Twitter to ban all political advertising

October 30, 2019 1:18 PM

Social network’s move comes as Facebook faces controversy over ads that promote misinformation Jack Dorsey announced today that Twitter will stop all paid political advertising globally because 'political reach should be earned not bought'.
posted by roolya_boolya (47 comments total)

What's the catch? There's a catch, right?
posted by tclark at 1:19 PM on October 30, 2019 [17 favorites]

Think that's a bought/bot pun?
posted by Beardman at 1:20 PM on October 30, 2019 [17 favorites]

The catch: Jack didn't say anything about decreasing the presence and power of bots to boost signals, which is very much "bought reach."
posted by filthy light thief at 1:21 PM on October 30, 2019 [46 favorites]

The catch: Jack didn't say anything about decreasing the presence and power of bots to boost signals, which is very much "bought reach."

To be fair he kinda did: For instance, it‘s not credible for us to say: “We’re working hard to stop people from gaming our systems to spread misleading info, buuut if someone pays us to target and force people to see their political ad…well...they can say whatever they want! 😉”
posted by roolya_boolya at 1:31 PM on October 30, 2019 [3 favorites]

What's the catch? There's a catch, right?

....however, we won't stop anyone, paid or unpaid, from using the platform to spread political misinformation, racism, hate messages and threats, or pro fascist messaging.
posted by Karaage at 1:34 PM on October 30, 2019 [20 favorites]

But what is and isn't a political ad? I've had issues with Facebook where I want to boost a non-political event but Facebook has decided that the topic of the event is something that they've defined as political, and therefore they demand more info before they will post the ad.
posted by larrybob at 1:34 PM on October 30, 2019 [4 favorites]

> What's the catch? There's a catch, right?

The catch is in how evenly this new policy is enforced. Making factual arguments against the monumentally stupid costs of Brexit? Political advertising. Spouting a bunch of bullshit promises about what a great utopia Brexit will deliver? Why, that’s just an exercise in creativity.

Twitter also has a harassment policy, but you wouldn’t know it talking to (for example) certain women in the video game and entertainment industries.
posted by Arson Lupine at 1:39 PM on October 30, 2019 [19 favorites]

....however, we won't stop anyone, paid or unpaid, from using the platform to spread political misinformation, racism, hate messages and threats, or pro fascist messaging

Yeah, that. And what's a "political" ad versus some other kind of ad? Maybe an ad for a non-profit like... the NRA? or the Heritage Foundation?
posted by suelac at 1:39 PM on October 30, 2019 [2 favorites]

Can people still pay to promote their totally non-partisan political survey about wether they want our angelic candidates or our dastardly opponents?

Are we gonna get subliminal content or implausibly-deniable wordplay or dog whistles from campaigns?

Are they gonna pay any humans to check this?
posted by Jon_Evil at 1:41 PM on October 30, 2019 [1 favorite]

roolya_boolya, thanks -- I had not seen that tweet.

In addition to the complexity of differentiating political ads versus political-adjacent promotions, how is Twitter doing battling propaganda bots? For example, here's Twitter analysis identifying a Pro-Indonesian propaganda bot network from Sept. 2019 (Benjamin Strick for Bellingcat).
posted by filthy light thief at 1:42 PM on October 30, 2019 [4 favorites]

This feels like a distraction, legitimate or not.
posted by ZeusHumms at 1:43 PM on October 30, 2019

Since everything is political, let’s be safe and ban all advertising.

Since that won’t happen, could we settle for banning all the Nazis?
posted by Ten Cold Hot Dogs at 2:06 PM on October 30, 2019 [4 favorites]

"We considered stopping only candidate ads, but issue ads present a way to circumvent. Additionally, it isn’t fair for everyone but candidates to buy ads for issues they want to push. So we're stopping these too."

There's the sting. Ads for cars: Ok. Ads for how cars are killing the planet: Not ok.
posted by Therapeutic Amputations at 2:16 PM on October 30, 2019 [26 favorites]

This feels like a distraction, legitimate or not.

This feels like poking Facebook in the eye; also distracting from the Nazis and from the special Trump dispensation to break all the rules.
posted by zenzenobia at 2:20 PM on October 30, 2019 [5 favorites]

In the absence of strong and clear rules and a substantial staff dedicated to enforcement, this is probably the best call to make. I agree there's still issue with bots and with the question of how far the definition of political adverts goes (cough cough oil companies cough). This is still way better than Zuckerberg's bullshit.

In this case, a flat rule of "Nothing" is better than actual nothing, so I'll take it.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 2:21 PM on October 30, 2019 [9 favorites]

Twitter will never get to a perfect state but this is definitely a step in the right direction and Facebook should be following suit.
posted by BeginAgain at 2:21 PM on October 30, 2019 [5 favorites]

Does it include suspending politicians who violate their TOS? Checks @realdonaldtrump. Nope.
posted by simra at 2:31 PM on October 30, 2019 [3 favorites]

Yeah, this seems like a clear swipe at Facebook and the incomprehensible shitshow of their no-fact-checking-political-ads stance. I am hopeful that Facebook will recognize that and decide to follow suit rather than continuing to double-down on that nonsense. Even if Facebook doesn't, this is definitely a step in the right direction for Twitter and a case where we should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
posted by mstokes650 at 3:16 PM on October 30, 2019 [4 favorites]

I think this is a good policy. It's possible to both be mad at Twitter in general and still accept that this is an effort to do something right.

The challenge now is enforcing the policy and enforcing it well. It's fraught with new challenges. For instance my friend Kyle points out that Facebook recently banned a health advocacy group from running ads promoting PrEP

Facebook rejected ads to raise awareness of PrEP, telling the New York medical provider Apicha Community Health Center that they weren’t “authorized to run ads about social issues, elections or politics."

I think that's just a policy enforcement mistake on Facebook's part. Certainly PrEP isn't about elections or politics. It is about a "social issue" in so far as it's about health, but then why would you not let a health clinic run ads helping people stay healthy? Anyway, I'll take it as a mistake and not intentionally wanting gay men to get HIV. I think any company - Facebook, Twitter, Google, whoever - will have a hard time avoiding all similar mistakes. Especially internationally.

I do wonder how much political ad spending Twitter was getting before this policy. My impression is much more of that activity was happening on Facebook and Twitter is pretty small potatoes. But I don't have the numbers in front of me.
posted by Nelson at 3:17 PM on October 30, 2019 [4 favorites]

If you try to do something good, for whatever value of “good” you want to assign, and everyone’s immediate reaction echoes tclark’s “What’s the catch?” (my exact reaction as well), shouldn’t that tell you how deeply untrustworthy you are, and be like a blinking neon warning sign telling you how egregiously you’ve fucked up?
posted by Ghidorah at 3:17 PM on October 30, 2019 [5 favorites]

Ten Cold Hot Dogs: "Since everything is political, let’s be safe and ban all advertising Twitter. "
posted by chavenet at 3:23 PM on October 30, 2019 [3 favorites]

Can people still pay to promote their totally non-partisan political survey about wether they want our angelic candidates or our dastardly opponents?

Would you take a moment to let us know how you think Pahaliah has done as a member of the Order of Thrones in bearing the mystical name of God, Shemhamphorae?
posted by Sangermaine at 3:27 PM on October 30, 2019 [1 favorite]

What's the catch?

Trump can still tweet.
posted by Splunge at 3:48 PM on October 30, 2019 [5 favorites]

I think this is a good step, and granted there is a long way to go, but can we try not to fall into the whataboutism that is part of the problem in politics today? TIFWIW.
posted by BigBrooklyn at 4:05 PM on October 30, 2019 [1 favorite]

> If you try to do something good, for whatever value of “good” you want to assign, and everyone’s immediate reaction echoes tclark’s “What’s the catch?” (my exact reaction as well), shouldn’t that tell you how deeply untrustworthy you are, and be like a blinking neon warning sign telling you how egregiously you’ve fucked up?

Honestly, if that was a group's reaction, I might ask what the point of trying to appeal to the group that had the concerns in the first place. If you're going to get the same reaction from a group no matter what actions you take, what's the point in trying to make them happy?

I'm glad that twitter is banning political advertising, and hope other social media companies do the same.
posted by No One Ever Does at 4:25 PM on October 30, 2019 [3 favorites]

I think all advertising is absurd and unethical, so picking some random subset of it to ban seems great. Maybe next they will ban drug advertising, or advertising containing the letter F, or advertising with people's pictures in it; I'm for it.
posted by value of information at 4:39 PM on October 30, 2019 [4 favorites]

Comment on my friends post about this over on FB:

"And how, exactly, do you determine "political advertising"?
How does this deal with "Free Speech" (w/r/t to end users).
How do you verify end users aren't just astro-turfing.
This resolves nothing but paints a veneer of respectability, as if electoral politics are only about the official channels. As if the money flow in the dark crevices of power won't run in the shadows, pseudo-decentralized.
Of course all this gets into murky issues of content regulation and free speech and what constitutes speech that can be regulated as regards the public good. Are they trying to pull a ESRB and attempt to regulate themselves before someone else regulates them? That's my guess."
posted by symbioid at 4:40 PM on October 30, 2019

If you try to do something good, for whatever value of “good” you want to assign, and everyone’s immediate reaction echoes tclark’s “What’s the catch?” (my exact reaction as well), shouldn’t that tell you how deeply untrustworthy you are, and be like a blinking neon warning sign telling you how egregiously you’ve fucked up?

No. That's double-counting evidence.
posted by value of information at 4:41 PM on October 30, 2019

I think twitter should just ban itself.
posted by polymodus at 4:54 PM on October 30, 2019 [3 favorites]

all advertising is political
posted by 20 year lurk at 4:55 PM on October 30, 2019 [3 favorites]

Certainly PrEP isn't about elections or politics.

It’s possible it was flagged as political because California recently passed legislation that made PrEP available to purchase without a prescription. I wouldn’t be surprised if organizations are lobbying other states to do the same.
posted by dephlogisticated at 4:57 PM on October 30, 2019

Social media was a mistake.
posted by Fizz at 5:25 PM on October 30, 2019 [13 favorites]

The environmental organization I work for has had ads banned from facebook for being 'political' because we ask the government to make companies follow the environmental laws.

Should we asking the companies to follow the law, instead of lobbying to get out of the law, instead? Is it a matter of focus? I do not trust how this is going to work
posted by eustatic at 5:59 PM on October 30, 2019 [3 favorites]

Corporations love zero tolerance solutions which this is a perfect example of.
posted by polymodus at 6:05 PM on October 30, 2019 [1 favorite]

This feels like poking Facebook in the eye

It worked:

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg defends himself against Twitter’s Jack Dorsey, saying political ad decision is not all about money

“Some people accuse us of allowing speech because they think all we care about is making money, and that’s wrong,” Zuckerberg said on the earnings call. “I can assure you that from a business perspective, the controversy this creates far outweighs the very small percentage of our business that these political ads make up.”

Why does Zuck think this is a favorable argument for investors?
posted by zakur at 7:10 PM on October 30, 2019 [4 favorites]

If I thought the ads on Twitter were a real problem, I’d applaud this, but their real issue is how they deal with, or don’t, their most abusive users.
posted by hwestiii at 7:37 PM on October 30, 2019 [6 favorites]

I am not on Tweeter because I have other amusements that don't make me despair for all humanity, but I gathered the idea is that J. Random User_i69 can post what they like but they can no longer buy a political ad (which I assume means buying Tweeter Juice to enhance the reach of their toots). So they have to rely on retoots--or whatever the hell they're called--from their adoring fans.

I guess I assumed that they already had someone on the job squelching bots, but if not it seems to be a pointless and expensive move except from a marketing standpoint. How exactly does Tweeter make money, anyway? It seems unlikely that they would voluntarily give up a source of revenue to not change anything. Are the majority of the bots actually paying Tweeter, either directly or indirectly?
posted by Gilgamesh's Chauffeur at 8:57 PM on October 30, 2019

What's the catch? There's a catch, right?

Twitter still exists and isn't a smoking furrow of salted earth.
posted by loquacious at 9:50 PM on October 30, 2019 [2 favorites]

What's the catch? There's a catch, right?

The catch is right upfront - "ban all political advertising".

hi - here's our current definition:
1/ Ads that refer to an election or a candidate, or
2/ Ads that advocate for or against legislative issues of national importance (such as: climate change, healthcare, immigration, national security, taxes)

posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 12:12 AM on October 31, 2019 [2 favorites]

Facebook has only one investor that counts - the one with the majority of voting shares.

That's Zuck. He still has majority vote. On his own.
posted by Yowser at 12:40 AM on October 31, 2019

Spouting a bunch of bullshit promises about what a great utopia Brexit will deliver? Why, that’s just an exercise in creativity.

In Britain, the Advertising Standards Authority has already ruled that the Johnson/Cummings 'Get Ready For Brexit' saturation campaign, designed to present the October 31 Brexit date as a fait accompli, was not 'political advertising'.

That's a non-partisan publicly funded civil service authority in meatspace.

Just to give an idea of how easy Twitter is still going to be to game.
posted by Cardinal Fang at 1:13 AM on October 31, 2019 [2 favorites]

There's the sting. Ads for cars: Ok. Ads for how cars are killing the planet: Not ok.

I dunno, I feel like given the choice between a block of three car ads, and a block of one car ad, an ad saying climate change is a myth, and an ad saying no, actually the scientists are right, the three car ads would probably be better.
posted by condour75 at 5:18 AM on October 31, 2019

The Trump campaign hates it. That article links to another interesting one

Twitter, the RC Cola of campaign advertising, will no longer accept campaign ads

The difference is even more dramatic if you look at cumulative spending since the dawn of the social media era, the 2008 election. Campaigns have spent $46 million on Facebook (and Instagram) and $30 million on Google (and AdSense). They’ve spent less than $2 million on Twitter.

posted by Nelson at 9:04 AM on October 31, 2019 [1 favorite]

Half an hour to go until Boris Johnson climbs into that ditch.
posted by Cardinal Fang at 3:29 PM on October 31, 2019

What's funny about this is for the all the content ragging on Facebook, the NY Times has the same "you can lie" rule for political and opinion advertisements. You can just like, look it up on their site! Note while the quote is for opinion ads, the political ad rules simply include the opinion ad rules by reference and add campaign finance, etc., boilerplate requirements.

We believe that the broad principles of freedom of the press confer on us an obligation to keep our advertising columns open to all points of view. Therefore, The New York Times accepts advertisements in which groups or individuals comment on public or controversial issues. We make no judgments on an advertiser’s arguments, factual assertions or conclusions. We accept advocacy/opinion advertisements regardless of our editorial position on any given subject. ... [no private/personal attacks, no racism, no foul language] ... We do not verify, nor do we vouch for, statements of purported fact in advocacy/opinion advertisements. We reserve the right, however, to require documentation of factual claims when it is deemed necessary.

That last sentence "but we might not let you lie if we don't like you" makes it way more sketch than Facebook's hands-off stance.

Interestingly, your NYT ads must follow the same policy of neither affirming nor denying the Armenian Genocide that was the USG stance 'till just this week.

We also do not accept advertising that accuses an entire country, race or religion as being guilty of a crime. And conversely we will not accept advertising that denies or trivializes great human tragedies such as the Armenian Genocide or World Trade Center bombing.

posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 10:51 PM on October 31, 2019 [1 favorite]

What's funny about this is for the all the content ragging on Facebook, the NY Times has the same "you can lie" rule for political and opinion advertisements. You can just like, look it up on their site!

There’s an interesting difference which is key to understanding this issue: Facebook ads are heavily targeted and they on casually verify sources. The NYT isn’t going to run some ads and if you run something bigoted or lying about your opponent, many of your followers are going to see that redirecting poorly on you. In contrast, a Facebook campaign can far more precisely target the people you want to reach without much crossover so it’s less likely to get mainstream attention or criticism.
posted by adamsc at 4:09 AM on November 1, 2019 [1 favorite]

Twitter bans environmental groups from advertising about climate change, while happily taking ExxonMobil's ads (and money) for the same.

Shocking, I know.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:12 AM on November 5, 2019 [3 favorites]