They need to be transparent then with how they prioritize organic content. They've replaced a transparent system (advertising) with an opaque one (organic feed) and that has consequences.
Twitter to ban political advertising
201–210 of 1001 posts
Re: Twitter to ban political advertising
#202Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure why a blockchain is needed for this. Can't they just have an API where certain posts are "flagged" and hidden in the official UI? If you want to opt-out, you simply use a UI that doesn't hide flagged.
It is not enough because the true goal of moderation is not to hide content people don't like, but to lock out people the majority of people don't like so they can't communicate or work together to spread their (probably hateful) message. Putting it on a blockchain is abdicating responsibility for any and all content, saying "hey, we just wrote the code, we don't store or propagate any of this ourselves."
> Putting it on a blockchain is abdicating responsibility
Yes, that is the point. Making censorship more difficult is one of the main goals of blockchain technology.
Re: Twitter to ban political advertising
#203From what I recall Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez questioned Zuckerberg, she questioned along the anecdote of: If I purchase ads on Facebook saying Republicans support the Green New Deal (but they don't), will Facebook take the ads down? I often see these clean, easily provable anecdotes from those who support some kind of suppression of speech. I worry though: often the truthfulness of real world statements are difficu…
One of the better questions she asked was, "should a political party be allowed to run targeted ads at members of the opposing party, giving false information about the election date?"
Zuck's response was, "well, I think it's BAD if you LIE. Telling lies is bad." but wouldn't say that Facebook would moderate that kind of content.
I personally don't see a legitimate free speech claim saying that political parties should be allowed to target opponents with plain, simple falsehoods like that (which already happen through the mail system, mind), but I'm open to hear.
I ask because speech is already restricted when it comes to advertising; companies are compelled to put up disclaimers, the FTC will come down on misleading ads, etc.
So, if society's surviving okay with those restrictions, is there a reason that political chicanery shouldn't be held to some standard also?
What is the free speech argument for not drawing a line at that?
Re: Twitter to ban political advertising
#204Earlier quoted context omitted.
Major League Soccer is going through this problem now. They prohibit political displays in stadium but are now in the business of deciding whether signs that say things like "anti-racist" or "anti-fascist" or "end gun violence" are political or not, and all of the worms that come out of that can. https://deadspin.com/by-banning-protest-signs-mls-is-trying-...
I wouldn't have a problem with expanding that to include social issues. You bought a ticket to see a game, not a billboard. This is a problem I have with modern social movements, when they fail to get audiences in public spaces they seek out captive audiences or to be disruptive as possible to completely unrelated places. Hold your rally in a park or march down main street or a pedestrian way or in front of some plac…
What is functionally different between "marching down main street" and "walking down highways"? Many places basically have highways as psuedo main streets.
It doesn't really seem like MLK's Selma to Montgomery march or Ghandi's Salt March would've passed this smell test.
Re: Twitter to ban political advertising
#205Beyond spineless of Jack and everyone at Twitter. Political ads seem to work just fine on TV, radio, print, and everywhere else on the web. Pathetic that Twitter decided to bow down to the most paranoid in our society. All he is doing is validating these stupid conspiracy theories and cementing how scary it is that he has so much control on freedom of expression in modern society.
I will bet anything that Twitter allows political ads for the 2024 election with Trump gone.
Re: Twitter to ban political advertising
#206No, they're not. Anything Twitter supports politically will be deemed "non-political" and "basic human rights" or whatever, and they'll allow it.
What makes you say that?
Re: Twitter to ban political advertising
#207One thing about the first amendment is that it doesn't have conditions. This type of thing that Twitter is doing will be full of them, ie selectively defining what's political or not. The question is whether this is a lesser evil than allowing political ads but selectively blocking stuff with very broad and potentially inconsistent moderation rules. I personally think totally blocking is the easier of the two in term…
The First Amendment is about government suppression of speech. Furthermore, deliberate lies are (legally) not legitimate speech.
Re: Twitter to ban political advertising
#208Is this when we now start to wonder what will count as a political ad? Social movements that have a political connection / associated with a particular party or candidate?
Major League Soccer is going through this problem now. They prohibit political displays in stadium but are now in the business of deciding whether signs that say things like "anti-racist" or "anti-fascist" or "end gun violence" are political or not, and all of the worms that come out of that can. https://deadspin.com/by-banning-protest-signs-mls-is-trying-...
I think fascism is inherently political while racism is not necessarily.
Re: Twitter to ban political advertising
#209From what I recall Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez questioned Zuckerberg, she questioned along the anecdote of: If I purchase ads on Facebook saying Republicans support the Green New Deal (but they don't), will Facebook take the ads down? I often see these clean, easily provable anecdotes from those who support some kind of suppression of speech. I worry though: often the truthfulness of real world statements are difficu…
> Determining the periphery of political speech,as a result, would be inherently political.
And, choosing not to determine the peripherey of political speech, is also political. Inaction is a choice, which by its nature supports the status quo.
I am not saying inaction, or the status quo, is necessarily good or bad, although I don't agree with the implication in the parent post that Facebook shouldn't do something.
What should be done is delicate and will always require constant negotiation, and be in flux. I am a proponent of free speech. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, is, of course, a classic example of a "surpression" of speech, and, the history of the US court system in ruling that books which were banned are legal to publish, etc, is a good example that our legal system has tools to negotiate these issues and can do so.
Re: Twitter to ban political advertising
#210Wow. That's gotta be a lot of money they're leaving on the table, no? I totally support it. But I've also got to be brutally honest: I wonder if this is a sincere moral stance on Dorsey's part, or more of a business calculation that, leading up to the lightning-rod 2020 election, accepting political ads ultimately has the potential to do more damage to Twitter's reputation than the money would make up for -- or have…
For FB political ads make about 1% of revenue, if I am calculating correctly (source https://articles2.marketrealist.com/2019/05/why-facebook-con... ) I know you asked for Twitter but I guess it's similar. Zuckerberg also considered dropping political ads altogether, as they are controversial
I think Zuckerberg actually stated this recently somewhere. That political ads may not even reach 1% of revenue.