9 ms·

Pretty sure if Twitter decided to allow one candidate to post on its platform but denied another one access, there would be a strong case that Twitter is making

Pretty sure if Twitter decided to allow one candidate to post on its platform but denied another one access, there would be a strong case that Twitter is making an in-kind campaign contribution to the first candidate.

mehrdadn 7y ago
The service is provided to every candidate at the same price as is it to the rest of the planet... how is that a campaign contribution?
- PeterisP 7y ago
  If a free platform of mass media is not provided to every candidate but is provided to some candidates while others are banned, then that's effectively advertising for some candidates.
  - mehrdadn 7y ago
    If it wasn't free (say $0.01 per tweet or whatever) would that be different?
    - PeterisP 7y ago
      No, they'd still have to offer it at that price (the same price) to all candidates equally - that's basically a way to avoid having to decide whether the offered price is fair or artificial; you can assert that an hour of ads for your cable network costs $0.01, but that's the amount you'll get not only for your favored candidate but also for the same ads for his opponent.
      - mehrdadn 7y ago
        Are you saying political candidacy is now a (potentially even stricter) version of a protected class? It seems very tough-to-swallow to me that someone can make themselves be entitled to the services of any vendor in the nation by mere virtue of running for office. Wouldn't that make it a get-out-of-jail-free card for being a complete jerk to people? Usually, if you do that, people can refuse to associate or do business with you personally, whereas here it seems you're saying they can't, even if the reason is entirely unrelated to their candidacy.
        PeterisP 7y ago
        I'm saying that political advertising is highly regulated in many countries. You're not entitled to the services of any vendor, however, in pre-election period media outlets are (in some countries) prohibited to have any political ads (including pseudo-ads like "accidental talk show interviews with the candidate we like") unless multiple specific conditions are met, one of which is equal access to all parties/candidates. Even if you hate them. If you don't like these conditions, you can refuse to participate in political ads at all, which most media companies won't do because it's a decent source of revenue. One way how this is soemtimes implemented is that before the pre-election period, you have to submit a public offer for what conditions and prices political adds will be available to any and all candidates; you can refuse to make such a public offer because you hate some of these candidates, but then you're not allowed to place advertisements from the candidates you like as well. Or if you're a foreign company (like Facebook) that doesn't care about some elections at all and does not submit such an offer, then all candidates are prohibited to buy political ads from you. If your media company wants to support a particular candidate, then the only legal way is to donate money (which gets appropriately reported) and the candidates can (within specific campaign funding limits!) buy ads on equal conditions at equal prices. There's no "corporate money is free speech" assumption like it seems to be in USA, doing "free ad publicity" for candidates is a violation of campaign finance laws and would incur significant fines (IIRC double or triple the market value of that publicity).
- pdonis 7y ago
  > The service is provided to every candidate No, it isn't; that's the point of the hypothetical. We're talking about Twitter banning certain candidates. If they're not banning any candidates, then there's no issue and nothing to discuss here.
  - mehrdadn 7y ago
    You misread the sentence. The meaning of "every" in that sentence was the same was the meaning of "every" in the sentence, "My barber cuts every CEO's hair the same way he cuts my hair." The point of the statement is not to imply every CEO necessarily gets their haircut or is even welcome to do so in that barbershop.
    - pdonis 7y ago
      > The meaning of "every" in that sentence was the same was the meaning of "every" in the sentence, "My barber cuts every CEO's hair the same way he cuts my hair." The point of the statement is not to imply every CEO necessarily gets their haircut or is even welcome to do so in that barbershop. Sorry, not buying your use of the Humpty Dumpty principle here. Providing the service to some candidates at the same price as the rest of the planet, but not providing it to other candidates at all, does equate to a campaign contribution. Twisting the meaning of "every" doesn't change that.
      - root_axis 7y ago
        You are wrong. https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/filing-reports/in-kind-contributions/ https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/filing-re... > An in-kind contribution is a non-monetary contribution. Goods or services offered free or at less than the usual charge result in an in-kind contribution.
  - kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
    They're banning violations of their ToS. As long as that is performed equitably, Twitter is in the right to police their private platform using pre-disclosed rules.
- chrsstrm 7y ago
  The assumption that all users are treated equally is debatable for reasons others have discussed, but what is missing here is the consideration for Twitter's algorithm sort and their continual efforts to force this on users. Even if we assert that all politicians have equal access to the platform and exist under the same ruleset, Twitter modifying the tweet sort order using their own custom brand of black magic and routinely resetting user's feeds to this default sort is very problematic. In this case Twitter is very blatantly modifying what users see and we can't know how this sort is determined. Wouldn't this qualify as meddling with political messages?
thelittleone 7y ago
Does the differ from for example a news network that are staunchly aligned with one political party over another and thus painting a very one sided view?
- neighbour 7y ago
  Yes because news networks are publishers. Twitter, Facebook and the rest of the silicon valley social media gang are quick to remind you that they are platforms and not publishers [0]. [0] https://www.city-journal.org/html/platform-or-publisher-15888.html https://www.city-journal.org/html/platform-or-publisher-1588...
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - root_axis 7y ago
    The platform/publisher paradigm is a false dichotomy because of section 230, as your article points out. The idea that section 230 hinges on some notion of political neutrality is an editorialized opinion by the author, not a statement based on the law. In reality, efforts to legislate political neutrality are not only impossible to enforce, but they would likely be challenged on a 1st amendment basis (i.e. forcing a private entity to broadcast political messages they disagree with on their own dime).
    - GoblinSlayer 7y ago
      There's an established way to deal with monopolies: https://www.thenation.com/article/elizabeth-warrens-big-fight-against-monopolies/ https://www.thenation.com/article/elizabeth-warrens-big-figh...
djsumdog 7y ago
But the big media giants squish out third parties all the time. When was the last time we saw three candidates in an American presidential debate? Ross Perot?
foxtr0t 7y ago
By that logic wouldn't Fox News be the subject of a campaign finance investigation?
- zucker42 7y ago
  I think they're not because of free speech. The question is whether banning people from your platform counts as speech. Which it probably does.
  - theseatoms 7y ago
    Pretty sure cable news is legally designated as "entertainment".
    - jacquesm 7y ago
      The damage is real.
- vxNsr 7y ago
  Nope. Fox News, and all news orgs are publishers, Twitter, Facebook and co are platforms. Fox News and CNN are responsible for anything published on their website. Twitter, fb, etc are not.
  - foxtr0t 7y ago
    Why does that distinction matter? Is there language in campaign finance law that says news orgs are exempt from certain restrictions?
    - ScottFree 7y ago
      Thanks for asking this question. I hadn't actually looked into the legal precedents until now. This is a decent article on the subject: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=1804a02d-a015-4b94-ae11-776860154802 https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=1804a02d-a015... tl;dr: Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 states, "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." The courts have upheld on multiple occasions (Pennie v. Twitter, Inc.; Fields v. Twitter, Inc.; Murphy v Twitter, Inc.) that Twitter is a provider of an interactive computer service.
nkingsy 7y ago
The benefits to Twitter from showing bias in this way would be more than offset by the risk of backlash.
root_axis 7y ago
It would not be a strong case. An in-kind contribution is when a party provides a political campaign with a product or service for a reduced cost compared to what it normally charges. Since twitter offers its service for free to everyone, removing access does not constitute an in-kind contribution.

mehrdadn 7y ago

The service is provided to every candidate at the same price as is it to the rest of the planet... how is that a campaign contribution?

PeterisP 7y ago
If a free platform of mass media is not provided to every candidate but is provided to some candidates while others are banned, then that's effectively advertising for some candidates.
- mehrdadn 7y ago
  If it wasn't free (say $0.01 per tweet or whatever) would that be different?
  - PeterisP 7y ago
    No, they'd still have to offer it at that price (the same price) to all candidates equally - that's basically a way to avoid having to decide whether the offered price is fair or artificial; you can assert that an hour of ads for your cable network costs $0.01, but that's the amount you'll get not only for your favored candidate but also for the same ads for his opponent.
    - mehrdadn 7y ago
      Are you saying political candidacy is now a (potentially even stricter) version of a protected class? It seems very tough-to-swallow to me that someone can make themselves be entitled to the services of any vendor in the nation by mere virtue of running for office. Wouldn't that make it a get-out-of-jail-free card for being a complete jerk to people? Usually, if you do that, people can refuse to associate or do business with you personally, whereas here it seems you're saying they can't, even if the reason is entirely unrelated to their candidacy.
      - PeterisP 7y ago
        I'm saying that political advertising is highly regulated in many countries. You're not entitled to the services of any vendor, however, in pre-election period media outlets are (in some countries) prohibited to have any political ads (including pseudo-ads like "accidental talk show interviews with the candidate we like") unless multiple specific conditions are met, one of which is equal access to all parties/candidates. Even if you hate them. If you don't like these conditions, you can refuse to participate in political ads at all, which most media companies won't do because it's a decent source of revenue. One way how this is soemtimes implemented is that before the pre-election period, you have to submit a public offer for what conditions and prices political adds will be available to any and all candidates; you can refuse to make such a public offer because you hate some of these candidates, but then you're not allowed to place advertisements from the candidates you like as well. Or if you're a foreign company (like Facebook) that doesn't care about some elections at all and does not submit such an offer, then all candidates are prohibited to buy political ads from you. If your media company wants to support a particular candidate, then the only legal way is to donate money (which gets appropriately reported) and the candidates can (within specific campaign funding limits!) buy ads on equal conditions at equal prices. There's no "corporate money is free speech" assumption like it seems to be in USA, doing "free ad publicity" for candidates is a violation of campaign finance laws and would incur significant fines (IIRC double or triple the market value of that publicity).
pdonis 7y ago
> The service is provided to every candidate No, it isn't; that's the point of the hypothetical. We're talking about Twitter banning certain candidates. If they're not banning any candidates, then there's no issue and nothing to discuss here.
- mehrdadn 7y ago
  You misread the sentence. The meaning of "every" in that sentence was the same was the meaning of "every" in the sentence, "My barber cuts every CEO's hair the same way he cuts my hair." The point of the statement is not to imply every CEO necessarily gets their haircut or is even welcome to do so in that barbershop.
  - pdonis 7y ago
    > The meaning of "every" in that sentence was the same was the meaning of "every" in the sentence, "My barber cuts every CEO's hair the same way he cuts my hair." The point of the statement is not to imply every CEO necessarily gets their haircut or is even welcome to do so in that barbershop. Sorry, not buying your use of the Humpty Dumpty principle here. Providing the service to some candidates at the same price as the rest of the planet, but not providing it to other candidates at all, does equate to a campaign contribution. Twisting the meaning of "every" doesn't change that.
    - root_axis 7y ago
      You are wrong. https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/filing-reports/in-kind-contributions/ https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/filing-re... > An in-kind contribution is a non-monetary contribution. Goods or services offered free or at less than the usual charge result in an in-kind contribution.
- kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
  They're banning violations of their ToS. As long as that is performed equitably, Twitter is in the right to police their private platform using pre-disclosed rules.
chrsstrm 7y ago
The assumption that all users are treated equally is debatable for reasons others have discussed, but what is missing here is the consideration for Twitter's algorithm sort and their continual efforts to force this on users. Even if we assert that all politicians have equal access to the platform and exist under the same ruleset, Twitter modifying the tweet sort order using their own custom brand of black magic and routinely resetting user's feeds to this default sort is very problematic. In this case Twitter is very blatantly modifying what users see and we can't know how this sort is determined. Wouldn't this qualify as meddling with political messages?

thelittleone 7y ago

Does the differ from for example a news network that are staunchly aligned with one political party over another and thus painting a very one sided view?

neighbour 7y ago
Yes because news networks are publishers. Twitter, Facebook and the rest of the silicon valley social media gang are quick to remind you that they are platforms and not publishers [0]. [0] https://www.city-journal.org/html/platform-or-publisher-15888.html https://www.city-journal.org/html/platform-or-publisher-1588...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- root_axis 7y ago
  The platform/publisher paradigm is a false dichotomy because of section 230, as your article points out. The idea that section 230 hinges on some notion of political neutrality is an editorialized opinion by the author, not a statement based on the law. In reality, efforts to legislate political neutrality are not only impossible to enforce, but they would likely be challenged on a 1st amendment basis (i.e. forcing a private entity to broadcast political messages they disagree with on their own dime).
  - GoblinSlayer 7y ago
    There's an established way to deal with monopolies: https://www.thenation.com/article/elizabeth-warrens-big-fight-against-monopolies/ https://www.thenation.com/article/elizabeth-warrens-big-figh...

djsumdog 7y ago

But the big media giants squish out third parties all the time. When was the last time we saw three candidates in an American presidential debate? Ross Perot?

foxtr0t 7y ago

By that logic wouldn't Fox News be the subject of a campaign finance investigation?

zucker42 7y ago
I think they're not because of free speech. The question is whether banning people from your platform counts as speech. Which it probably does.
- theseatoms 7y ago
  Pretty sure cable news is legally designated as "entertainment".
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    The damage is real.
vxNsr 7y ago
Nope. Fox News, and all news orgs are publishers, Twitter, Facebook and co are platforms. Fox News and CNN are responsible for anything published on their website. Twitter, fb, etc are not.
- foxtr0t 7y ago
  Why does that distinction matter? Is there language in campaign finance law that says news orgs are exempt from certain restrictions?
  - ScottFree 7y ago
    Thanks for asking this question. I hadn't actually looked into the legal precedents until now. This is a decent article on the subject: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=1804a02d-a015-4b94-ae11-776860154802 https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=1804a02d-a015... tl;dr: Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 states, "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." The courts have upheld on multiple occasions (Pennie v. Twitter, Inc.; Fields v. Twitter, Inc.; Murphy v Twitter, Inc.) that Twitter is a provider of an interactive computer service.

nkingsy 7y ago

The benefits to Twitter from showing bias in this way would be more than offset by the risk of backlash.

root_axis 7y ago

It would not be a strong case. An in-kind contribution is when a party provides a political campaign with a product or service for a reduced cost compared to what it normally charges. Since twitter offers its service for free to everyone, removing access does not constitute an in-kind contribution.