Twitter Temporarily Blocks Campaign Ad... Getting It Much More Attention
from the don't-let-twitter-be-the-content-police dept
We've argued repeatedly that it's a bad idea to demand that internet platforms like Twitter and Facebook be more proactive in policing content on their services, because it will lead to really bad results -- especially in the political realm. There's been a really dumb move over the past few months, demanding that Twitter kick Donald Trump off Twitter, pointing out that he's pretty clearly violating many of their terms of service. For example, threatening war with North Korea would likely violate the rules against "violent threats (direct or indirect)." And, of course, our President is a walking, tweeting harassment and "hateful conduct" machine. But, Twitter has recently said that it wouldn't kick Trump off the service (which we agree is the right move), because it has a different standard for "newsworthy" tweets, whatever that means.
And, yes, some people will claim that it's unfair to have a double standard, but I think Twitter is correct to not kick Trump off the service. It certainly wouldn't stop the President from getting his thoughts out there, and would only increase the silly martyr act that he and his most vocal supporters love to focus on. But, really, the bigger issue is why anyone should expect Twitter to be doing this kind of decision making in the first place. When you look at other communications systems -- like email or the web in general -- we don't kick people entirely off email or force them to takedown their website just because they say something stupid.
And, when it gets into political content, it gets even sillier. For example, while Twitter won't do anything about Trump (again, the right move...), it did decide to block a campaign ad from Rep. Marsha Blackburn, who is eagerly running for the Senate to take over the seat Bob Corker is vacating. (Update: as noted in the comment, Twitter allowed the video in Blackburn's stream -- or in anyone else's -- they just blocked it from being promoted through Twitter's ad network). The ad sounded inflammatory and stupid, claiming that she "stopped the sale of baby body parts" and Twitter rejected it for being "inflammatory." Of course, all this did was kick the old Streisand Effect into high gear, giving Blackburn tons of free publicity and extra views of her ad, which was posted on YouTube, without having to buy any advertising. Twitter basically gave her a much wider reach for free by rejecting the ad. And, of course, after all the damage was done, Twitter changed its mind.
Now, I tend to think that Blackburn is one of the worst members of Congress (she's terrible on basically every issue we care about here) and would prefer she not move across Congress to be in the Senate, but she should be able to post whatever stupid ad she wants on Twitter, and just let people on Twitter rip it to shreds, rather than being barred from posting such an ad.
It seems pretty straightforward, but we shouldn't want a private company -- especially one as consistently confused about these things as Twitter -- to be the final arbiter of what political ads or political speech are okay, and what is too "inflammatory." That only leads to bad results -- and all of the free publicity Twitter just gave Blackburn's dumb ad will mean that other politicians will seek to create even more ridiculous ads to get the free "bump" from a Twitter ban. That hardly seems healthy for democracy.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: marsha blackburn, political ads
Companies: twitter
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Pick and Choose
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pick and Choose
Hypocrisy is the breakfast of champions!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pick and Choose
Conservative commentators like Dana Loesch routinely receive the most vile of death and rape threats, which when reported to Twitter, are met with "Meh. Not a violation of our community standards". Yet those same conservatives often find themselves suspended/muted over far more innocuous (but anti-left) remarks or over nonsense like "failing to use someone's preferred pronouns".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Pick and Choose
On the flipside, marginalized people who routinely face harassment sometimes have their accounts suspended for daring to speak up against the harassment. Do not act as if this is a “Twitter loves only leftists, libtards, and pinko commie bastards” story. Hell, I have had my account dinged with a brief suspension because I said a cuss word in a reply to a Verified™ account, and I am nowhere near being a conservative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Pick and Choose
Selective enforcement of laws, TOS, EULAs, ..... is standard fare. I doubt it is as one sided as you claim, perhaps you have data to share that would support your wild accusations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pick and Choose
No matter how bad Trump is - including being a "walking, tweeting harassment and 'hateful conduct' machine" - he's *entirely* consistent with how he acted before the election. There have been no surprises. Nothing unpredicted, nothing that wasn't completely obvious long before the election.
He has exactly the same demeanor, intelligence, maturity and dignity that led the Republican Party to declare him their best possible choice for the job. The same that won the election.
While I and others are horrified, the country made its decision fully informed. Who is Twitter to disagree?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Pick and Choose
1) slave
2) peon
3) prole
4) 1%
5) 0.1%
6) illuminati
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pick and Choose
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Pick and Choose
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Welcome to Platforms over Protocols
Email doesn't have this problem because it is a Protocol. Twitter has the problem because it is a platform. BitTorrent doesn't censor applications, because it is a protocol. The Apple App Store has a problem because it is a platform.
So the more we feed into Platform culture, the more you will see people putting arbitrary control over how people use it. Not necessarily good or bad; it is their right as the platform curator, but we just need to understand curators will censor at their whims because reasons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Welcome to Platforms over Protocols
2. Twitter is managed by spineless cowards and run by ignorant newbies. NOTHING it does (or fails to do) is surprising: of course it's incompetent and negligent, why would anybody expect anything else?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You know
I've grow very weary of all virtue signaling all the time....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You know
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You know
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You know
This article, minus all the "wink, wink, you know I hate filthy Republicans and all", would be greatly improved.
Huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You know
If you're not virtue signaling, but are a True Believer, you should recuse yourself from writing articles about Republicans. Techdirt is a site I've supported up to now, but if you want to alienate half of your potential audience....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You know
I doubt it is half .. btw, just what offends you so much?
Just curious.
Why should anyone "recuse" one's self from writing about whatever they want to write about?
How does the word "recuse" have relevance in the world of journalism? What is the conflict of interest you are addressing here?
Virtue signaling ... is that like dog whistle?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You know
Because they recognize when they do so, they make a fool of themselves, and drag down the reputation of their organization?
But, hey, if the editors and publisher of Techdirt are fine with this, a very large fraction, even if you doubt it's half, of their potential audience can just write it off as terminally pozzed with Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You know
Funny thing, while your comment had plenty of insults('make a fool of themselves'/'Trump derangement syndrome'), it was notably lacking in meaningful answers to the questions posed to you.
Perhaps that was just a minor slip up where you forgot to add it before hitting submit, and in that case feel free to address the questions they mentioned such as:
What exactly you find so offensive?
Why TD writers should 'recuse' themselves from covering certain subject(using an actual argument, rather than just 'because it looks silly according to me')?
Why it's apparently wrong to write articles that mention people(that just so happen to be republicans, not that you'd know reading the articles because it's almost never mentioned) in a less than flattering light, even when the main focus is on a platform they are using.
I look forward to a more exhaustive response to these questions so that people can better understand your position and the point you are trying to make.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You know
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You know
They bought the ugly vase and now they have to pretend it is beautiful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You know
He appears to be a genuine, consistent, philosophical/ideological conservative, rather than a Republican partisan - and there are too few such people left, for any political faction or facet, in the modern world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You know
In the immortal words of The Gord: “Door’s to your left.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Extra word?
she's terrible on basically every issue we care about her
Do you need a semi-colon between "issue" and "we" to show sympathy for Blackburn? Or remove "her" to show distaste? I suspect the latter. Hehehe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Extra word?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Extra word?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That means it has "financial" and "viral" factors embedded in its CORPORATE standard.
"Community standard" is a euphemism here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's obvious that "newsworthy" is not the actual standard. Many racists etc. have been in the news and still kicked off of Twitter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what really happened.
Twitter was secretly working for Blackburn to help promote her campaign.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If’n you need a safe space, son, I hear 4chan’s /pol/ is open for business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
(Not saying Trump = Hitler, I'm saying that winning an election doesn't free you from being criticized when you do horrible things in office. And yes, Hitler was legally elected, and legally became dictator)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Twitter blocked the ad from being spread using their promoted/paid advertising services. The ad was NEVER blocked from her personal twitter or from anyone retweeting it.
People saw "THE AD WAS BLOCKED" and went crazy, but it was only blocked from being advertised to others using twitters services, thus the 'inflammatory' objection to the ad.
Twitter is perfectl allowed to reject any advertising on its platform that it wants that it is hosting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That does change things quite a bit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Twitter blocked the ad from being spread using their promoted/paid advertising services. The ad was NEVER blocked from her personal twitter or from anyone retweeting it.
Very useful. I will update the article.
Twitter is perfectl allowed to reject any advertising on its platform that it wants that it is hosting.
I never said otherwise. But I still think it was stupid and shortsighted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And Techdirt has officially become partisan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And Techdirt has officially become partisan
Life is so simple when you only have two buckets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'You were critical of someone I (apparently) support' = 'Partisan'
If people keep doing/saying stupid things, and they just so happen to belong to the same party as you, it may seem like they're ragging on 'your' party, but that's just a side effect of those people being in your tribe.
Out of curiosity, is it even possible to say something negative about a republican(and I'll note that the article had no mention of which party she belonged to) without being 'partisan' under the standards you use?
Likewise, would you have been playing the partisan card has the individual in question been a democrat?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'You were critical of someone I (apparently) support' = 'Partisan'
Go, Techdirt!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And Techdirt has officially become partisan
Techdirt called out actions by the Obama administration during the entirety of Obama’s time in office. This site does not devolve into partisan hackery unless one party—or one politician from one party—does something stupid.
Democrats and Republicans are neither good nor bad in and of themselves. The actions they take, and the consequences that follow, reflect upon themselves. A Democrat can make a dumbass decision that works against the public interest just the same as a Republican. If you believe that one party is always good and the other is always bad—no matter which party is on which side—you might want to re-examine your thought processes.
And if you think Techdirt hates Republicans/conservatives but loves to metaphorically (or literally!) suck the dicks Democrats/progressives, you will need to prove it for anyone else here to take you seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's part of the plan, of course. Ranting conspiracy is how Trump got free airtime since he ran for Republican candidate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Twitter seems to keep controversial people around if they are able to become a talking point for others, or are just well-connected enough (both sides :P).
... Did you know Twitter's up/down web traffic naturally matches the profile of a DDOS?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]