BREAKING: Twitter Banning ALL Political Ads, Period

BREAKING: Twitter Banning ALL Political Ads, Period


The David Pakman [email protected] we have
a hack day of youth today, so I’m particularly glad that you’re with me and I’ll get right into it. We have a major, major story to start with
today. It’s really one of the biggest stories of
the year, uh, in the world of social media and online marketing. Uh, the issue of political ads and terms of
service has become a really huge issue and it relates to politics so closely. And Twitter has decided to ban all political
advertising from its platform. Uh, the Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey says that
advertisers are getting an unfair advantage in sending out misleading and inaccurate messages
and that Twitter is going to stop all political ads, period. This was announced on Twitter and a multi
tweet thread by Jack Dorsey where he said, quote, we’ve made the decision to stop all
political advertising on Twitter globally. We believe political message should reach
a political message. Reach should be earned, not bought. Of course, there are some claiming this is
a form of suppression of speech and it’s not. And Jack Dorsey says this, and a subsequent
tweet in this thread, quote a final note, this isn’t about free expression. This is about paying for reach and paying
to increase the reach of political speech has significant ramifications that today’s
democratic infrastructure may not be prepared to handle. It’s worth stepping back in order to address. Now, interestingly, he says it first, they
thought maybe we’ll ban ads just by political candidates promoting a candidate in a particular
election, but then they correctly realize that lots of what is going on, that that is
really political advertising is PACS that may be supporting a candidate, which is sort
of like one level removed from the candidate. And then you’re getting to issue based stuff
that is clearly political but wouldn’t be stopped if you simply say no ads for candidates. So they’re banning all of it. Uh, although we have to figure out what the
implementation will be. So let’s talk about that first. But then you know, I really want to talk about
the implications and the context in which this is taking place. So implementation, this starts on November
22nd now. That’s about three weeks from now. How will they decide if an ad is political
in nature because so many things are political to some degree is an ad about keeping our
national parks clean from pro uh, pollution and trash in the context of the climate crisis
is that political who gets to decide? I don’t know the answers to these questions. It’s going to need to be sorted out and I’m
guessing that on some level Twitter will come up with some rubric for determining what it
is that counts as political and there may well be some disagreement about what that
is. The big thing here is that this is very clearly
a shot across the bow at Facebook and that Mark Zuckerberg, you might remember and we
covered it, that Mark Zuckerberg testified before the house last week. It went really poorly for him. I played the clips of Congresswoman Alexandria
Cossio Cortez asking him questions that he wasn’t even remotely able to answer in a satisfactory
way. Her mistake was interrupting his answers. I think that that is not the right look. You gain nothing by interrupting Mark Zuckerberg. If anything, you bail him out from fully being
able to expose that he doesn’t know a lot of these answers. That’s my one critique of AOC in that, but
mostly it was Zuckerberg who was visibly confused, not just about what Facebook policies should
be from a moral, ethical or legal standpoint, but even seemed confused about what Facebook
policies are. Uh, and what is clear is that Facebook and
Twitter are going to be taking drastically different approaches to this issue of political
advertising and what is involved. Facebook is taking the ad money and they are
going to make some sort of little restrictions around the edges to try to protect some semblance
of responsibility that they want to claim to have about what they will allow a Mark
Zuckerberg talking about examples of, you know, you can’t target black voters. I think he said you can’t target black voters
or black predominantly black zip codes with an ad that misstates when election day is. That would be a form of voter suppression,
but the line between that and just a generally dishonest ad is a blurry line. It became very clear that it was blurry. When Mark Zuckerberg testified Twitter is
doing something very different. They’re cutting this off at the pass. They’re saying no political ads period. Now Jack Dorsey doesn’t mention Mark Zuckerberg
specifically in his tweets, but he does say for example, that quote, we have witnessed
many social movements reach massive scale without any political advertising. What he is responding to is Zuckerberg saying,
you know, if we tighten our policies on this will disproportionately hurt grassroots groups
will disproportionately hurt challengers in politics and we will be propping up the status
quo. That was Mark Zuckerberg, his argument, clearly
Jack Dorsey saying he doesn’t agree with. I agree with that when he says we’ve seen
movements succeed even without paid political advertising. So I have a few thoughts on this. First of all, remember politicians, billionaire
tech CEOs, these are not heroic actors. We shouldn’t idolize them. Jack Dorsey made a decision that well could
be the correct moral decision, but there is no question that part of it was a calculation
based on the PR of it based on the timing of last week’s Facebook fiasco in front of
Congress. So, number one, let’s not focus our interpretation
on the morality of ethics or ethics of the decision. Even if on the merits it is the right decision
and it may well be. Secondly, I have to tell you, I know political
ads are big on Twitter. In my experience, the problem isn’t so much
the political ads, which I see very few of and can say, I don’t want to see stuff like
this. I don’t know if that’s because of how I browse
Twitter. For me, the real problem, the real battle
lines are the terms of service and enforcement of those terms of service for users. For me, this has always been really the issue
on Twitter. I like the decision that was made about banning
political ads. That’s a decision Twitter can make and they
can say, we’re just not gonna have that on our platform. Our platform will not allow a political issues
or candidates to buy influence. They’re going to have to earn it. But what about high profile people who are
allowed to completely flout the terms of service? For example, like Donald Trump himself. What about the totally soft way in which Twitter
has dealt with criticism about the political nature of it’s terms of service from both
left and right, sometimes rightly, sometimes in a completely ridiculous way without adjudicating
right now as a um, uh, a particular terms of service decision as right or wrong Twitter
needs to deal with their terms of service enforcement in a serious and credible way. And I hope that they do, although this might
be a really PR friendly thing to do, banning political ads instead of dealing with the
mess of their terms of service and more specifically their enforcement. One last thought on this, even if you ban
political ads in the formal sense where a candidate can run a paid campaign, uh, there
are still ways around this candidates or issue based organizations or packs, they can still
pay for retweets and tweets. There are a whole bunch of ways that you can
still effectively by reach on Twitter, even if it is strictly speaking band. That is a bigger conversation and we’ll see
if ultimately Twitter comments about that.

Author:

100 thoughts on “BREAKING: Twitter Banning ALL Political Ads, Period”

  • I actually have amassed millions of left wing email openers while pretending to be on their side. I think I might tell them they can vote online through some site I set up. Guarantee you 99% of them are dumb enough to think they actually voted.
    Good luck stopping me.

  • Rev. Kaelene Lord says:

    Actually, I can't believe that twitter would do something so mature. Any parent knows that when two kids fight, you separate them.
    But once as they are in their rooms they continue to fight by text. At that time, A good parent learns that all the fighting must stop. So should the tech, including the cell phones. They can watch their tv's, listen to music, read or write. With the absence of fighting, cooler minds do prevail.
    Political ads create more hate and animosity. Anger comes from both sides, as they wonder why nobody stops them. Twump has created a vicious cycle of insanity. Names and name calling from the very man, that sits as our potus. SHAME ON US, FOR HAVE WAITING SO LONG TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT HIM. He was un-American from the very start. The election should have been deemed illegal and a recount taken. Until it was fixed, the sitting president would be requested to stay. An oath of office is a pledge. A president should stay to lead the America, he swore his life too. Maybe, just maybe, it would give the shiesters cause to pause from doing it again.
    This was just a thought. I tend to, as a minister, step back and see it from a grander field, a spiritual view ( I DO NOT SPEAK OF THIS AS A RELIGIOUS VIEWPOINT. SPIRITUALITY AND RELIGIOUS ARE TWO SEPARATE CONTINENTS ON THE SAME OCEAN. I speak of Spirituality as being separate from politicized man-made religions.) is a map of where we are going if we continue the same way. On this map, we know where we need to be. The roads, are the dangerous things. Pick a good, secure road… it will get us to where we can be better.
    And the ads, paid for by people who may not even agree with them. Actions that could make one complicit, if they had known beforehand. Put politics and advertising in a hate filled environment, and it will never stop. Twitter had to pull the stop. ( if they didn't, how many of us couldn't claim PTSD from it, and not be lying?
    These sites that accept the ads, they should be part of it too. Life is possible without hatred. The penalty should get them where they hurt the most. There should be a law where violators would have to contribute to a large fund along with every other political advertiser, to provide therapy for everyone that needed. And Im talking multi-billion dollar funding from unproven, hatefilled, and racially charged political ads. Those that ask for the advertising would also be held responsible.
    There must be consequences for attempting to create civil war in a Nation that stands as one.

  • Facebook must follow suit as well. Facebook is censoring those hong kongers who are supportive of Hong Kong government. That means Facebook is biased and goes against the norms of democracy

  • E. Lewis Basher says:

    I wish they would do that on Youtube. I am so Fucking sick of seeing Donald Daughterfuckers face. No he does not deserve a second term, let alone his next breath and heartbeat. Yes he deserves to be impeached. He should be impaled after that. Screw the old W.W.J.D. But rather W.W.V.D.D. What would Vlad Dracula do? Ha ha ha ha ha ha Peace out.

  • Typical right wing move, playing dirty.

    They are just testing the waters by banning political ads, if no resistance, they'd start banning all sorts of political comments, then more.

    What they should be doing, is disallow paid ads.

  • I feel like someone is going to manipulate the system. Like people can state their opinion on Twitter so people will just start paying people to either create or sponsor people who have a similar perspective

  • I don't think its a coincidence that once we started communicating politics on a thoroughly simplistic and unempathetic medium, we ended up electing a thoroughly simplistic and unempathetic president.

  • I received this from a group called Restore Public Trust. I know how busy you are but this might be worth looking at. It's regarding the ties between Big Pharma and the tRump administration. They're a serious group and I learned quite a bit from the link they sent. https://www.bigpharmasbestfriends.org/?emci=973a9928-fdfb-e911-828b-2818784d6d68&emdi=2e4220d2-29fc-e911-828b-2818784d6d68&ceid=6765377

  • I think we are witnessing the death of Twitter. Truth is, (and I've found no one else here who's mentioned it,)there's absolutely NOTHING keeping ANYONE (including rich politicians from ANY party with ANY agenda) from hiring people to code a whole new social media network with tos, eula, rules and regulations that directly provide what Itty bitty Twitter seems to think they can control, let alone regulate. Twitter was born as an idea where average people could go online, in a simple format, and share their information with others. It's helped save lives during mass shootings at schools, started national revolutions, and develop lasting friendships across the world. But, it's not the only game in town. And when it starts thinking it is… it's not going to be around much longer. Unless it revamps its entire mission, to provide a platform for people who don't want to express or find expression that may not be what they want to deal with. Of course, that will be determined by Twitter, not the users, who made it so popular (and profitable) for its owners. That's ok though. They can just change the name to "icanhazcheezburger." Oh wait…

  • They saw how Zuckerberg got grilled by Congress and decided to do a preemptive strike. BTW – David your criticism of AOC isn’t warranted. Remember each Congress person is only given 5 minutes of time to ask questions, so she didn’t have time to listen to his rambling.

  • Interesting. All political ads should be banned. Most political advertising is just smearing political opponents . Imagine if all ads were like this. Don’t buy Coca-Cola, they urinate in the bottles. Coca-Cola wants you to die from diabetes. Coca-Cola worship the devil. This message was brought to you buy Pepsi. Pepsi, we want your children to live.

  • Space-Cadet David 'Spanky Bonespurs' Dennison : says:

    Seems it was too hard and expensive to police what is truth or lies (real or fake), Twitter took the easy way out by banning it.

  • The reason this was a bad decision is that there is no objective way to judge if the content of an ad should be construed as political. It opens the door for selective enforcement so that political messages that are less objectionable are labeled apolitical while more objectionable political leanings can be judged as political. Any struggle that pits the interests of one group against the interests of other groups can be labeled political and banned by Twitter. This could include petitions for people to help reduce carbon emissions or to support affordable education and healthcare. The written statement "This isn't about free expression" is ridiculous. I know most of us never want to see what comes to mind when we think of a political ad, but the definition of "political" within the concept of advertising is so nebulous that Twitter's new rule can be used to silence some advertisers and give others a pass, saying that their ads weren't controversial enough to count as political. This vagueness of the new policy opens the door to corruption, e.g. bribery, allowing advertisers a way to gain preferential treatment in the form of policy interpretation that permits them to run their ads.

  • Hopefully, YouTube will soon follow their example.
    I'm really sick of all these ads for pro-Trump "official" polls, popping up every time that I watch a video from a show like David Packman's.
    Has anyone else here been getting them?

  • This is great, now we just need to pass a full ban on paid political advertisements. Allocate publicly funded ad space/time equally to all candidates during a period shortly before the election. No more months of PAC-funded ads and corporate-owned candidates paying their way to the top.

  • Twitter isn't banning people from posting political posts, just not allowed to pay to boost political posts, so a ban of all political ads is fine with me regardless of if they are for political action on climate change or other worthy causes if that's the simplest solution to removing political smear campaigns. It doesn't stop people from retweeting posts to boost them organically, the thunder clap tweeting model (when everyone posts a tweet at the same time) will come back into play as the best way to spread a message that matters.

  • I think this is great. The less mudying the water the better. I still can't comprehend that the Congress can't make Facebook do something about it, especially with the Cambridge analytica fiasco. I would break them in thousands pieces, just like they did with Standard Oil in 1900s.

  • Donald Trump WONT be IMPEACHED!

    Donald Trump WILL win in a landslide in 2020.

    Republicans will win the House.

    Republicans will win the Senate.

    Republicans will win at the State level.

    Democrats are scared to death of
    @realDonaldTrump
    !

  • Good. If they can't regulate political adverts on social media platforms then ban the lot! Facebook take heed. There's a bigger conversation to be had about why right wing politicians think it's appropriate to blatantly lie to their own citizens but at least this is a start

  • Seem like a slippery slope.
    The problem is ignorant people believe every stupid meme.
    Nobody fact checks themselves.
    Don't believe none of what you hear and half of what you see.
    Bernie 2020

  • Gartrutha Toegar says:

    Twitter is boring! Facebook is shallow! Instagram is stupid! UTube is manipulation! All social media replaces interaction which is not what is best for humanity.

  • worldwidehappiness says:

    One thing I worry about Twitter is that you could end up with a Rwanda situation where the president or someone is saying, "Go kill all X people." Apart from that, I have no clue about the issue.

  • So they will pay a hacker farm 100grand to bot-tsunami twitter instead.

    Better to deal with the problem than to cover your ears and hum.

  • TruthAndMoreTruth says:

    Doesn't matter if there are no ADs on Twitter. There are thousands of bots and paid poster plastering garbage by sock accounts and trolls. I don't use Twitter that much, I went there after this story broke, and holy fuck , it's a cesspool of shit now.

  • TheSwordfishstudios says:

    You have got to be kidding me. AOC looked extremely ignorant and displayed an inability to understand his answers.

  • It doesn’t matter anymore. As long as the cult continues to watch Fox and read his tweets, they will vote. This country is 💯 divided. And nothing will change that.

  • I believe the problem for Twitter is that people like trump would sling his mud at people in a hateful way and not have consequences. He wouldnt get such a negative reaction if he quit but I dont see that happening.

  • AOC did fine. She doesn't have the time for Zuckerberg to just sit there and go "oh umm, ah oh, but," all day long. She went through her list of questions promptly and didn't even get all her questions in. If anything she gave the correct amount of time to have him look foolish by not giving any answers.

  • I swear to god, if I hear another mouth breathing troglodyte proclaim some online company's TOS or other online communication service changing policies as taking away their first amendment right, I'm going to slap their face. The First Amendment has nothing, NOTHING, to do with private corporations. THE GOVERNMENT cannot take away your right to say something. IE, you can't be arrested because you go into public and shout, "Trump sucks" as loud as you can. You are entitled to speak your mind, but you are not entitled to every platform and megaphone out there. These companies offer you use of their platforms and their megaphones and have the right to take away either if you violate the contract you sign otherwise known as Terms of Service.

  • I wish we could run an ad 24/7 that defines confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance then show real life examples throughout history that people can relate to.
    Like a PSA paid for by the government because it's for everyone's best interest.

  • Raven Rayne Winter says:

    Good! I think they should do it and Facebook too. Social Media all together should get rid of all political ads. I see stupid trumpturd ads on tv when I watch the news in the morning. That is WAY more than enough.

  • All of it should be banned just like Twitter is doing on all social media platforms!!! And if any media platform does not then they should instantly be frozen assets also and find 20 million dollars that'll get their attention real quick guaranteed

  • Yssssss Twitter poking Facebook in it’s wandering greedy eye. Still you are correct about the retweets. On the other hand Facebook cherry picks what they deem ok or not ok to advertise depending on which side of the bed they woke up on that day. The goal posts are being moved as we speak. What is glaringly obvious is the lack of responsibility as well as reliability (and liability as well, cause money of course)

  • 死野子遊助 says:

    Politics is something that is close to people directly and indirectly. With ads, you don't connect with people and are instead being more passive. After you create the ad, for whatever you're fighting for, you just think "Alright, I'm done" and leave it alone hoping and praying it will change a MAJORITY of people's minds once they come across it.

    In politics, I personally believe this is the incorrect method and that conversations are more productive and correct way to go. So, credit to Twitter for this choice. Politics shouldn't be bought nor influenced with money in whatever stage(s) it's in, and this will make people who care about their ideologies be more vocal and work more on getting their ideas out there if they are serious about them.

  • You can still tweet political issues. You cant PAY to have it distributed.
    So unpaid tweet that you have your political supporters re-tweet to their circle of friends IS allowed.
    You could even PAY a high followed twitter account (actors, artists, etc) to re-tweet.

    You just can't pay TWITTER to get them to distribute it using any ad model from the private info they have collected.

  • This is why these companies should just use the first amendment as their policy. The first amendment makes this extremely easy. When you start banning certain words it makes it really complicated

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *