Twitter Is Banning Political Ads (buzzfeednews.com) 100
Twitter is planning to ban political ads from its service, the company announced Wednesday via a series of Tweets from its CEO Jack Dorsey. The ban will go into effect November 22. BuzzFeed News reports: Dorsey said the ban will cover ads about specific candidates and issues -- the broadest possible ban. The ban will also be global in nature, and not limited to the US. Some ads will be allowed to remain, including those encouraging people to vote. According to a Twitter spokesperson, news organizations are currently exempt from its rules on political advertising, and the company will release full details on exemptions next month.
In his Twitter thread, Dorsey took a swipe at Facebook's policy, noting that it is not credible to say "We're working hard to stop people from gaming our systems to spread misleading info, buuut if someone pays us to target and force people to see their political ad... well... they can say whatever they want!" He also poked at Facebook's argument that banning tweets will favor incumbents, giving challengers less voice. "Some might argue our actions today could favor incumbents," Dorsey said. "But we have witnessed many social movements reach massive scale without any political advertising. I trust this will only grow."
In his Twitter thread, Dorsey took a swipe at Facebook's policy, noting that it is not credible to say "We're working hard to stop people from gaming our systems to spread misleading info, buuut if someone pays us to target and force people to see their political ad... well... they can say whatever they want!" He also poked at Facebook's argument that banning tweets will favor incumbents, giving challengers less voice. "Some might argue our actions today could favor incumbents," Dorsey said. "But we have witnessed many social movements reach massive scale without any political advertising. I trust this will only grow."
How are get out vote ads not also political (Score:2, Insightful)
So does that mean no "Get Out the Vote" ad with people wearing specific colors or political logos will be allowed too? That seems unlikely.
Not to mention, WHERE you target GOTV ads is in itself a political act...
Re:How are get out vote ads not also political (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's a better approach than what facebook is using.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's a better approach than what facebook is using.
Not really.
If you are news organization and you are promoting a news item is a sponsored tweet for it a political ad or not?
We have already been here with the 2016 election and the Mueller report when we misidentified a large chunk of sponsored tweets promoting material to "usual audience" as an influence operation: https://www.fagain.co.uk/node/... [fagain.co.uk]
This is from the same blame game without trying to deal with any of the actual real influence networks which all post without any attribution and without a
Re:How are get out vote ads not also political (Score:5, Insightful)
So does that mean no "Get Out the Vote" ad with people wearing specific colors or political logos?
"Get out the vote" drives benefit liberals and harm conservatives. So conservatives rarely do them.
Conservatives are usually older wealthier people that already have high turnout rates.
Liberals tend to be younger, poorer, and more disorganized. They are less likely to be registered to vote, and less likely to turn out on election day. So ads to remind them are more effective. Door knockers even more so.
Twitter is portraying its ad policy as politically neutral, but it isn't.
Incorrect (Score:2)
"Get out the vote" drives benefit liberals and harm conservatives. So conservatives rarely do them.
That is a very dated misconception.
You see, as I donate to both Republican, and Democrats, and other smaller group candidates, I get ALL the messages.
The interesting thing to me is, you'd swear these were all written by the same people. The tone is exactly the same (demonization mostly). I saw LOTS of GOTV stuff from everyone, it's just all very targeted.
There are plenty of independent voters al all socioec
Re: (Score:1)
There are plenty of independent voters al all socioeconomic levels that can vote for either party
It would improve things if they voted for neither party.
Re: (Score:2)
The interesting thing to me is, you'd swear these were all written by the same people. The tone is exactly the same (demonization mostly). I saw LOTS of GOTV stuff from everyone, it's just all very targeted.
1. They are - the actual messages are done by PR companies and they are guns for hire. You pay, you get a message. Quite often either party (in whatever country this is happening) has paid the same agency.
2. People have forgotten the biggest take-away from Cambridge Analytica, its parent company SCL and other similar operations. Sure, they did quite a bit of successful brainwashing: https://www.fagain.co.uk/node/... [fagain.co.uk]
Their success, however is not based on successfully converting a large number of "margina
I think you're confusing political neutrality (Score:1, Insightful)
Liberals tend to be less organized because our interests (higher wages, clean air and water for everyone, less war) run contrary to the billionaire class (lower wages, the option to pollute when profitable, military contracts).
So the ruling class can spend money on organizations to get their people out to vote (older people afraid of losing what little they have). The ironic thing is that those older people's interests don't align with the billionaire class either, but a few
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Conservatives are usually older wealthier people that already have high turnout rates.
Does this mean that as people age, presumably becoming wiser and more responsible, they realize that the government isn't really the solution to everything after all?
Re: (Score:2)
No, It means as they age, they become less trusting of the generation beneath them, and more frightened of change. Just like their parents did.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean, the generation beneath them, that now run the government?
You got that backwards, buddy (Score:3, Interesting)
Conservatives are usually older wealthier people that already have high turnout rates.
Liberals tend to be younger, poorer, and more disorganized. They are less likely to be registered to vote, and less likely to turn out on election day. So ads to remind them are more effective. Door knockers even more so.
Twitter is portraying its ad policy as politically neutral, but it isn't.
Nice try there. Spend a day in Silicon Valley, San Francisco, Boston, New York, or any population center. Your statement couldn't be farther from the truth. Also, let's not use vague terms like liberal and conservative in which folks can define however they want. Let's be specific Democrats vs Republicans because when you vote, you've officially picked a side. The RNC has alienated most minorities with overt racism and for thinking fiscal conservatives, they have really underperformed when in office.
Re: (Score:2)
tl;dr
Re: (Score:2)
You basically just wrote about IT people, which is common for IT people.. to think there's no world other than their world.
Most serious older people (out of IT) are conservative, it comes with age, unless you live in a bubble totally disconnected from the rest of the world, like all the people do that you mentioned above.
I'm not making a case for republicans, being conservative does not me
Re: (Score:3)
From what you write, the voting takes place on work days?
If so, why don't you (the US, not you personally) move the date to a weekend, so most people won't have to skip work for the time it takes to vote? That's how it's done over here in the first world. People who have to work anyway, or know in advance they're travelling, can apply for postal vote.
In my particular country, there's the added plus that voting is actually an obligation, not only a right - this solves a lot of problems like low voter turnout
Re: (Score:2)
Because the election day is set by historical precedents that date well back to before universal suffrage, when if you had to "skip work" you probably weren't eligible anyhow. It hasn't been changed because enough of our politicians like it that way (both the "tradition" aspect and the fact that it depresses turnout amo
Re: (Score:2)
Your stereotypes may have applied 30 years ago, but they don't hold up today. Democrats don't vote less because they're disorganized. They vote less because they actually have jobs...
I'm OK with stating that a comment is overly broad, but then you murder your own point with some of the dumbest stereotyping I've seen, most of which is trivially disputed.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
The real answer to political ads is the burden of the members of the platform.
How many people pay attention to ANY ads? Of those, through the years, how many were exposed to a political ad that changed their mind?
It's a waste of money. The Koch brothers can attest to that.
Trump get elected by poor, under-educated Evangelical Christian white women in the rust belt -- a demographic the Democrats ignored.
It wasn't money that got Trump elected. It was the economy. In the upcoming election, the economy may cause
Re: (Score:1)
This is why republicans run scary racist/bigoted "the minorities are going to steal your stuff and rape your wimmin" ads like Ronny KKK Reagan's Willie Horton Ad.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem arises really entirely from the targeting capabilities. "Get out the vote" ads that display only to people fitting an exact demographic profile are dangerous in a way that generic "get out the vote" ads aren't. Still better than targeted "suppress the vote" ads I suppose.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem arises really entirely from the targeting capabilities. "Get out the vote" ads that display only to people fitting an exact demographic profile are dangerous in a way that generic "get out the vote" ads aren't. Still better than targeted "suppress the vote" ads I suppose.
That is as old as democracy. We have had at least 100s years of GOTV campaigns specifically directed at a particular demographic. The only difference is that social media makes it MUCH MUCH cheaper.
Re: (Score:2)
curious (Score:3)
Re:curious (Score:4, Insightful)
With any luck the Internet will be a happier place with more cat videos.
Re: (Score:2)
> Nobody likes smelling everyone else's crap
Clearly you are new to the internet. Let me be the first to welcome you. On a somewhat related note watch out for Rule 34.
Enjoy your stay. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Cant travel the USA to tell voters all about why they should vote?
Keep seeing the frail images and coughing fits in ads?
Try extra censorship.
Re: (Score:2)
Cant travel the USA to tell voters all about why they should vote?
Politicians travel the USA to tell donors all about why they should donate.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, they are specifically referring to purchased advertising - NOT to whatever people may choose to spew from their own Twitter feeds.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a good thing because it levels the playing field. You can't just buy ads and force people to see them any more, you have to post and try to get it amplified like everyone else.
Letting the BOTs win (Score:3, Insightful)
NO paid adds just means more fake accounts, fake retweets and AstroTurf postings...
Re: (Score:3)
Seems like this change will actually help Trump, since he already has a big Twitter platform.
Re: (Score:3)
Trumps big Twitter platform is basically similar to his big baseball park fanbase. He may have a big audience, but they are mostly there to ridicule him. Those that aren't are largely Russian bot accounts, and far right wannabe politicians clamoring for attention.
Re: (Score:2)
Despite that he never gets ratio'd. Plus, the simple fact that his tweets are followed by both sides means that tweeting a campaign ad (whether for himself or someone else) will automatically reach outside his support bubble.
The dude tweeted four dots and got news coverage. He invented the word Covfefe. No democrat can hope to get that kind of reach with twitter without paying for it. And now they can't. Their best hope is if Taylor Swift and Lady Gaga start rt'ing campaign ads.
What's a political ad? (Score:2)
Given that there is no hard definition of a political ad, I bet that a lot of political advertisers will start creating a lot of bots which post thinly veiled advertising as comments.
Re: (Score:1)
They're not blocking organic posts, they're blocking paid advertising using Twitter's built in ad network.
Re: (Score:2)
"Organic posts" == bots and sockpuppets.
Re: What's a political ad? (Score:2)
Let's check back in six months and see if it's not anything the woke ultra-leftist staff at Twitter doesn't like. They make up rules to fit their biases and then enforce them against people with different biases.
cf.
https://youtu.be/EbTXqrS9l5E [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2)
That depends on the side of politics social media is on
Re: (Score:2)
Given that there is no hard definition of a political ad, I bet that a lot of political advertisers will start creating a lot of bots which post thinly veiled advertising as comments.
Are you concerned about ED*? Click here to find out what you can do about it!
*Electoral dysfunction
That won't work (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Holy fuck you idiot. I made the point twice and then pointed out the fact that you are not particularly bright as evidenced by the fact that you can't figure out that I only needed to get to your very first assertion to show how ridiculous your claim was. That isn't, as you put it, "as hominem". Learn what Ad Hominem means instead of using words and phrases you have seen and heard but don't understand for once. Off you go now litt
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Twitter? Won't matter at all (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
So we've gone from all must apply to it doesn't matter if they all apply. DOH! Also, the answer to your question is that there are plenty of people that fall into A-F, and even more that fall into B-F or they
Re: (Score:2)
"Way Smarter Than You"
"as hominem"
Congratulations on making yourself look like an idiot.
Interesting. (Score:2)
Jack says people can just re-tweet news and articles from popular accounts. Then Twitter bans popular accounts...
Good. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
someone is paying for these election campaigns and it isn't you. Until that stops being mandatory this "change" you speak of is not really in the cards.
So the problem isn't that there is money in politics - it is that you aren't the one providing it to get the results that you particularly want. This is the "problem" with free speech. It gives me the right to say what I want, it also gives you the right to say the exact opposite thing. Politicians raise money to get their voice heard, voters hear that voice, and if they like what they hear - they will vote for the politician. Without that final step the politician won't be successful. If you think a
Re: (Score:2)
Money is not equal to speech because 'more money' is 'more equal' than speech right up to the point of shouting down democracy itself with political fraud, gaslighting, and psychological warfare as witnessed in recent electoral cycles. Furthermore, corporations (or committees) are neither people nor citizens and they are certaintly not entitled to any kind of political expression with money or other direct partisan participation in elections whatsoever. Money has been weaponized to launch vast attacks upon our civilization. It's time to start denying the monied enemies to our very way of life any sort of platform for their corrupting influence. Let's see a US Congress that works tirelessly for constituents rather than spending most of their time servicing the predilections and corrupting influence of their bribing oligarchical overlords (as famously documented in the Princeton study
I was right there with you until your diatribe got partisan. Too bad. It reads much better with one single word removed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Good. (Score:2)
I believe the OP used illiberal to mean "philistine". A meaning of "not politically 'liberal'" is unsupported by the context.
Re: (Score:2)
I wholeheartedly agree with your post.
A concern with this move - specifically just Twitter making this change - is that this move favours those with existing "reach" - e.g., celebrities, career politicians, etc - anyone that already has a strong followings. These people will be able to generally easily mobilise their followers to amplify their message (something which we see lots of already on social media).
Compare this with, say, a grassroots campaign in a single state to try to elect a new candidate conte
Just ban Donald Trump (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Those people should already be unhappy. If any other Twitter user posted what Trump does, they would have had their account removed long ago. The double standard that allows a prominent politician a greater freedom than other citizens is abhorrent to real defenders of freedom.
Re: (Score:2)
Jack Dorsey knows the instant he bans Donald Trump Twitter loses almost half its relevance. He'll move to Gab or Parler, the media will be forced to get accounts there to follow what he says, fans of those journalists and Trump will get accounts there to interact with their equivalent of tweets. Twitter would remain a hub of celebrity interaction but the alt-media would be where political discourse happens.
The height of stupidity is ... (Score:3)
... political ads.
Who the fuck was ever influenced by those? Trump won because of live appearances on TV.
Ads are a nuisance to the consumer base and largely ineffective. We're programmed to ignore that shit.
Talk to the Koch brothers about 2012.
Re: (Score:2)
This is probably correct. Most people saw him live on TV because the news media would cover his rallies. It's like free advertising.
Re: (Score:2)
Voters are not necessarily the target of political ads. On the other hand I doubt you are as unaffected by ads as you think.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt that you doubt me because you would be doubting yourself and I doubt that.
This will only apply to those Facebook dislike (Score:2)
All other political postings will be declared as for the public good.
Too late (Score:1)
I've already banned ads on Twitter, a long time ago. The only time I see an ad on Twitter is when I access it on a mobile device.
Re: Too late (Score:2)
uBlock Origin works just fine on Firefox for Android...
Reach must be earned my ass (Score:2)
All in time for the upcoming election.
Imagine if your local newspaper refused political ads and then singlehandedly editorialized for one party over the other. That's what we now have - except Twitter doesn't just publish what it writes but controls the speech of those who try to wri
Twitter is Trump's Propoganda Outlet (Score:3)
Someday they will... (Score:2)
One step closer to banning politicians (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Nt (Score:2)
And nothing of value was lost.
Um, OK (Score:2)
It's a freaking voluntary graffiti wall.
I can't believe people have attached so much importance to it.
It's a crippled (as a gimmick) freakin multi user blog.
News Organization Exemptions? (Score:1)
Ads should be opt-in. (Score:1)
No political ads should be banned from any major platform, but ads on every platform should be opt-in. Users should be able to opt-in (not opt-out by default) to ads of any category: political, technology, marketing, fundraising, people, books, etc.
if a user wants political ads, let them have them. They should have a predominant marker on each ad signifying the category and risks, and a selection window to disable seeing those style of ads at anytime.
Why we can't have good things (Score:2)
'Common sense' and first-order logic fails in many circumstances. Society is complex and each of us only see a small portion of life, and the 'big picture.'
Because of 1 and 2, it is very difficult to convince many people that a counter-intuitive solution is valid. Any political party that attempts sound stewardship wi
A politically based ban... (Score:1)