Twitter to ban political ads in apparent swipe at Facebook

[webfact]

Twitter to ban political ads in apparent swipe at Facebook

By Trevor Hunnicutt

 

FILE PHOTO: A 3D-printed logo for Twitter is seen in this picture illustration made in Zenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina on January 26, 2016. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration

 

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Twitter Inc <TWTR.N> will ban political advertising on its platform next month, the company's chief executive said on Wednesday, a move that won praise from Democrats and scorn from Donald Trump's presidential campaign.

 

"We've made the decision to stop all political advertising on Twitter globally," said Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey in a statement

https://twitter.com/jack/status/1189634360472829952. "We believe political message reach should be earned, not bought."

 

Analysts do not expect the ban, which takes effect on Nov. 22, to significantly reduce Twitter's business. Its shares fell 1.9% in after-hours trading.

 

Social media companies, including Twitter rival Facebook Inc <FB.O> face growing pressure to stop carrying ads that spread false information that could steer elections.

 

Facebook has pledged efforts to deal with misinformation after Russian propaganda on the platform was seen to affect the outcome of the 2016 U.S. presidential election, which was won by Trump, a Republican.

 

But Facebook made a decision to not fact-check ads run by politicians, drawing ire from Democratic candidates running in the 2020 presidential election such as former Vice President Joe Biden and Senator Elizabeth Warren.

 

"We appreciate that Twitter recognizes that they should not permit disproven smears, like those from the Trump campaign, to appear in advertisements on their platform," said Bill Russo, deputy communications director for the Biden campaign, in an emailed statement.

 

Biden has faced attacks from Trump, offered without evidence, about the foreign business dealings of his son Hunter.

 

"It would be unfortunate to suggest that the only option available to social media companies to do so is the full withdrawal of political advertising, but when faced with a choice between ad dollars and the integrity of our democracy, it is encouraging that, for once, revenue did not win out," said Russo.

 

Brad Parscale, who is running Trump's re-election campaign, described Twitter's move as an "attempt to silence conservatives" and "a very dumb decision" for the company's shareholders.

 

"Will Twitter also be stopping ads from biased liberal media outlets who will now run unchecked as they buy obvious political content meant to attack Republicans," Parscale said in a statement. "This is yet another attempt to silence conservatives, since Twitter knows President Trump has the most sophisticated online program ever known."

 

A Twitter spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

 

Earlier this month, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg defended the company's policy, saying it did not want to stifle political speech.

 

Dorsey wrote on Twitter that paying for ads forces "targeted political messages on people" with a power that "brings significant risks to politics, where it can be used to influence votes to affect the lives of millions."

 

He added that it was not credible for Twitter to say it was trying to stop the spread of misleading information "buuut if someone pays us to target and force people to see their political ad...well...they can say whatever they want!"

 

Jasmine Enberg, a senior analyst for research company eMarketer, said Twitter's decision "is in stark contrast to Facebook" but added that political advertising is not likely a critical part of its business.

 

"And, given the nature of the platform, people, publishers and politicians will still use Twitter to discuss politics organically, meaning that it won't fully solve the problem of misinformation," she said.

 

David Herrmann, president of Hermann Digital LLC, a Los Angeles-based independent media buyer who works with direct-to-consumer brands, said he disagreed with the notion of banning political ads on any network, including Twitter.

 

"Banning political ads doesn't hurt presidential campaigns, it hurts local politics that are dependent on reach from paid" ads, he tweeted.

 

(Reporting by Trevor Hunnicutt; Additional reporting by Sheila Dang and Amal S in Bengaluru; Editing by Maju Samuel and Richard Chang)

 

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-10-31

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[Samui Bodoh]

Interesting story, and one of those whereby good people can objectively come to different conclusions.

 

On the whole, I think I would agree with Twitter in banning paid political advertising on their platform as there really isn't any way/method for Twitter to identify who is paying for the ads, unlike TV and/or Facebook which can list the people/organizations who created it. Yes, we have all heard the "My name is XXX and I approved this ad" and even if we don't always feel that it is effective, there IS a public record of money spent and a name attached to it (now, clean up the anonymous Super PACs to really add transparency!); Twitter can't do that due to size/space limitations.

 

"...We believe political message reach should be earned, not bought..." seems like both a reasonable principle and common sense to me.

 

One political debate that is coming, but likely won't occur before the US elections of 2020, is the role of 'Big Tech'. I think it is time that they had some regulations attached to their business, something akin to the utilities. However, there really isn't going to be time/space for the debate before the next cycle of elections.

 

It is the proverbial 'Brave New World' of a media landscape.

 

 

 

[Dumbastheycome]

Will that mean Trump's  tweets will be censored?

[Cryingdick]

Twitter is a dumpster fire right now. They won't take Trump off he is the only reason they are even still around. Dorsey can take all the shots he wants at Facebook. Facebook is wildly successful and just posted a big earnings beat today. Twitter reported earnings and down around 25%.

 

Dorsey is maybe making a smart move because he is scared of the regulators, FB can afford lawyers. Not even Iger wanted to touch Twitter with a ten foot pole when offered the chance to buy the company dirt cheap because it has such an unsavory image. Iger is one of the brightest CEO out there and stayed away from it.

 

For Twitter to call anybody greasy is sort of funny.

 

[candide]

9 hours ago, Dumbastheycome said:

Will that mean Trump's  tweets will be censored?

They are not paid advertising. 

[Dumbastheycome]

A matter of perspective methinks. When the POTUS  has preference in using a social media platform to announce intent of dictated personal administration  prior to  making that  known to his actual administration to  me implies  using a  personal social media account as a political platform and as a Potus who is eligible  for annual salary  and all  associated  costs  in that at  taxpayer expense it could  be construed as paid advertisement.

[Tug]

Good let’s hope they cut off trump to limit the damage to the USA and the world

[Sujo]

13 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

Twitter is a dumpster fire right now. They won't take Trump off he is the only reason they are even still around. Dorsey can take all the shots he wants at Facebook. Facebook is wildly successful and just posted a big earnings beat today. Twitter reported earnings and down around 25%.

 

Dorsey is maybe making a smart move because he is scared of the regulators, FB can afford lawyers. Not even Iger wanted to touch Twitter with a ten foot pole when offered the chance to buy the company dirt cheap because it has such an unsavory image. Iger is one of the brightest CEO out there and stayed away from it.

 

For Twitter to call anybody greasy is sort of funny.

 

Thats funny you think dorsey cant afford lawyers.

 

If twitter is doing bad you would think they would want the paid advertising.

 

Good to see dorsey has morals.