10 ms·
Updating our advertising policies on state media
- huac 7y agohere's the context: https://techcrunch.com/2019/08/19/twitter-is-blocked-in-china-but-its-state-news-agency-is-buying-promoted-tweets-to-portray-hong-kong-protestors-as-violent/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/08/19/twitter-is-blocked-in-chin... (h/t idlewords)
- commandlinefan 7y agoThat might be the context, but this is very clearly an attempt to prohibit any foreign influence in the upcoming US 2020 presidential election. I'm also not sure I trust Twitter to apply this fairly when the election kicks into high gear next year.
- jonnycomputer 7y agoI don't think this prevents state's from buying ads in their own names.
- floatingatoll 7y agoTheir post about Hong Kong earlier today contradicts a US-centric interpretation of this new policy: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20740179 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20740179 It may end up being relevant to the US elections, but that's unlikely the sole reason.
- floatingatoll 7y agoHN on that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20739907 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20739907
- akersten 7y agoGreat steps. Propaganda machines are alive and well, and moves to limit their influence are a powerful sign for democracy. It's meaningful that a company would decline business in defense of a principle, so I'm proud of Twitter for taking a stand today.
- farisjarrah 7y agoWill this make a meaningful difference? Wont this just push all the propaganda off onto Super-PAC type organizations?
- creyes 7y agoDoesn't catch entities like PAC's and Fox News though
- akersten 7y agoA wise mantra is to not let perfect be the enemy of good. Those PACs were likely already going to propagandize. It's not like they suddenly become more powerful or concentrated because the state media promoted posts that happened to align with them disappeared. Also in some instances like foreign influence (e.g. the HK protests and surrounding state ad campaigns from which this policy ostensibly stems), there may not even be a corresponding PAC. So shutting down that advertising could be surprisingly significant.
- farisjarrah 7y agoGood points, and good outlook on the topic. Thank you.
- jonnycomputer 7y agoI am generally suspicious of claims that policy enforcement is useless because it will just be circumvented. We hear it all the time, e.g. don't tax the rich because the rich will just find ways to avoid paying them. don't enforce fuel efficiency standards, because car companies will just cheat their way out of them. it goes on and on. don't bother with security because they'll find a way to get you if they really want you. But in the end, the effectiveness of regulation is proportional to the degree of effort avoidance or circumvention requires. I say, "Twitter: good call." Let states speak for themselves.
- rhizome 7y agoIt's the Nirvana fallacy, like the pro-gun argument requiring every gun control initiative to eliminate all gun crimes.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- AlleyTrotter 7y agowho freaking cares?
- dang 7y agoPerhaps not many, but could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker News? We're trying for a bit better than internet default here.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y agoDoes this mean that the BBC is prohibited from advertising on Twitter?
- kchamplewski 7y agoThe post states: > This policy will not apply to taxpayer-funded entities, including independent public broadcasters. So quite probably no, since the BBC is an independent public broadcaster (much like NPR in the US) - it is state funded but not directly controlled by the state; it maintains editorial independence. Of course conclusively defining editorial independence seems like quite a non-trivial task. It's made even more confusing by the fact that it goes on to state: > This policy will apply to news media entities that are either financially or editorially controlled by the state. While the BBC and other taxpayer funded independent public broadcasters are not editorially controlled by the state, isn't being taxpayer funded synonymous with being controlled financially by the state?
- derefr 7y agoDepends on whether the state can politically afford to rescind the media entity's budget. Compare these two scenarios: • I, an advertiser, give YouTube $20. YouTube decides to not give the content-creator on whose media my ads ran that $20. That's up to them, because YouTube controls the relationship. I, as an advertiser, don't even really have a relationship with content creators; I just have a relationship with YouTube, and they have a separate relationship with YouTube, and sometimes YouTube chooses to pay out the content creator with money that I just paid in. But that's a policy choice, not an obligation. As an advertiser, I don't care what happens to my money as long as my ads run and people see them. They can do whatever they like with the money—pay content creators, pay themselves, burn it, whatever. • I, a buyer, give PayPal $20. PayPal is obligated to give (most of) that $20 to the person I am buying goods from; the $20 is a liability on their balance sheet. Why? Because I (and a number of other people) would get quite cross with PayPal if they didn't give the money to the person I intended it for. That transmission-of-money-to-intended-recipient is their business model; it's the reason I trusted them with my money in the first place. A "taxpayer funded" media entity like the BBC is presumably more like a PayPal-style relationship than a YouTube-style relationship: the taxpayers are giving the government money under the assumption that it is obligated to give that money to the BBC; effectively, the BBC is the one the public feels they owe the money to, and the government is just serving a role as the BBC's tax-collector. If the funds were spent somewhere else, people would be very cross with the government.
- nlh 7y agoActual question (not trying to be snarky): Is Fox News considered state media, and if not, will it be?
- carbocation 7y agoFrom the article, which doesn't directly address your question but does address it in the meta: How will we define state-controlled media in this context? This policy will apply to news media entities that are either financially or editorially controlled by the state. It has been informed by established academic and civil society leaders in this space. Sources include Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Index, Freedom House, the Economist Intelligence Unit Democracy Index, the European Journalism Centre’s Media Landscapes Report, the Committee to Protect Journalists, and UNESCO's framework to assess media development and independence.
- dawhizkid 7y agoUltimately I don’t think it matters much. I’ve only very rarely seen promoted news stories in my feed from media companies - I don’t think spending money to promote links to articles is very widely used at all.
- seanmcdirmid 7y agoWhen even Donald Trump thinks Fox News is conspiring against him, I don’t think there is even a fringe argument to made in support of Fox News being state media.
- _bxg1 7y agoI'm a huge critic of Fox News, but this is a totally empty accusation. Fox News is the exact opposite of state media: it's a capitalistic organization designed to be as inflammatory as possible, towards one particular segment of the population, in hopes of making lots of money. Like Trump himself, its motivations are nothing so elaborate as trying to push a sinister ideology: it just wants attention.
- jrockway 7y agoYeah. Fox News has been consistent to their own ideals throughout political changes. They hated Obama because he was a Democrat and love Trump because he's a Republican. If a Democrat is elected in 2020, I don't foresee them being a mouthpiece for her. They like their Republicans. The majority of electoral college members switch it up from time to time, but Fox News doesn't change at all.
- mmanfrin 7y agoStudies have shown that in liberal democracies, state supported* [e: I forget the exact term used] media tends to be the least editorially biased (individual reporters and journalists still have biases) and most educational (e.g. BBC, NPR). I wonder what the word "state-controlled" means in this context. I also wonder if they consider owned by the head of state to be state-controlled (e.g. RT, Al-Jazeera)
- _bxg1 7y agoKeep in mind that this doesn't apply to content in general, only to ads. Ads represent a financial investment in targeted content that's designed to sway specific people's opinions. That's pretty much the definition of propaganda. I'm okay with even trustworthy news sources being prohibited from doing that.
- mmanfrin 7y agoNo, it applies to content. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323322256_Media_Politics_A_Citizen's_Guide https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323322256_Media_Pol... e: My mistake, thought you were talking about my point, not about Twitter's policy.
- sambal 7y agoThat link is pointing to a research paper on the intersection of media and politics, not Twitter’s advertising policy for state run media?
- PhasmaFelis 7y agoThey meant that Twitter's new policy applies only to ads.
- tedunangst 7y agoNPR is state run?
- basch 7y ago
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- Leary 7y ago"Sources include Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Index, Freedom House, the Economist Intelligence Unit Democracy Index, the European Journalism Centre’s Media Landscapes Report, the Committee to Protect Journalists, and UNESCO's framework to assess media development and independence." But Freedom House is US government funded, a lot of studies have shown it's biased toward countries that are aligned with us foreign policy.
- sambal 7y agoBut are Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Index, the Economist Intelligence Unit Democracy Index, the European Journalism Centre’s Media Landscapes Report, the Committee to Protect Journalists, and UNESCO's framework also all US government funded with studies showing they’re biased towards countries that are aligned with US foreign policy? Missing the forest for a tree a bit here.
- paxys 7y agoThey are all biased, but you have to start somewhere. The alternative is doing nothing.
- jszymborski 7y agoPublic media[0] is not State media[1]. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_broadcasting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_broadcasting [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_media https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_media
- threeseed 7y agoMight want to read the article more carefully. "This policy will not apply to taxpayer-funded entities, including independent public broadcasters"
- asdf21 7y ago"independent" Seems like a pretty big loophole for a bad actor to jump through.
- _bxg1 7y agoThat's great, but this: > They will have 30 days to offboard from our advertising products, after which we will stringently enforce these policies. Means it probably won't apply to the Hong Kong propaganda, which is what brought it to people's attention in the first place.
- walkingolof 7y agoYou expect that to be resolved in 30 days ?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- _bxg1 7y agoOne way or another, pretty much. We've reached a boiling point in only a couple of weeks. I don't see the standoff lasting another month.
- duskwuff 7y agoA couple of weeks since what? The Hong Kong protests started on March 31st.
- _bxg1 7y agoIt seems you're right... not sure what I was thinking. Still, it feels like we're on the precipice of something happening. I think 30 days from now the damage from the propaganda will have been done.
- i_cant_speel 7y agoAgreed. I understand giving most organizations a 30 day grace period, but it would be great if they made an exception and cut off such a clear-cut offender immediately.
- philtar 7y ago
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- rgovostes 7y agoRecently I was shown a promoted tweet from Purdue Pharma (makers of OxyContin) about how they generously support drug abuse education. I'm not sure I immediately see the moral difference between state-sponsored propaganda and corporate propaganda.
- whatshisface 7y agoRequired reading from our own PG: http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html Now that China is using historically corporate channels of propaganda, I hope that we can all realize that we need to close them, not just to foreign states but also to the corporations who were abusing them originally.
- rickycook 7y agoi tend to agree with the sentiment, however i’d say the important distinction is that a government has the ability to force things on people, a corporation only had the ability to influence “choice”... we can discuss whether that choice is truly a choice in many cases, but i think the initial difference is enough for it to stand on its own on the other side of a clear line in the sand
- sarcasmatwork 7y agoDoes anyone actually trust twitter? There platform, their rules. I will not be involved. I do not trust them, nor should anyone else.
- olivierduval 7y ago"This policy will not apply to taxpayer-funded entities, including independent public broadcasters" and "This policy will apply to news media entities that are either financially or editorially controlled by the state" seem a bit contradictory to me: state media and taxpayer-funded entity are exactly the same! They can be independant as much as the politics allowed them to be. Most of the time, the people working there for some times know when to shut up and look elsewhere to save their own career or get a promotion... but are considered independant !!!! On the other side: how independant are journalists in a news group when the top boss is a friend of the president and helped him to get elected (true in every democracy)? No need for a direct (and obvious) control to control the press: money is enough Lastly: it only shows that Twitter is just making rules to target some specific actors (China) without naming it. But, using these rules, Twitter is "weaponizing" informations as much as China.
- revicon 7y agoIn the US, the problem is most of our large media is owned and operated by large corporations with a few (usually right-wing leaning) owning individuals. These corporations are also the defacto power behind our government (see $ spent on lobbyists, campaign donations, Citizens United, etc). Unfortunately these media sources aren’t going to be effected by this new policy. But they could be! The same organizations that Twitter is using to define “state run media organizations” also keep track of US media corporation ownerships and could be tracked against ones that are attempting to slant public discourse via story selection, etc.
- redthrowaway 7y agoSo no sponsored content from the BBC or NPR then?
- JMTQp8lwXL 7y agoIt is inevitable that social media platforms will get into the business of shaping discourse. The fact that various platforms are controlled by private parties is a little nerve-racking. We can only hope for judicious use of their power to best serve the public interest.
- caseysoftware 7y agoSocial media's entire business model is peddling influence at massive scale. They've always been in the "shaping discourse" business but most refused to realize it. "Twitter Revolution: How the Arab Spring Was Helped By Social Media" is over 7 years old now: https://www.mic.com/articles/10642/twitter-revolution-how-the-arab-spring-was-helped-by-social-media https://www.mic.com/articles/10642/twitter-revolution-how-th...
- JMTQp8lwXL 7y agoI think the business model is mostly based on ad revenue. They only care to influence to the extent that it increases the amount of time spent on the platform, maximizing the amount of ads shown, raising ARPU.
- icebraining 7y agoWhat are ads if not influencing people?
- landryraccoon 7y ago> The fact that various platforms are controlled by private parties is a little nerve-racking. What’s the alternative though? If it’s not private the only alternative is State control, and I don’t think that the Trump administration or XJP offers less harm than Twitter does right now. If you want the US government to control what Twitter says, that means you trust Trump more than you trust Twitter. That seems like a faustian bargain.
- JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
- buboard 7y agoDoes this include the BBC? This is probably overly broad and easy to circumvent .. maybe better just ban russian accounts ... but that can be circumvented too ...well its a global connected world
- fibers 7y agodoes this mean we won't see state sponsored propaganda from Voice of America?
- olliej 7y agoI really don't understand why twitter, facebook, etc don't just state that commercially operated/controlled accounts are a direct violation of T&Cs which is a violation of CFAA, or breach of contract with monetary terms. E.g. couldn't their t&cs start including "accounts controlled or instruction by a government, political, or commercial entity, or otherwise compensated for posted content, require explicit pre-authorization, and price negotiation. Non-negotiated fees are $ABC per tweet, and $XYZ per account, payable within 30 days". Or some similar terms. Whether you could make such t&cs work, and whether you can make $GOVERNMENT actually pay is obviously another question: Governments love passing laws that make them immune to law suits domestically, while also providing other countries with immunity. At least it might be able to resolve those "business intelligence" companies by immediately opening them up to huge costs.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]