5 ms·

So why not use the same methodology on TV or print as well and ban political ads across? Why is social media singled out here? What about ads on YouTube? This i

So why not use the same methodology on TV or print as well and ban political ads across? Why is social media singled out here? What about ads on YouTube? This is nothing but a copout solution. Twitter doesn't have the will nor the capital to be part of the debate here (and political ads are likely too small for them to care) - so they are trying to gain strategy credit by just saying this is a bad idea. NYTimes is happy to take money for political ads while they are shouting that FB and Twitter should do fact checks.

belltaco 7y ago
Perhaps because of hyper targeting? News media and fact check sites cannot even see some ads that are shown since they are not in the target market, so they cannot fact check or report on them.
- product50 7y ago
  Facebook has a public database where all political ads are visible to anyone. Media is free to report on them.
jaf656s 7y ago
It's harder/impossible to deliver hyper-personalized political ads in those other mediums. It's worth taking some time to figure out the ramifications of all this.
heylook 7y ago
IMO the difference is a combination of two things: * the unprecedented targeting ability of social media ads vs traditional broadcast/print * the unprecedented amount of disinformation (especially from foreign governments) vs traditional broadcast/print If you can't see the difference between the two, frankly, you haven't been paying attention.
- product50 7y ago
  Foreign govt can also pay for political ads via TV/print as well. Most of the foreign govt interference is not via ads but via organic channels such as FB Pages, FB user accounts, Twitter accounts/bots. Those will continue to operate regardless of this decision by Twitter
munk-a 7y ago
Unless another recourse is found then banning all political ads will increase the role prior name recognition plays in politics. It is difficult for lesser known politicians to overcome incumbents and this would make it even more difficult. Another recourse, would, for example, be unbiased open debates where candidates can promote themselves, I think this is a great idea personally but it won't work without 1. Public funding. 2. Actual enforcement of the unbiased natures of these debates.
andirk 7y ago
It's probably because Hillary Clinton and the DNC have blamed a small Facebook ad campaign for losing their campaign, so the hysteria has built from that.
afarrell 7y ago
> This is nothing but a copout solution. Who's solution is a copout? You're saying that it is inconsistent for Twitter to not accept payment for political ads, but a print newspaper to do so. This is correct. But that inconsistency reflects the fact that the decisions are being made by different people. What would be a non-copout solution that twitter could implement?
- product50 7y ago
  Twitter can just follow Facebook here and let public/journalists evaluate the truthfulness of the campaigns vs. doing it themselves (as that is open to interpretation). If print media and TV channels can do that, why can't social media?
- xkjkls 7y ago
  And why is a copout bad? If we a society decide that Twitter shouldn't be the arbiter of valid and invalid political advertising, why is them avoiding the issue entirely a bad thing?
nicpottier 7y ago
I'm totally fine banning all political ads, let's do it!
- product50 7y ago
  Then only a few named candidates will have most of the leverage. Is that what we want?
  - nicpottier 7y ago
    Surely we can come up with some way of giving candidates a platform to share their ideas? The current system is broken, we should think of ways of fixing it instead of just saying we can't do better.
danso 7y ago
TV and print outlets already exercise discretion on what they allow. Are you under the impression that they do not? https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/03/business/media/cnn-trump-campaign-ad.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/03/business/media/cnn-trump-...
- product50 7y ago
  CNN rejecting Trump ads is akin to Fox rejecting Warren ads given how they are politically aligned. Facebook is trying to be neutral here and let people (and journalists who will write on such ads) decide vs. trying to come in with their own judgment. This has been happening on TV/Print ads for decades now.
  - danso 7y ago
    Fox News has rejected Trump ads too: https://time.com/5445246/fox-nbc-facebook-controversial-trump-ad/ https://time.com/5445246/fox-nbc-facebook-controversial-trum... But go ahead and make this a partisan thing.
    - product50 7y ago
      If you are under the delusion that print and TV media is duly fact checking all political ads, then you are free to believe what you want.
      - danso 7y ago
        The burden of proof would be on you.
      - xkjkls 7y ago
        Given how many fewer ads they have to deal with, that is probably true.
  - xkjkls 7y ago
    It is still shocking to me that in 2019 people still view Fox News and CNN as having anywhere close a mirror level of political bias.
proverbialbunny 7y ago
Campaign financing is illegal in most of the first world. In the US there have even been multiple supreme court rules on the subject.

belltaco 7y ago

Perhaps because of hyper targeting? News media and fact check sites cannot even see some ads that are shown since they are not in the target market, so they cannot fact check or report on them.

product50 7y ago
Facebook has a public database where all political ads are visible to anyone. Media is free to report on them.

jaf656s 7y ago

It's harder/impossible to deliver hyper-personalized political ads in those other mediums. It's worth taking some time to figure out the ramifications of all this.

heylook 7y ago

IMO the difference is a combination of two things: * the unprecedented targeting ability of social media ads vs traditional broadcast/print * the unprecedented amount of disinformation (especially from foreign governments) vs traditional broadcast/print If you can't see the difference between the two, frankly, you haven't been paying attention.

product50 7y ago
Foreign govt can also pay for political ads via TV/print as well. Most of the foreign govt interference is not via ads but via organic channels such as FB Pages, FB user accounts, Twitter accounts/bots. Those will continue to operate regardless of this decision by Twitter

munk-a 7y ago

Unless another recourse is found then banning all political ads will increase the role prior name recognition plays in politics. It is difficult for lesser known politicians to overcome incumbents and this would make it even more difficult. Another recourse, would, for example, be unbiased open debates where candidates can promote themselves, I think this is a great idea personally but it won't work without 1. Public funding. 2. Actual enforcement of the unbiased natures of these debates.

andirk 7y ago

It's probably because Hillary Clinton and the DNC have blamed a small Facebook ad campaign for losing their campaign, so the hysteria has built from that.

afarrell 7y ago

> This is nothing but a copout solution. Who's solution is a copout? You're saying that it is inconsistent for Twitter to not accept payment for political ads, but a print newspaper to do so. This is correct. But that inconsistency reflects the fact that the decisions are being made by different people. What would be a non-copout solution that twitter could implement?

product50 7y ago
Twitter can just follow Facebook here and let public/journalists evaluate the truthfulness of the campaigns vs. doing it themselves (as that is open to interpretation). If print media and TV channels can do that, why can't social media?
xkjkls 7y ago
And why is a copout bad? If we a society decide that Twitter shouldn't be the arbiter of valid and invalid political advertising, why is them avoiding the issue entirely a bad thing?

nicpottier 7y ago

I'm totally fine banning all political ads, let's do it!

product50 7y ago
Then only a few named candidates will have most of the leverage. Is that what we want?
- nicpottier 7y ago
  Surely we can come up with some way of giving candidates a platform to share their ideas? The current system is broken, we should think of ways of fixing it instead of just saying we can't do better.

danso 7y ago

TV and print outlets already exercise discretion on what they allow. Are you under the impression that they do not? https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/03/business/media/cnn-trump-campaign-ad.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/03/business/media/cnn-trump-...

product50 7y ago
CNN rejecting Trump ads is akin to Fox rejecting Warren ads given how they are politically aligned. Facebook is trying to be neutral here and let people (and journalists who will write on such ads) decide vs. trying to come in with their own judgment. This has been happening on TV/Print ads for decades now.
- danso 7y ago
  Fox News has rejected Trump ads too: https://time.com/5445246/fox-nbc-facebook-controversial-trump-ad/ https://time.com/5445246/fox-nbc-facebook-controversial-trum... But go ahead and make this a partisan thing.
  - product50 7y ago
    If you are under the delusion that print and TV media is duly fact checking all political ads, then you are free to believe what you want.
    - danso 7y ago
      The burden of proof would be on you.
    - xkjkls 7y ago
      Given how many fewer ads they have to deal with, that is probably true.
- xkjkls 7y ago
  It is still shocking to me that in 2019 people still view Fox News and CNN as having anywhere close a mirror level of political bias.

proverbialbunny 7y ago

Campaign financing is illegal in most of the first world. In the US there have even been multiple supreme court rules on the subject.