5 ms·

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?

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?