Twitter is supposed to release the details of its new political-ad-ban policy today. Rumors are floating that the ban won’t be as sweeping as Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey’s October announcement suggested: it may continue to permit ads about political issues, as long as they don’t mention specific legislation or candidates.
The conservative Beltway-based Institute for Free Speech agrees with me that Twitter’s ban doesn’t violate the First Amendment, since Twitter is a private company, not the government. But IFS’s Brad Smith agrees with me that the impending ban on buying “reach” for political messages is riddled with inconsistency. Smith points out, for instance, that the ban as discussed by Dorsey only increases the unfair advantages of the rich and famous:
Presumably, under Twitter’s new policy, a campaign will be able to pay a celebrity $50,000 to tweet out an endorsement or mention. However, a candidate without celebrity fans will be unable to spend $5,000 to promote a tweet. The paid ad may be truthful, while the celebrity tweet may contain what Dorsey calls “unchecked, misleading information,” but only the former will be banned. Or will Twitter disable the accounts of celebrities who accept payments for their tweets, or who relay “unchecked, misleading information?” As determined by whom?
…Dorsey worries that Twitter advertising might influence voters—but influencing people is the essence of speech in a free society, and persuading others is presumably why Dorsey sent out a tweet stream explaining himself. Removing a major source of low-cost political advertising from Twitter harms those who don’t yet have a large audience but are looking for an inexpensive way to reach voters and identify new supporters [Brad Smith, “Free Speech Means Free Speech,” Institute for Free Speech, 2019.11.01].
A socialist paper in the U.K. also sees Twitter’s political-ad ban favoring the corporate elites over us commoners:
For the working class, the consequences are much worse. The policy will still allow big companies in the pharmaceutical and fossil fuel industry to buy ads that promote and distribute misinformation. However, an activist who dares criticise these companies will be seen as political, and therefore banned from buying ads to do so [Joshua Allerton, “Twitter’s Banning of Political Ads Threatens Workers’ Voice,” The Socialist, 2019.11.13].
Of course, those socialists want to nationalize Twitter and other social media platforms. Hmm… Medicare for All is sufficient socialism for me, thank you. Let’s keep the printing presses, including the one in your hands, independent of state ownership.
Twitter could take a simpler step to decreasing the influence of big money, not just in politics but in all messages disseminated on Twitter: move the “Promoted” tag from the bottom of each Twitter ad to the top. Change the font from the smaller and paler grey letters to extra-large, extra-bold solid black letters. Make the first thing we see on any paid Tweet, “XXX Inc. IS SPENDING $YYY TO BUY YOUR ATTENTION WITH THIS AD.”
Then it would be up to us citizens to exercise our judgment. Thus alerted to the paid nature of a message before I read it, I could decide if I want to even bother viewing the content or, as I relishing doing with Twitter ads, go right for the control panel and hit “Block.”
Twitter can publish messages from whatever influencers it wants, for whatever price it wants. (I appreciate their continuing to publish my messages for the small price of being able to monitor my speech and attempting to glean marketable information.) Twitter could help us make informed choices about those attempts at influence with clearer labeling of paid influence.
Funny how these things always seem to work out to the advantage of the wealthy. 😠
“Promoted” or “Paid Advertising” right at the top would be helpful.