3 ms·

>> It did seem somewhat reductionist to say the "elites" are banning free speech to control the narrative. Here’s a hypothetical to illustrate how this makes s

by mattrp 7y ago

>> It did seem somewhat reductionist to say the "elites" are banning free speech to control the narrative. Here’s a hypothetical to illustrate how this makes sense in my view: the incumbent is always going to control the lions share of the so called free media. Two or three elections cycles ago, the average campaign didn’t know about a/b testing much less how to leverage social to level the playing field. Now everyone knows... now the incumbent no longer has the home field advantage... except.. twitter just changed the rules. One less platform that the challenger can leverage to play up to the incumbent. And let’s see, everyone thinks Jack is great so maybe some of the other platforms follow on... now technology is basically useless for the challenger.. so we are back to the old system where the incumbent takes the free media attention. A return to the status quo. Now why would social media have an interest in that? Oh I don’t know why does anyone have an interest in seeing entrenched politicians staying in power and yet that’s the system we’ve made for ourselves... oh I know pac money / citizens united are all code for republican money so I’m sure a lot of the commentators on here are thinking this will suppress that because that is the “only people who buy political ads” these days... but I’d ask you this - what if some challenger out there might have a chance of flipping a red state and changing the composition of the senate in 2020... except now one of the tools they could have used just disappeared... how do you feel now? Maybe political ads aren’t so bad if they keep incumbents from sticking around so long.

lioeters 7y ago
I hear you about the potential downsides and consequences of Twitter banning political advertising, one of which might be that incumbents have lost a platform to rally support. On the other hand, this ban affects those in power as well - and it might be argued that they're the ones who disproportionately spend and have reach on social media. So I find it hard to imagine that this decision was conspired to suppress those who challenge the status quo. I suppose we'll have to see how it turns out. Maybe incumbents have more of a chance, if they didn't have to compete on ad spending, but instead on "organic reach" of genuine supporters. I'm a cynic, and skeptical of politics in general (with good reason, based on study of its shameful history..) but there's a stubborn optimist in there who wants to believe humanity - even the "elites", at least a few souls - have a shred of goodness and hope left to turn things around.

by mattrp 7y ago

lioeters 7y ago

I hear you about the potential downsides and consequences of Twitter banning political advertising, one of which might be that incumbents have lost a platform to rally support. On the other hand, this ban affects those in power as well - and it might be argued that they're the ones who disproportionately spend and have reach on social media. So I find it hard to imagine that this decision was conspired to suppress those who challenge the status quo. I suppose we'll have to see how it turns out. Maybe incumbents have more of a chance, if they didn't have to compete on ad spending, but instead on "organic reach" of genuine supporters. I'm a cynic, and skeptical of politics in general (with good reason, based on study of its shameful history..) but there's a stubborn optimist in there who wants to believe humanity - even the "elites", at least a few souls - have a shred of goodness and hope left to turn things around.