Twitter has decided to stop selling political advertising. Starting November 22, I can still Tweet, Sign my petition! or Legalize industrial hemp! or Don’t elect racists like Senator Novstrup! Twitter’s CEO Jack Dorsey just won’t let me pay him to spread that message beyond my followers and retweeters:
…political message reach should be earned, not bought….
A political message earns reach when people decide to follow an account or retweet. Paying for reach removes that decision, forcing highly optimized and targeted political messages on people. We believe this decision should not be compromised by money [Jack Dorsey, Twitter thread, 2019.10.30].
I understand and groove to the idea that ideas ought to spread by authentic individual interest and word of mouth. But why does Dorsey distinguish political advertising from commercial advertising? Why will he continue to accept money to force on us highly optimized and targeted messages promoting beer, e-cigs, self-help books, and other harmful consumer products?
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.
nternet political ads present entirely new challenges to civic discourse: machine learning-based optimization of messaging and micro-targeting, unchecked misleading information, and deep fakes. All at increasing velocity, sophistication, and overwhelming scale [Dorsey, 2019.10.30].
Spread clever fake messages promoting e-cigs, and several fools are separated from their money, and a few are separated from their lives. Spread fake messages about candidates, and we end up with a criminal clown tearing down the free world. The moral distinction between the harms of manipulative commercial advertising and manipulative political advertising feels shaky.
I will agree solidly with Dorsey’s contention that Twitter is not abridging First Amendment rights:
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 [Dorsey, 2019.10.30].
Twitter is a private enterprise, as surely as is Dakota Free Press. Dorsey and I own our platforms; we have a right to control what content and what speakers appear on our property. No one can demand access to our platforms or demand that we take their money for access to our platforms.
I might temper the assertion of that property right by analogizing to broadcasters. Our local TV and radio stations are mostly private corporations, but they operate on publicly owned and licensed airwaves and thus have certain obligations to the public. TV and radio stations have to provide political candidates with “reasonable access” to their platforms, at special rates immediately before elections. If we could assert that Twitter “broadcasts” over the public airwaves (and hey, how many of you are reading this on your phones or other devices that are receiving a wireless signal from afar?), we could assert that Twitter has a similar obligation to serve the public interest and allow political candidates (and ballot question sponsors!) access to their tweetwaves.
But that broadcasting/public service argument wouldn’t change the propriety of Dorsey’s action. Dorsey is offering us political speakers a better deal than any TV or radio station: we can all access and publish to his platform for free and shout all we want to everyone who chooses to listen. Even under its FCC mandate, TV is far less democratic, with airtime doled out only in proportion to money. Candidates with no cash get no TV; they have to turn to Twitter… and they still can.
But I still can’t figure out the moral threshold that bans politicians from advertising but not profiteers. I listen almost exclusively to public broadcasting (SDPB, MPR, CKUA) because I can’t stand any advertising interrupting my attention. I don’t want anyone polluting my mindspace… but salespeople are worse that politicians. Political ads are at least worth discussing and debating. Commercial ads just try to take our money. (Salespeople, if I want to buy something, I’ll come looking. Don’t call me; I’ll call you.)
I support Jack Dorsey’s property right to ban political ads from Twitter. I understand his motives for resisting the effort of Trumpists to lie their way to power. But I struggle with the inconsistency of continuing to help other speakers manipulate their way to profit.
I would guess that they have to have some advertising to pay the bills. If they banned all ads, they couldn’t afford to exist on the scale that they exist now. I can dig the position twitter is taking here, even though I think twitter is dumb and shouldn’t exist at all.
I think you made the point that I agree with most strongly – people exercising their purchasing power based on internet advertisements just doesn’t have the same degree of impact as who runs our city or state or country.
Yeah, Twitter has to pay the bills. I’ve read that FB is a much more potent platform for GOP lies than Twitter and we already know that Zuck likes the lies. 😠😠😠
O’Rourke just dropped out. Now he needs to run for the Senate and take Cornyn out.
Salespeople are worse than politicians? But, Cory. Aren’t you both?
Lewis Lapham, who used to be the editor of “Harpers,” once stated in an essay, “Politics is the continual argument over who gets to do what to whom, for how long, and against how much dissent.”
Very few sentences I have ever read have reduced such a complex question into such a simple and obvious answer.
“Twitter” is a playing field upon which I have yet to tread, but if FaceBook is any analogue at all, I have no desire. I already dissipate my declining desire to interact with others on FaceBook, wherein I must suffer the prattlings of fledgling fascists (whom, when properly fed, develop rather quickly into brownshirts), while I commen sardonically on current affairs.
CIRD, I like Twitter because I only follow those I choose and don’t spend much time at all involved with fascists, fledgling or otherwise. In addition, there are some very funny people on Twitter in the nonpolitical realm. I find Twitter easier to manage than FB.
I do have to admit some of the sponsored ads, are comedy gold.
I got about 20 of these in one big burst of fossil fuel cash. Each one of with the new-at-the-time stamp of who paused for them.
https://twitter.com/bill_capehart/status/1076469538810675200?s=21
https://twitter.com/bill_capehart/status/1077612703844319237?s=21
Zuckerberg Has Trump By The Short Hairs
– Top Republicans are privately worried about a new threat to President Trump’s campaign: the possibility of Facebook pulling a Twitter and banning political ads.
– Facebook says it won’t, but experts point out that future regulatory pressure from Democrats could change that. If Facebook were to ban — or even limit — ads, it could upend Trump’s fundraising and re-election plan, biggly.
Trump relies heavily — much more so than Democrats — on targeted Facebook ads to shape views and raise money.
*Zuck will change his mind. He does it all the time.
I hope Zuck changes his mind. Being happy with any lies anyone wants to publish is such BS. I think public pressure will continue to grow.
Well, there’s no pressure from the GOP since lying is their #1 campaign tool.
This piece from Axios echoes Porter’s comment:
Kara Swisher, of Recode, the super plugged-in tech writer, predicted on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” that Mark Zuckerberg will ultimately buckle on allowing demonstrably false political adds on Facebook: “He’s going to change his mind — 100% … [H]e’s done it before.”
In October, Trump spent $13 million on Facebook. Experts told me that because none of it showed on my Facebook. I’m not a persuadable and I live in an anti-Trump state. That’s why Facebook is such an effective place to post propaganda for politicians. Facebook can target a receptive audience better than any platform.
Axios has more about Liar-in-Chief on social media:
By the numbers: The 2020 Democratic candidates picked up a combined 58 million social media interactions (likes, comments, shares) on stories about them. But that’s dwarfed by Trump’s 181 million, the NewsWhip data shows.
is.gd/pHDmXn
I see no positive Liar-in-Chief ads and consider myself blessed. ☺
So far, I have received about 989 affirmative opinions regarding my running for any office. Now, that’s not a BAD number, but it’s somewhat short of viral. If I am elected to any office, I’ll do my best to see that you get a fair shake. So where should I run for?
As I announce, I shall disclose my identity and express my gratitude to Dakota Free Press for its support of my platform.
Run For The Hills! That’s crazy talk. 😂
I had hoped at least you, Porter, would recognize it for what it is.
It’s so weird.
RT, Russian propaganda, is about as terribly upset about the Twitter ban as Liar-in-Chief and the GOP.
So weird!
https://www.facebook.com/100000784953232/posts/2495764217126386/?app=fbl
What is it?
A couple of tweets. One is from RT, the other from Brad Parscale, both in a major tizz about Twitter’s ban on political ads. The poster, Asha Rangappa (?) posted both tweets side by side, then commented on how interesting it is that those 2 are so over the top upset about this. Asha does not say, “Is there a connection?” It’s not necessary.
Debbo, RT is Russian propaganda no more than the New York Times is US propaganda. Plenty of revelations on RT and Al Jazeera that this country want’s to call propaganda. IMO, its best to weigh all sides.
I have no interest in Twitter. Especially if Trump likes it and especially if they want to control content.
CIRD, South Dakota needs a firm but fair Hanging Judge for wingnut pols and their tunnel visaged supporters.