SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Twitter's decision on Wednesday to ban political advertising was met with cautious praise. (Image: Jisc)
'Whoa': Twitter to End Paid Political Advertising on Platform, CEO Says
"This isn't about free expression," said Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey. "This is about paying for reach."
Oct 30, 2019
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey on Wednesday announced that the social media site would no longer have paid political advertisements, a move sure to shake up the digital landscape that earned him praise from progressives.
"Wow," tweeted activist Edward Snowden. "Big move by @jack, and a bigger contrast to @Facebook's increasingly problematic policy positions."
In a series of tweets, Dorsey laid out the reasons for the decision and made clear that the policy would only apply to paid advertisements.
"This isn't about free expression," said Dorsey. "This is about paying for reach."
"They're drawing a clear line between paid reach and earned, organic reach," saidNBC journalist Ben Collins.
Under the new rules, as indicated by Dorsey, a campaign presumably could post an advertisement video or photo to its own account--just not pay to promote it. The final policy will be announced on November 15 and implemented on November 22.
"A political message earns reach when people decide to follow an account or retweet," Dorsey explained. "Paying for reach removes that decision, forcing highly optimized and targeted political messages on people. We believe this decision should not be compromised by money."
Dorsey appeared to take a subtle shot at competitor Facebook, whose CEO Mark Zuckerberg told Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in a recent hearing that political advertisements on that platform did not need to be truthful. In response, activists bought an ad that shows members of the Republican Party supporting the congresswoman's Green New Deal; Facebook approved the ad.
"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!'" said Dorsey.
\u201cJack subtweeting Zuck as he bans political ads on Twitter. Zuckerberg said he'd considered such a move but decided against it b/c it would "favor incumbents and whoever the media covers." From his speech the other week. https://t.co/P1GyYGNgD7\u201d— Alex Thompson (@Alex Thompson) 1572467040
Reaction from progressives was hesitantly positive.
"I don't really know their reasons or [if] it is good or bad ultimately," tweeted blogger Atrios, "but at least knock a dent in the ridiculous Facebook 'free speech requires we privilege people who give us money' argument.
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey on Wednesday announced that the social media site would no longer have paid political advertisements, a move sure to shake up the digital landscape that earned him praise from progressives.
"Wow," tweeted activist Edward Snowden. "Big move by @jack, and a bigger contrast to @Facebook's increasingly problematic policy positions."
In a series of tweets, Dorsey laid out the reasons for the decision and made clear that the policy would only apply to paid advertisements.
"This isn't about free expression," said Dorsey. "This is about paying for reach."
"They're drawing a clear line between paid reach and earned, organic reach," saidNBC journalist Ben Collins.
Under the new rules, as indicated by Dorsey, a campaign presumably could post an advertisement video or photo to its own account--just not pay to promote it. The final policy will be announced on November 15 and implemented on November 22.
"A political message earns reach when people decide to follow an account or retweet," Dorsey explained. "Paying for reach removes that decision, forcing highly optimized and targeted political messages on people. We believe this decision should not be compromised by money."
Dorsey appeared to take a subtle shot at competitor Facebook, whose CEO Mark Zuckerberg told Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in a recent hearing that political advertisements on that platform did not need to be truthful. In response, activists bought an ad that shows members of the Republican Party supporting the congresswoman's Green New Deal; Facebook approved the ad.
"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!'" said Dorsey.
\u201cJack subtweeting Zuck as he bans political ads on Twitter. Zuckerberg said he'd considered such a move but decided against it b/c it would "favor incumbents and whoever the media covers." From his speech the other week. https://t.co/P1GyYGNgD7\u201d— Alex Thompson (@Alex Thompson) 1572467040
Reaction from progressives was hesitantly positive.
"I don't really know their reasons or [if] it is good or bad ultimately," tweeted blogger Atrios, "but at least knock a dent in the ridiculous Facebook 'free speech requires we privilege people who give us money' argument.
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey on Wednesday announced that the social media site would no longer have paid political advertisements, a move sure to shake up the digital landscape that earned him praise from progressives.
"Wow," tweeted activist Edward Snowden. "Big move by @jack, and a bigger contrast to @Facebook's increasingly problematic policy positions."
In a series of tweets, Dorsey laid out the reasons for the decision and made clear that the policy would only apply to paid advertisements.
"This isn't about free expression," said Dorsey. "This is about paying for reach."
"They're drawing a clear line between paid reach and earned, organic reach," saidNBC journalist Ben Collins.
Under the new rules, as indicated by Dorsey, a campaign presumably could post an advertisement video or photo to its own account--just not pay to promote it. The final policy will be announced on November 15 and implemented on November 22.
"A political message earns reach when people decide to follow an account or retweet," Dorsey explained. "Paying for reach removes that decision, forcing highly optimized and targeted political messages on people. We believe this decision should not be compromised by money."
Dorsey appeared to take a subtle shot at competitor Facebook, whose CEO Mark Zuckerberg told Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in a recent hearing that political advertisements on that platform did not need to be truthful. In response, activists bought an ad that shows members of the Republican Party supporting the congresswoman's Green New Deal; Facebook approved the ad.
"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!'" said Dorsey.
\u201cJack subtweeting Zuck as he bans political ads on Twitter. Zuckerberg said he'd considered such a move but decided against it b/c it would "favor incumbents and whoever the media covers." From his speech the other week. https://t.co/P1GyYGNgD7\u201d— Alex Thompson (@Alex Thompson) 1572467040
Reaction from progressives was hesitantly positive.
"I don't really know their reasons or [if] it is good or bad ultimately," tweeted blogger Atrios, "but at least knock a dent in the ridiculous Facebook 'free speech requires we privilege people who give us money' argument.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.