in recent weeks over its policy to neither fact check nor remove political ads placed by politicians. Facebook has argued it should not be the one to make decisions about its users' speech and that politician's speech is newsworthy."A political message earns reach when people decide to follow an account or retweet," Dorsey wrote. "Paying for reach removes that decision, forcing highly optimized and targeted political messages on people.
Dorsey said it would be "not credible" for Twitter to tell users it's committed to stopping the spread of misinformation while allowing advertisers to target users with political ads just because they've paid Twitter to do so. Without naming Facebook or its CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Dorsey seemed to take a shot at the company's rhetoric around political ads. Zuckerberg has recently been discussing the importance of "free expression" in connection to Facebook's political ad policy, like at a Georgetown University event dedicated to that ideal.
In his final tweet on the topic, Dorsey said pointedly, "This isn't about free expression. This is about paying for reach. And paying to increase the reach of political speech has significant ramifications that today's democratic infrastructure may not be prepared to handle. It's worth stepping back in order to address.", Zuckerberg said Facebook once considered banning political ads as well and that they don't even make up a significant portion of the business.
Dorsey addressed the slippery slope theory in his tweets explaining the move, saying Twitter also considered barring only candidate ads, but said issue ads present a way around this. In the end, he said, Twitter decided to ban issue ads as well since the company believed it's unfair to allow everyone but the candidates themselves to buy ads on topics they care about.
I still think it's still a case-to-case basis. A political statement is not a political ad. It has to be legit. 1officeph
I hope hilLIARy doesn’t have Andrew killed.,,
I think we should ban Hilary from tv
jack & ZUCK: Why not expose political ads as a public dataset rather than ban or let appear unchecked? Time will tell what tech already knows: Ephemeral is a myth. Time to identify now approaching zero. See GoogleAI & HN 🌎🧭 Space & Time LatencyStupid
She wouldn’t be saying this had she won.
TARGETED ads are no different than subliminal ads and should be regulated via the FCC and FTC. Targeted ads, based upon collecting user data, should be made illegal, with STIFF penalties for their use.
I think Hillary should be BANNED!!!!!!!!
7 billion people watching leftwing CNBC cover up the coverup of crimes against children...
HillaryClinton ThursdayThoughts
HillaryClinton BillClinton Speaking of Twitter!!!
I agree
'This way the only way you can get served political ads is through the Democrat-controlled media where the right has no voice.' Is what she means.
No one cares
oh i don't know, maybe because the only ads left after that is the MSM? Call me crazy but it's not even math :p
RepAOC SpeakerPelosi coming like a lion to feast on a goat 🐅🐐 now they have Twitter to back them 😈
Putin plays outside the political ad standards. You won't recognize half of it. Its being generated as discourse. Disinformation. FEC ad rules should apply equally to all media.
Freedom of speech violation there
how about facebook or Google ? where is their soul?
CNN is one walking political ad. Are we banning cnn ? JOKE
So, should all media outlets ban political ads?
Who's got more to lose?
facebook is the devil.
I love Twitter.
Smart move bc they get the moral high ground and sacrifice a minuscule fraction of the revenue Facebook would.
There’s simply too much money to lose. Facebook is all about making money. When jack created twitter, he had a much more grander vision for the platform.
Nah youtube, facebook and twitter should be the only ones that can have campaigns and absolutely nothing else. No more “money and banks win elections”.
All other social media better follow Twitters lead. Big eyes out there now watching companies that allow nefarious entities to interfere or coerce people could hold them accountable with all the publicity surrounding them already.:)
Twitter gets it. Facebook, not so much...
Gotta love those woke CEOs who don't understand publicly-traded stocks and their shareholders expect to be enriched lol
I like twitter a lot, but this is a bad move by twitter, this is a bad road to go down by twitter.
No good deed...
The stock should be rewarded not punished
They won't ban DNC ads. Besides, only 23% of USA use Twitter and those 23% have multiple accounts.
He doesn't want to be like Mark Zuckerberg, dead at 32.
😂😂😂😂😂
gossipeconomist
United States Latest News, United States Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: NYMag - 🏆 111. / 63 Read more »
Source: THR - 🏆 411. / 53 Read more »
Facebook News chief defends decision not to fact-check political ads - Business InsiderCampbell Brown defended Facebook's decision not to fact-check political ads and said she was 'astonished' by media criticism. Fun Fact: No profession is as reliant on lying ads for its existence as is journalism. SAI How is this newsworthy? It’s her job to amplify ZuckSucks irrational arguments to publish known lies by politicians. Like Zuck, apparently she’s sacrificed integrity & respect for both journalism & politics in favor of self enrichment. Zuck's Sarah Sanders.
Source: BusinessInsider - 🏆 729. / 51 Read more »
Source: BusinessInsider - 🏆 729. / 51 Read more »
Source: BusinessInsider - 🏆 729. / 51 Read more »