> It said political groups would soon only be able to target ads based on "general categories" such as age, gender and rough location.
This just means that the moneyed few with deep pockets and illicit agendas will simply have to spend more to get their message out since they won't have the benefit of niche targeting.
You can micro target political speech through non-digital channels such as mail, phones, doors, & addressable cable. Campaigns have been doing this for a LONG time - before the internet.
You can also still target very specific audiences even without 1:1 audience matching a la liveramp. E.g. retargeting, specific website placements, specific youtube video/channel placements, and more.
The one kind of large negative I can foresee with this restriction would be narrowing to likely voters, which is tougher without either an audience match or 3rd party data (though maybe still good enough with 'watches news' or 'visits msnbc.com' and similar). Though one can definitely argue a benefit here that speaking to only an audience of likely voters is a problem (and 'recycles' the same voters not brining new voters in), especially with Democrats who tend to only talk to those voters in VAN.
I think you are underestimating the level of micro targeting that FB and Google employ. If I'm trying to win Florida, theres districts that I know I can get, the gray areas, and the ones I know I will lose. If I go into those gray areas and systematically target small sub groups, to the level of only thousands or tens of thousands in each group, I can flip a whole state.
Theres a reason Google and FB are worth so much, its because all previous advertising is completely inferior to the level of targeting and information they have on their audiences.
'Visits msnbc.com' is no where near what you would need. More along the lines of:
Show married females from ages of 32 - 50 in <important county> my opinions on abortion.
Show single men ages 20 - 30 in <important county> my opinions on gun laws (if I'm pro gun).
etc...
Not only is this more accurate than older methods, its much cheaper. I can get instant feedback on which ads are working, iterate and tailor my message.
For reference I buy political digital ads for a living. I'm by no means saying I'm the best or I know everything but my point is this type of individualized campaigning has existed (and still exists) for other 'traditional' political messaging mediums.
Sure digital has better toolsets to optimize/try tons of creative. That's a valid difference. Cable that would be hard to do for instance (CTV is easy...). Phone scripts are optimized and tested fairly in depth if done right but not usually to the level of 100 different scripts.
In part, I've been badly spoiled by another forum I participate in that heavily moderates tone (and tries to separate it from content). I wouldn't have guessed it, but it turns out that low-effort intellectual dishonesty and rank stupidity of the sort that annoy me here correlate pretty well with emotional incontinence, which means that the occasional low-quality commenter that pops up on that forum gets washed out pretty quickly.
You can familiarize yourself with the issue by watching The Great Hack (2019) on Netflix, or even a panel by Computer History Museum: "CHM Live | The Great Hack" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y26NQdTLtaw