• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Twitter to ban all political ads amid 2020 election uproar

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
53,481
5,810
126
This is what all social media should be doing.

Thoughts?



Twitter on Wednesday said it would ban all advertisements about political candidates, elections and hot-button policy issues such as abortion and immigration, a significant shift that comes in response to growing concerns that politicians are seizing on the vast reach of social media to deceive voters ahead of the 2020 election.

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey announced the shift in policy in a series of tweets, stressing that paying for political speech has the effect of “forcing highly optimized and targeted political messages on people.” The move marks a break with Twitter’s social-media peers, Facebook and Google-owned YouTube, which have defended their policies around political ads in recent weeks.

“While internet advertising is incredibly powerful and very effective for commercial advertisers, that power brings significant risks to politics, where it can be used to influence votes to affect the lives of millions,” Dorsey said.


Twitter’s revised policy covers ads intended to influence elections including ballot measures, as well as those that address “issues of national importance." The new rules will be applied globally, and they are slated to take effect in late November.

But the change doesn’t affect what users on their own can tweet and share, meaning it may not have much impact on widely followed accounts, including President Trump’s, whose tweets already reach more than 66 million users each day. Some critics, including Democrats, have urged Twitter to block or remove the commander-in-chief’s tweets, arguing his comments are incendiary or incorrect. Twitter has declined to take action, beyond stressing some narrow cases in which it would limit the reach of tweets from a head of state.

Twitter’s decision also comes at a moment when one of Dorsey’s peers, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, continues to stand by a controversial policy that essentially allows politicians to lie in ads.

The issue first arose earlier this month, when former Vice President Joe Biden, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for the White House, asked Facebook to remove an ad from President Trump’s campaign that contained multiple falsehoods. Facebook declined, prompting backlash from other 2020 contenders. In response, Zuckerberg has defended the policy in recent weeks, stressing the tech giant should not stand in the way of political leaders’ speech.

Political advertising long has proven a thorny issue for Silicon Valley. During the 2016 election, agents tied to the Russian government purchased promoted tweets and other forms of online ads as part of their campaign to stoke political discord, promote then-candidate Trump and undermine Democratic contender Hillary Clinton.

Regulators lambasted social-media sites for failing to spot such efforts by a foreign power to interfere in U.S. elections, and the pressure promoted major changes — including efforts by Twitter and others to more clearly label political ads, verify the individuals purchasing them and cache them for the public to view. Still, lawmakers threatened regulation, arguing that online ads were subject to far fewer, less restrictive rules than broadcast television.

In his tweets, Dorsey endorsed those calls for new federal laws.

“Ad transparency requirements are progress, but not enough,” he said. “The internet provides entirely new capabilities, and regulators need to think past the present day to ensure a level playing field.”
 

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
35,197
8,521
136
It's basically an insignificant part of Twitter's revenue so seems like a no-brainer. Jack also gets to stick it to Mark in the process.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

thilanliyan

Lifer
Jun 21, 2005
11,121
977
126
i still don't understand the "no fact checking" of political ads from Facebook...what a load of BS. Those DEFINITELY should be fact checked.
 

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
7,883
4,876
136
i still don't understand the "no fact checking" of political ads from Facebook...what a load of BS. Those DEFINITELY should be fact checked.
I suspect the reality is that Zuck doesn't want to deal with accusations of bias when Trump inevitably has many of his ads rejected.
 

GoodRevrnd

Diamond Member
Dec 27, 2001
6,753
543
126
Sounds good. However, I am curious 1) what sort of "political" issue ads are allowed through anyway, and 2) what resources are poured into trending topics to achieve similar reach, and what if anything, is done to fairly mitigate that.
 

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
7,883
4,876
136
Sounds good. However, I am curious 1) what sort of "political" issue ads are allowed through anyway, and 2) what resources are poured into trending topics to achieve similar reach, and what if anything, is done to fairly mitigate that.
The only political ads they'll let through are generic things like voter registration (but not, say, getting out the vote for a particular candidate).
 
Mar 11, 2004
20,549
2,671
126
Sounds good but we'll see how they actually behave. I have a strong hunch that we'll see a lot of ways that people bypass it and effectively it won't mean jack shit with regards to it accomplishing anything. Twitter also has a bad habit of not actually enforcing policy until it blows up into a news story showing them to be full of shit.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,140
13,081
136
Sounds good but we'll see how they actually behave. I have a strong hunch that we'll see a lot of ways that people bypass it and effectively it won't mean jack shit with regards to it accomplishing anything. Twitter also has a bad habit of not actually enforcing policy until it blows up into a news story showing them to be full of shit.
As a twitter user, you can say what you want so expect an army of trolls & bots. They can't target an audience with the precision of big data driven advertising, however.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,437
1,813
126
Good jab at Facebook and a positive first step, but bad actors will find workarounds to exploit Twitter in other ways.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,140
13,081
136
Good jab at Facebook and a positive first step, but bad actors will find workarounds to exploit Twitter in other ways.
At least Twittter won't be knowingly complicit. From Dorsey-

For instance, it's not credible for us 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! 😉
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY