Twitter's decision on Wednesday to ban political advertising was met with cautious praise. (Image: Jisc)
'Whoa': Twitter to End Paid Political Advertising on Platform, CEO Says
"This isn't about free expression," said Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey. "This is about paying for reach."
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey on Wednesday announced that the social media site would no longer have paid political advertisements, a move sure to shake up the digital landscape that earned him praise from progressives.
"Wow," tweeted activist Edward Snowden. "Big move by @jack, and a bigger contrast to @Facebook's increasingly problematic policy positions."
In a series of tweets, Dorsey laid out the reasons for the decision and made clear that the policy would only apply to paid advertisements.
"This isn't about free expression," said Dorsey. "This is about paying for reach."
"They're drawing a clear line between paid reach and earned, organic reach," said NBC journalist Ben Collins.
Under the new rules, as indicated by Dorsey, a campaign presumably could post an advertisement video or photo to its own account--just not pay to promote it. The final policy will be announced on November 15 and implemented on November 22.
"A political message earns reach when people decide to follow an account or retweet," Dorsey explained. "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."
Dorsey appeared to take a subtle shot at competitor Facebook, whose CEO Mark Zuckerberg told Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in a recent hearing that political advertisements on that platform did not need to be truthful. In response, activists bought an ad that shows members of the Republican Party supporting the congresswoman's Green New Deal; Facebook approved the ad.
"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!'" said Dorsey.
Reaction from progressives was hesitantly positive.
"I don't really know their reasons or [if] it is good or bad ultimately," tweeted blogger Atrios, "but at least knock a dent in the ridiculous Facebook 'free speech requires we privilege people who give us money' argument.
We are at a crossroads
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. In a few short weeks, US voters will have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. Our Fall Campaign is underway, and we need your help. To power our newsroom through the rest of the year, we need to raise $125,000 by midnight on October 31. So if you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey on Wednesday announced that the social media site would no longer have paid political advertisements, a move sure to shake up the digital landscape that earned him praise from progressives.
"Wow," tweeted activist Edward Snowden. "Big move by @jack, and a bigger contrast to @Facebook's increasingly problematic policy positions."
In a series of tweets, Dorsey laid out the reasons for the decision and made clear that the policy would only apply to paid advertisements.
"This isn't about free expression," said Dorsey. "This is about paying for reach."
"They're drawing a clear line between paid reach and earned, organic reach," said NBC journalist Ben Collins.
Under the new rules, as indicated by Dorsey, a campaign presumably could post an advertisement video or photo to its own account--just not pay to promote it. The final policy will be announced on November 15 and implemented on November 22.
"A political message earns reach when people decide to follow an account or retweet," Dorsey explained. "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."
Dorsey appeared to take a subtle shot at competitor Facebook, whose CEO Mark Zuckerberg told Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in a recent hearing that political advertisements on that platform did not need to be truthful. In response, activists bought an ad that shows members of the Republican Party supporting the congresswoman's Green New Deal; Facebook approved the ad.
"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!'" said Dorsey.
Reaction from progressives was hesitantly positive.
"I don't really know their reasons or [if] it is good or bad ultimately," tweeted blogger Atrios, "but at least knock a dent in the ridiculous Facebook 'free speech requires we privilege people who give us money' argument.
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey on Wednesday announced that the social media site would no longer have paid political advertisements, a move sure to shake up the digital landscape that earned him praise from progressives.
"Wow," tweeted activist Edward Snowden. "Big move by @jack, and a bigger contrast to @Facebook's increasingly problematic policy positions."
In a series of tweets, Dorsey laid out the reasons for the decision and made clear that the policy would only apply to paid advertisements.
"This isn't about free expression," said Dorsey. "This is about paying for reach."
"They're drawing a clear line between paid reach and earned, organic reach," said NBC journalist Ben Collins.
Under the new rules, as indicated by Dorsey, a campaign presumably could post an advertisement video or photo to its own account--just not pay to promote it. The final policy will be announced on November 15 and implemented on November 22.
"A political message earns reach when people decide to follow an account or retweet," Dorsey explained. "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."
Dorsey appeared to take a subtle shot at competitor Facebook, whose CEO Mark Zuckerberg told Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in a recent hearing that political advertisements on that platform did not need to be truthful. In response, activists bought an ad that shows members of the Republican Party supporting the congresswoman's Green New Deal; Facebook approved the ad.
"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!'" said Dorsey.
Reaction from progressives was hesitantly positive.
"I don't really know their reasons or [if] it is good or bad ultimately," tweeted blogger Atrios, "but at least knock a dent in the ridiculous Facebook 'free speech requires we privilege people who give us money' argument.