12 ms·

I'm not sure I see what RT is attempting to say about Twitter here. That they offered them promoted content, ad-buy discounts, custom emojis, etc, in exchange f

I'm not sure I see what RT is attempting to say about Twitter here. That they offered them promoted content, ad-buy discounts, custom emojis, etc, in exchange for an ad-buy of a certain amount. This doesn't seem like anything other than a partnership of some kind. It doesn't say anything that RT should favour one candidate over another, in fact the presentation specifically promotes unbiased content and news.

txmjs 9y ago
The presentation may promote unbiased content, but it would be naïve to suggest that Twitter had no idea who RT would support.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  Even if that's true, so what? It was pretty clear who Fox News or MSNBC would support but I doubt anyone would be up in arms if Twitter took advertising money from them.
saas_co_de 9y ago
that they are lying hypocrites seems to be the general drift :) complaining that RT was influencing the election after attempting to sell them a platform to influence the election does seem to fit the bill.
- matt4077 9y ago
  But that's the point: There's nothing in this presentation suggesting they were even implying that it's a way to change the outcome of the election. In fact, I'd be quite surprised if it were: If you're doing marketing at Twitter in summer 2016, you'd be a genius if you though of RT's motives as anything else than getting clicks for their content.
  - blfr 9y ago
    There is nothing anywhere suggesting that RT did or could change the outcome of the elections because it has always been far beyond their reach. Clinton's campaign outspent Trump's so badly that a few million this or that way did not matter. It may have been illegal or unethical for US outlets to take the money but it did not make a lick of difference in the outcome.
  - itronitron 9y ago
    The whole point of buying advertising is to influence an outcome and the US Presidential Election is the clear topic or 'case study' for the slide deck. Twitter is listing discounts for advertising to a foreign news agency while bragging about how its platform allows advertisers to engage with their audience. It wouldn't surprise me if nobody at Twitter considered RT's motives, but then... ignorance is not an excuse.
    - fwdpropaganda 9y ago
      Very well put.
    - matt4077 9y ago
      > The whole point of buying advertising is to influence an outcome That's sort of a truism, right? > It wouldn't surprise me if nobody at Twitter considered RT's motives Oh, sorry. I thought you were disagreeing.
simonh 9y ago
The 'unbiased' bit in the Twitter presentation is bullshit, how can they determine how an organisation is going to use this system? It's wishful thinking at best. Otherwise, to be honest I'm with you. Suppose it was revealed Twitter had offered the same deal to Fox News, CNN, PBS, the BBC, etc. In fact they probably did. Is it now illegal or immoral for US businesses to deal with RT? Should US advertisers be banned from working with RT? US media organizations? US telecoms companies? Maybe they should be, but it certainly wasn't back then. We all know RT is a Kremlin propaganda tool, if we want to penalise RT then lets do that directly and explicitly and not blame Twitter for just being Twitter. Now if subsequently Twitter has decided that RT violated Twitter's terms of service, that's a different issues, but you can't expect Twitter to know they're going to do that beforehand, or in general pre-emptively decide who they will or won't accept on the platform like that. Edit: See emodenrockt's reply below. Couldn't agree more. RT are toxic, but we can't afford to twist our deomocratic and press freedoms in knots over them.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  Personally I think we probably shouldn't throw out our fundamental protections of the press because we don't like RT's angle, especially when you consider that even if you're a liberal who hates RT you can be sure they'll turn around and use whatever precedent is set against left-leaning sources too. We're already seeing this with the hysteria about fake news being taken out on sources like Naked Capitalism and Truthout.
  - tpm 9y ago
    being a liberal doesn't have anything to do with it. RT is state propaganda of a dictatorship, not some legitimate news source with a left or right bias.
    - emodendroket 9y ago
      It is a legitimate news source though. If you're sorting news sources into all-good and all-bad buckets and uncritically believing or disbelieving everything they print then you're going to end up with a distorted view.
fwdpropaganda 9y ago
> I'm not sure I see what RT is attempting to say about Twitter here. Here's my reading. Twitter: "RT has bought advertising to influence elections." RT: "Twitter pitched to us that we could buy advertising to reach politically active users."
detaro 9y ago
Was what RT did so much of a change in nature to them that Twitter can claim to be surprised by what they did? Or did they make a deal with RT because they wanted the money, knowing RT would be biased towards its interests and use the tools given for to push those, and are now embarrassed it got attention? I think then the message is "we aren't someone that bought ads under the radar, Twitter explicitly worked with us on a deal knowing who we are"
factsaresacred 9y ago
> It doesn't say anything that RT should favour one candidate over another, in fact the presentation specifically promotes unbiased content and news. All but two papers endorsed one candidate over the other. The NYT released an op-ed after the election admitting bias and promising some soul-searching. The media is biased, jaw-droppingly so. Also, we can't see the Twitter ads so can't judge on the content. As a corollary, we do know that the Facebook ads didn't even mention a candidate and simply took a moral stance on social issues. Taking a moral stance on social issues is the bread and butter of the media. Go visit any news website right now and you'll see at least one example of this without even having to scroll. It's both bizarre and fascinating to witness the anti-Russia hysteria reach fever pitch. I feel sorry for the USA in a way. It's as if you lost the ability to think about issues and instead all you do is feel about them. Part of me thinks that deep inside many people know the Russia thing is nonsense but they need some kind of grand narrative to give their life meaning now that Trump is President. A distraction that reads like a Tom Clancy novel to satiate them - and allow them to rationalize their bewilderment at being so wrong - in between seasons of Game of Thrones. I'm not kidding.

txmjs 9y ago

The presentation may promote unbiased content, but it would be naïve to suggest that Twitter had no idea who RT would support.

emodendroket 9y ago
Even if that's true, so what? It was pretty clear who Fox News or MSNBC would support but I doubt anyone would be up in arms if Twitter took advertising money from them.

saas_co_de 9y ago

that they are lying hypocrites seems to be the general drift :) complaining that RT was influencing the election after attempting to sell them a platform to influence the election does seem to fit the bill.

matt4077 9y ago
But that's the point: There's nothing in this presentation suggesting they were even implying that it's a way to change the outcome of the election. In fact, I'd be quite surprised if it were: If you're doing marketing at Twitter in summer 2016, you'd be a genius if you though of RT's motives as anything else than getting clicks for their content.
- blfr 9y ago
  There is nothing anywhere suggesting that RT did or could change the outcome of the elections because it has always been far beyond their reach. Clinton's campaign outspent Trump's so badly that a few million this or that way did not matter. It may have been illegal or unethical for US outlets to take the money but it did not make a lick of difference in the outcome.
- itronitron 9y ago
  The whole point of buying advertising is to influence an outcome and the US Presidential Election is the clear topic or 'case study' for the slide deck. Twitter is listing discounts for advertising to a foreign news agency while bragging about how its platform allows advertisers to engage with their audience. It wouldn't surprise me if nobody at Twitter considered RT's motives, but then... ignorance is not an excuse.
  - fwdpropaganda 9y ago
    Very well put.
  - matt4077 9y ago
    > The whole point of buying advertising is to influence an outcome That's sort of a truism, right? > It wouldn't surprise me if nobody at Twitter considered RT's motives Oh, sorry. I thought you were disagreeing.

simonh 9y ago

The 'unbiased' bit in the Twitter presentation is bullshit, how can they determine how an organisation is going to use this system? It's wishful thinking at best. Otherwise, to be honest I'm with you. Suppose it was revealed Twitter had offered the same deal to Fox News, CNN, PBS, the BBC, etc. In fact they probably did. Is it now illegal or immoral for US businesses to deal with RT? Should US advertisers be banned from working with RT? US media organizations? US telecoms companies? Maybe they should be, but it certainly wasn't back then. We all know RT is a Kremlin propaganda tool, if we want to penalise RT then lets do that directly and explicitly and not blame Twitter for just being Twitter. Now if subsequently Twitter has decided that RT violated Twitter's terms of service, that's a different issues, but you can't expect Twitter to know they're going to do that beforehand, or in general pre-emptively decide who they will or won't accept on the platform like that. Edit: See emodenrockt's reply below. Couldn't agree more. RT are toxic, but we can't afford to twist our deomocratic and press freedoms in knots over them.

emodendroket 9y ago
Personally I think we probably shouldn't throw out our fundamental protections of the press because we don't like RT's angle, especially when you consider that even if you're a liberal who hates RT you can be sure they'll turn around and use whatever precedent is set against left-leaning sources too. We're already seeing this with the hysteria about fake news being taken out on sources like Naked Capitalism and Truthout.
- tpm 9y ago
  being a liberal doesn't have anything to do with it. RT is state propaganda of a dictatorship, not some legitimate news source with a left or right bias.
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    It is a legitimate news source though. If you're sorting news sources into all-good and all-bad buckets and uncritically believing or disbelieving everything they print then you're going to end up with a distorted view.

fwdpropaganda 9y ago

> I'm not sure I see what RT is attempting to say about Twitter here. Here's my reading. Twitter: "RT has bought advertising to influence elections." RT: "Twitter pitched to us that we could buy advertising to reach politically active users."

detaro 9y ago

Was what RT did so much of a change in nature to them that Twitter can claim to be surprised by what they did? Or did they make a deal with RT because they wanted the money, knowing RT would be biased towards its interests and use the tools given for to push those, and are now embarrassed it got attention? I think then the message is "we aren't someone that bought ads under the radar, Twitter explicitly worked with us on a deal knowing who we are"

factsaresacred 9y ago

> It doesn't say anything that RT should favour one candidate over another, in fact the presentation specifically promotes unbiased content and news. All but two papers endorsed one candidate over the other. The NYT released an op-ed after the election admitting bias and promising some soul-searching. The media is biased, jaw-droppingly so. Also, we can't see the Twitter ads so can't judge on the content. As a corollary, we do know that the Facebook ads didn't even mention a candidate and simply took a moral stance on social issues. Taking a moral stance on social issues is the bread and butter of the media. Go visit any news website right now and you'll see at least one example of this without even having to scroll. It's both bizarre and fascinating to witness the anti-Russia hysteria reach fever pitch. I feel sorry for the USA in a way. It's as if you lost the ability to think about issues and instead all you do is feel about them. Part of me thinks that deep inside many people know the Russia thing is nonsense but they need some kind of grand narrative to give their life meaning now that Trump is President. A distraction that reads like a Tom Clancy novel to satiate them - and allow them to rationalize their bewilderment at being so wrong - in between seasons of Game of Thrones. I'm not kidding.