be marketed as one; voters need access to all of the information a candidate is putting out there, not only what the campaign wants them to see. Until there’s regulation on streaming ads, however, there’s no way out of the echo chamber.