3 ms·

We know that Twitter is willing to ban US political ads that violate their personal values. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/10/twitter-bans-blackburn

We know that Twitter is willing to ban US political ads that violate their personal values. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/10/twitter-bans-blackburn-ad-gives-her-senate-campaign-a-boost.html http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/10/twitter-bans-bl...

SauciestGNU 9y ago
That ad was rejected because of a line that was linked libelously untruthful. In the article you linked it says that Twitter would run the ad with the offending line edited out. I believe that particular decision was probably somewhat about disagreeing with her politics, but moreso about stopping outright lies ("fake news") from propagating on their platform when they could stop it.
- leereeves 9y ago
  You're talking about the "sale of baby body parts", right? Scandalous? Yes. Libelous? The NY Times described the practice: > Companies that obtain [fetal] tissue from clinics and sell it to laboratories exist in a gray zone, legally. Federal law says they cannot profit from the tissue itself, but the law does not specify how much they can charge for processing and shipping. > ... > Many [labs] buy the tissue from companies that act as middlemen. Those companies pay small fees, usually $100 or less a specimen, to abortion providers like Planned Parenthood, who say they charge only what they need to cover their expenses. The companies then process the tissue and sell it to researchers for higher prices that reflect the processing. > The fees, which can run to thousands of dollars for a tiny vial of cells, do not break the law, according to Arthur Caplan, the director of the division of medical ethics at NYU Langone Medical Center. > “It appears to be legal, no matter how much you charge,” Dr. Caplan said, adding that there appears to be little or no oversight of the processing fees. “It’s a very gray and musty area as to what you can charge.” https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/28/health/fetal-tissue-from-abortions-for-research-is-traded-in-a-gray-zone.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/28/health/fetal-tissue-from-...
  - SauciestGNU 9y ago
    Interesting, thanks for correcting my impressions.
- creaghpatr 9y ago
  Regardless of whether the claims in the video are true or 100% false, Twitter is willing to silence speech from a political candidate under (at the very least) these circumstances.
  - SauciestGNU 9y ago
    They refused to run a misleading (at best) ad campaign. I would ask you, do you consider that Breitbart or Fox News should be obligated to run ads for Bernie Sanders, or Elizabeth Warren? Or should they be allowed to reject ads based on content that the ownership disagrees with?
cgb223 9y ago
Oh man, if the Equal Time Rule applied to digital media, the AG would have a field day with that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule

SauciestGNU 9y ago

That ad was rejected because of a line that was linked libelously untruthful. In the article you linked it says that Twitter would run the ad with the offending line edited out. I believe that particular decision was probably somewhat about disagreeing with her politics, but moreso about stopping outright lies ("fake news") from propagating on their platform when they could stop it.

leereeves 9y ago
You're talking about the "sale of baby body parts", right? Scandalous? Yes. Libelous? The NY Times described the practice: > Companies that obtain [fetal] tissue from clinics and sell it to laboratories exist in a gray zone, legally. Federal law says they cannot profit from the tissue itself, but the law does not specify how much they can charge for processing and shipping. > ... > Many [labs] buy the tissue from companies that act as middlemen. Those companies pay small fees, usually $100 or less a specimen, to abortion providers like Planned Parenthood, who say they charge only what they need to cover their expenses. The companies then process the tissue and sell it to researchers for higher prices that reflect the processing. > The fees, which can run to thousands of dollars for a tiny vial of cells, do not break the law, according to Arthur Caplan, the director of the division of medical ethics at NYU Langone Medical Center. > “It appears to be legal, no matter how much you charge,” Dr. Caplan said, adding that there appears to be little or no oversight of the processing fees. “It’s a very gray and musty area as to what you can charge.” https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/28/health/fetal-tissue-from-abortions-for-research-is-traded-in-a-gray-zone.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/28/health/fetal-tissue-from-...
- SauciestGNU 9y ago
  Interesting, thanks for correcting my impressions.
creaghpatr 9y ago
Regardless of whether the claims in the video are true or 100% false, Twitter is willing to silence speech from a political candidate under (at the very least) these circumstances.
- SauciestGNU 9y ago
  They refused to run a misleading (at best) ad campaign. I would ask you, do you consider that Breitbart or Fox News should be obligated to run ads for Bernie Sanders, or Elizabeth Warren? Or should they be allowed to reject ads based on content that the ownership disagrees with?

cgb223 9y ago

Oh man, if the Equal Time Rule applied to digital media, the AG would have a field day with that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule