6 ms·

This is profoundly disappointing, and is yet another indication that Twitter is clueless about being a platform and wants to be a content company. There have b

This is profoundly disappointing, and is yet another indication that Twitter is clueless about being a platform and wants to be a content company. There have been many other decisions where Twitter was tone-deaf about its platform status, but this is perhaps the worst. RT has had some great coverage of under-publicized issues in the US... issues involving the poor, failing infrastructure, hypocrisy, etc. Yes it's not flattering to the US that these stories are written, but they are true and newsworthy and should absolutely not be suppressed. During the election, RT ran a unflattering stories about both major candidates. This is now being spun as "trying to sow discord" in the US. Journalism is supposed to shine a light on things that need to be improved, it is supposed to rally people to act to fix those problems. If you read the major newspapers in the US, particularly in the section on world affairs, there is a steady stream of stories that address the dangers of living abroad, the corrupt politicians, the failing infrastructure, etc. These stories may or may not be true (many are obviously overblown to anyone who has visited those countries) but the purpose they serve is to help foster the idea of American exceptionalism. Our papers don't have to run headlines like "Americans happiest citizens in the world" or "America has the cleanest water and the happiest children in the world" when it can simply run stories that make other nations (particularly political adversaries) seem far worse. We still don't know much about the Hillary Clinton or Podesta emails as none of the few possibly troubling things (mostly campaign finance violation stuff) has been investigated. RT ran stories about that topic when it was fresh during the election, even when the major US papers were focused mainly on rude things Trump had said. When RT first launched I was surprised that it was "allowed" to exist simply because of its origin. But after reading the reporting for several years I came to appreciate that it was offering a view of the US that was not really available from American news outlets. This makes RT valuable to the sharing of ideas and the creation of an informed public. Twitter's decision to block the advertising is cowardly in so many ways.

eduren 9y ago
>RT has had some great coverage of under-publicized issues in the US... issues involving the poor, failing infrastructure, hypocrisy, etc. Yes it's not flattering to the US that these stories are written, but they are true and newsworthy and should absolutely not be suppressed. RT hasn't been blocked from twitter, it is still allowed to do all those things.
- grandalf 9y ago
  Now that Twitter has an algorithmic feed, perhaps content that is from banned advertisers gets penalized in the algorithm. It's all very shady and disappointing.
  - eduren 9y ago
    Okay, but that's a pretty big assumption. You can't go on a large tirade against twitter censoring alternative journalism without something to back it up. If you were worried about this feeding into twitter's algorithm why wasn't that your main point?
    - grandalf 9y ago
      Twitter can control the algorithm indirectly through selective banning of sock puppet or spam accounts, since many exist that help create virality for many different agendas. For years now Twitter has allowed a lot of shady accounts to be created simply because they help its growth and engagement numbers. If a Russian hacker writes a bot that retweets scintillating stories about an American politician, and this leads to more Twitter users scrolling their feed and viewing ads, Twitter wins. This is why the sock puppet ecosystem has been allowed to exist in spite of the very easy detection of various spam rings (they are easily detectable through simple graph analysis). The problem for Twitter is that it can't say "oops the engaged users numbers we've been talking about for the past few years are all massively inflated, we just deleted 100M sock puppet accounts and it turns out that our service is a lot less popular and a lot less engaging than we thought". So I'm not worried about Twitter tuning the algorithm since it has much easier ways of nudging the politics of the average user's news feed in whatever direction it wants. The concern is that Twitter bowed to political pressure from US politicians and penalized a news organization that should be investigated and shut down by an appropriate legal process if it's actually doing something more propaganda-like than other news orgs. Last time I checked, most news orgs (including CNN, the NYT, etc.) were all doing massive clickbait campaigns through many different advertising channels. RT is no exception. This is a dangerous form of scapegoating and censorship that happens to be legal because Twitter is a private firm. But it's very ugly and reveals a fear of or complicity with various elected officials in the US.
blackguardx 9y ago
>We still don't know much about the Hillary Clinton or Podesta emails as none of the few possibly troubling things (mostly campaign finance violation stuff) has been investigated You have no way of knowing the details about any investigations past or present. Investigations are usually done in secret. We do know that the FBI investigated but the details of that are not public, only that no criminal activity was found. Also Any US Attorney General can start Grand Jury proceedings (also secret) at any time.
- grandalf 9y ago
  OK, so your point is that RT's coverage was germane?
bsparker 9y ago
Twitter is an American company, and is publicly traded as such. They have a responsibility to appease shareholders. This isn't really about politics at all, or patriotism, it's about money.
- creaghpatr 9y ago
  Not all of their shareholders are American, in fact much of the equity is largely concentrated amongst a few relatively well known names https://www.recode.net/2016/8/11/12417064/twitter-stock-ownership-takeover-acquisition-challenges https://www.recode.net/2016/8/11/12417064/twitter-stock-owne...
- atomi 9y ago
  They could be more transparent about ads by informing people who is sponsoring them. But that might upset their other advertisers.
muglug 9y ago
Russia has long played up domestic strife in the US to disprove the notion of American exceptionalism. Embarrassment over America's portrayal abroad was a key reason the Kennedy administration grudgingly supported aspects of the civil rights movement. On the other hand, there are plenty of international news organisations shining a light on the parts of America that Americans don't want to see, and none of those news organisations are operating under the direction of a foreign power. RT is quite clearly seen by the Russian government as a useful propaganda tool, and not a news outlet that would ever challenge the current Russian government's malfeasance.
- grandalf 9y ago
  > RT is quite clearly seen by the Russian government as a useful propaganda tool, and not a news outlet that would ever challenge the current Russian government's malfeasance. Well I don't think we're likely to see the NYT or Fox or CNN challenging the US Government in any significant way. They are actually all consistently doing the US's bidding by helping sell various war efforts to their fans/viewers. > Russia has long played up domestic strife in the US to disprove the notion of American exceptionalism. So an editorial stance that rejects American Exceptionalism is now suspect? In my view the litmus test for RT is if the content stops at rejecting American Exceptionalism, or whether it goes further and attempts to make Americans believe things that are actually not true. Considering how much content in a typical issue of the NYT reinforces American Exceptionalism, it's quite refreshing to read something now and then that dispenses with that. The idea of American Exceptionalism is very harmful to the democratic process in America and to the world in general. I think it's among the most devastating and harmful ideas ever if measured by the suffering it has caused. The problem is that our own papers offer American Exceptionalism in high doses every single day.
  - dredmorbius 9y ago
    We've literally just come off 8 years of Fox challenging the U.S. administration at every turn. The Pentagon Papers is a rather historical example, but stands. I'd be interested in what you'd consider a refutation of your claim. The issue with RT isn't that it challenges American Exceptionalism. You can find that natively, largely in the left and alterative press, or critics such as Chomsky or Hedges or Naomi Klein, among many others. (They also, typically, do argue that the NYT and Post are establishment organs. It's possible to make that claim without descending to RT's depths. Quite easily.) It's that it has no interest in either the truth or advancing a positive alternative in doing so. Your litmus test is bogus.
tyleraldrich 9y ago
Nothing you mentioned is being affected by this change. They are no longer to purchase advertisements, but you can still follow RT and get news updates from them. Your post is just as much a political statement as Twitters, which is hilariously ironic.
- grandalf 9y ago
  What is concerning is that Twitter controls a massive platform and has revealed itself to be heavily biased and intent upon ideological control of the content that exists on its platform. My statement is simply my opinion, I am not controlling anyone else's access to a platform or to information by holding that opinion. I encourage you to read some RT stories. You will find that the reporting is generally solid but simply lacks the "Rah Rah USA USA" attitude that has become (embarrassingly) commonplace in our culture. I cringe when I see politicians wearing red or blue ties and American flag pins, as if doing that signals their devout patriotism. It's a similarly shallow world view that leads people to overlook RT's reporting and focus on its state sponsored origin before evaluating its contribution to American political discourse. I'd personally prefer if there were more anger about certain kinds of issues in the US -- such as the Flint Water crisis, lead in the water in many cities, foolish and corrupt infrastructure projects, etc.
  - tyleraldrich 9y ago
    > What is concerning is that Twitter controls a massive platform and has revealed itself to be heavily biased and intent upon ideological control of the content that exists on its platform. Your entire post is making the assumption that Twitter did this because they just believed the US/Russia election meddling stories or something. Maybe there was clear and documented malice involved? Who knows! Certainly not you. But, reading this and immediately thinking "Twitter has now admitted they are on the side of the Democrats and believes all these Russia stories" is foolish and fails to consider that maybe something weird _might_ be going on, and maybe Twitter actually made a good decision here. Don't worry about me though, I read plenty of international news - but I'm not going to bother with state sponsored organizations like RT.
keymone 9y ago
> it was offering a view of the US that was not really available from American news outlets of course it wasn't. their view is literally Kremlin narrated propaganda. how american news outlets are supposed to know that stuff?

eduren 9y ago

>RT has had some great coverage of under-publicized issues in the US... issues involving the poor, failing infrastructure, hypocrisy, etc. Yes it's not flattering to the US that these stories are written, but they are true and newsworthy and should absolutely not be suppressed. RT hasn't been blocked from twitter, it is still allowed to do all those things.

grandalf 9y ago
Now that Twitter has an algorithmic feed, perhaps content that is from banned advertisers gets penalized in the algorithm. It's all very shady and disappointing.
- eduren 9y ago
  Okay, but that's a pretty big assumption. You can't go on a large tirade against twitter censoring alternative journalism without something to back it up. If you were worried about this feeding into twitter's algorithm why wasn't that your main point?
  - grandalf 9y ago
    Twitter can control the algorithm indirectly through selective banning of sock puppet or spam accounts, since many exist that help create virality for many different agendas. For years now Twitter has allowed a lot of shady accounts to be created simply because they help its growth and engagement numbers. If a Russian hacker writes a bot that retweets scintillating stories about an American politician, and this leads to more Twitter users scrolling their feed and viewing ads, Twitter wins. This is why the sock puppet ecosystem has been allowed to exist in spite of the very easy detection of various spam rings (they are easily detectable through simple graph analysis). The problem for Twitter is that it can't say "oops the engaged users numbers we've been talking about for the past few years are all massively inflated, we just deleted 100M sock puppet accounts and it turns out that our service is a lot less popular and a lot less engaging than we thought". So I'm not worried about Twitter tuning the algorithm since it has much easier ways of nudging the politics of the average user's news feed in whatever direction it wants. The concern is that Twitter bowed to political pressure from US politicians and penalized a news organization that should be investigated and shut down by an appropriate legal process if it's actually doing something more propaganda-like than other news orgs. Last time I checked, most news orgs (including CNN, the NYT, etc.) were all doing massive clickbait campaigns through many different advertising channels. RT is no exception. This is a dangerous form of scapegoating and censorship that happens to be legal because Twitter is a private firm. But it's very ugly and reveals a fear of or complicity with various elected officials in the US.

blackguardx 9y ago

>We still don't know much about the Hillary Clinton or Podesta emails as none of the few possibly troubling things (mostly campaign finance violation stuff) has been investigated You have no way of knowing the details about any investigations past or present. Investigations are usually done in secret. We do know that the FBI investigated but the details of that are not public, only that no criminal activity was found. Also Any US Attorney General can start Grand Jury proceedings (also secret) at any time.

grandalf 9y ago
OK, so your point is that RT's coverage was germane?

bsparker 9y ago

Twitter is an American company, and is publicly traded as such. They have a responsibility to appease shareholders. This isn't really about politics at all, or patriotism, it's about money.

creaghpatr 9y ago
Not all of their shareholders are American, in fact much of the equity is largely concentrated amongst a few relatively well known names https://www.recode.net/2016/8/11/12417064/twitter-stock-ownership-takeover-acquisition-challenges https://www.recode.net/2016/8/11/12417064/twitter-stock-owne...
atomi 9y ago
They could be more transparent about ads by informing people who is sponsoring them. But that might upset their other advertisers.

muglug 9y ago

Russia has long played up domestic strife in the US to disprove the notion of American exceptionalism. Embarrassment over America's portrayal abroad was a key reason the Kennedy administration grudgingly supported aspects of the civil rights movement. On the other hand, there are plenty of international news organisations shining a light on the parts of America that Americans don't want to see, and none of those news organisations are operating under the direction of a foreign power. RT is quite clearly seen by the Russian government as a useful propaganda tool, and not a news outlet that would ever challenge the current Russian government's malfeasance.

grandalf 9y ago
> RT is quite clearly seen by the Russian government as a useful propaganda tool, and not a news outlet that would ever challenge the current Russian government's malfeasance. Well I don't think we're likely to see the NYT or Fox or CNN challenging the US Government in any significant way. They are actually all consistently doing the US's bidding by helping sell various war efforts to their fans/viewers. > Russia has long played up domestic strife in the US to disprove the notion of American exceptionalism. So an editorial stance that rejects American Exceptionalism is now suspect? In my view the litmus test for RT is if the content stops at rejecting American Exceptionalism, or whether it goes further and attempts to make Americans believe things that are actually not true. Considering how much content in a typical issue of the NYT reinforces American Exceptionalism, it's quite refreshing to read something now and then that dispenses with that. The idea of American Exceptionalism is very harmful to the democratic process in America and to the world in general. I think it's among the most devastating and harmful ideas ever if measured by the suffering it has caused. The problem is that our own papers offer American Exceptionalism in high doses every single day.
- dredmorbius 9y ago
  We've literally just come off 8 years of Fox challenging the U.S. administration at every turn. The Pentagon Papers is a rather historical example, but stands. I'd be interested in what you'd consider a refutation of your claim. The issue with RT isn't that it challenges American Exceptionalism. You can find that natively, largely in the left and alterative press, or critics such as Chomsky or Hedges or Naomi Klein, among many others. (They also, typically, do argue that the NYT and Post are establishment organs. It's possible to make that claim without descending to RT's depths. Quite easily.) It's that it has no interest in either the truth or advancing a positive alternative in doing so. Your litmus test is bogus.

tyleraldrich 9y ago

Nothing you mentioned is being affected by this change. They are no longer to purchase advertisements, but you can still follow RT and get news updates from them. Your post is just as much a political statement as Twitters, which is hilariously ironic.

grandalf 9y ago
What is concerning is that Twitter controls a massive platform and has revealed itself to be heavily biased and intent upon ideological control of the content that exists on its platform. My statement is simply my opinion, I am not controlling anyone else's access to a platform or to information by holding that opinion. I encourage you to read some RT stories. You will find that the reporting is generally solid but simply lacks the "Rah Rah USA USA" attitude that has become (embarrassingly) commonplace in our culture. I cringe when I see politicians wearing red or blue ties and American flag pins, as if doing that signals their devout patriotism. It's a similarly shallow world view that leads people to overlook RT's reporting and focus on its state sponsored origin before evaluating its contribution to American political discourse. I'd personally prefer if there were more anger about certain kinds of issues in the US -- such as the Flint Water crisis, lead in the water in many cities, foolish and corrupt infrastructure projects, etc.
- tyleraldrich 9y ago
  > What is concerning is that Twitter controls a massive platform and has revealed itself to be heavily biased and intent upon ideological control of the content that exists on its platform. Your entire post is making the assumption that Twitter did this because they just believed the US/Russia election meddling stories or something. Maybe there was clear and documented malice involved? Who knows! Certainly not you. But, reading this and immediately thinking "Twitter has now admitted they are on the side of the Democrats and believes all these Russia stories" is foolish and fails to consider that maybe something weird _might_ be going on, and maybe Twitter actually made a good decision here. Don't worry about me though, I read plenty of international news - but I'm not going to bother with state sponsored organizations like RT.

keymone 9y ago

> it was offering a view of the US that was not really available from American news outlets of course it wasn't. their view is literally Kremlin narrated propaganda. how american news outlets are supposed to know that stuff?