Twitter's ban on political advertising has far-reaching implications for the governance of public social platforms
2019Years.10Month.30DayTwitterCeo Jack·Dorsey (Jack Dorsey）In a tweetChina announced that his platform would ban all political advertising. In a subsequent theme, he wrote“Political messages should be won, not purchased”and realize that micro-targeting and misleading information can play a role in influenceing elections. Although.Dorseythe subject points out the need“More forward-looking political advertising regulation”But he did not share the criteria that would be used to identify political advertising or discuss how the ban fits into the broader regulatory framework. The final policy is expected11Month.15effective, and in11Month.22effective today.
The announcement attracted great attention, especially because it was related toFacebookRecently decidedAllowing any claim (even a false claim) in a political advertisement conflicts. Although.DorseyThe topic has sparked a new debate about the role of digital platforms in pre-election terms, but scholars and policymakers have long discussed temporary, incoherent approaches to platform management.
To illustrate this long-term discussion, we asked seven experts,TwitterWhether the new advertising policy will put pressure on other platforms and how decisions to ban political advertising will play a role in the broad discussion of platform regulations. This article summarizes their answers.
Joan.·Donovan (Joan Donovan(Kennedy School, Harvard University)
These companies tend to be in groups, but based on the differences in the size of advertising between these companies, we'll see some very significant differences in the way they manage their statements. For example, withTwitterComparedFacebookProvide more ads, withTwitterComparedFacebookThe direct sales effect is better.GoogleAnd.YouTubeAdvertising services work differently and are not immediately under pressure to publicly change their policies. In general, online advertising is about getting rid of known networks and attracting more audiences for messaging, but the sneaky way platforms clean up ads in feeds makes it difficult to perceive what advertising is and what content is. However, due to these factors, compared to other platforms,FacebookThe problem of political advertising will be even greater. Until then, I've been receiving this ad,“Sign up for the opportunity with Elizabeth·Warren (Elizabeth WarrenDrink beer.” Anyone who clicks on an ad will automatically record their userna name. The goal of the ad is secondary, to register, and perhaps even to donate to Warren's campaign, i.e. to get information from clicks. At this stage, Warren (WarrenTry to find segmented audiences to reposition later. But, along withTwitterChanges in advertising policies will no longer target the platform, which meansFacebookwill get the largest share of political advertising and the trouble that comes with it.
University of Ottawa, Elizabeth·Du Bois (Elizabeth Dubois）
Prohibited inTwitterPosting political and advertising may stimulate other ways to manipulate content on the platform, which are manipulative and opaque. In order for the public to participate in political discussions online, they need tools to evaluate the information on the screen. Transparency in political advertising is part of the challenge because it makes clear who paid for the message and who targeted it, and it provides journalists and others with an opportunity to make politicians accountable for their message.
With this ban, political entities will not simply cease to use itTwitter(It's a useful tool for connecting with journalists and political elites), but they may find new ways to raise money to promote their content. Pass.TwitterThe system to promote content is not the only way to pay for sound. For example, people might pay for automatic or manual account networks to send tweets, ret tweets, and favorite content.
These and other policies are designed to circumvent and leverage algorithms to prioritize content. We have little ability to identify or prevent these practices.TwitterSome features are being established, but details are kept confidential (usually necessary to prevent further manipulation). Ultimately, this means that paid political information will be pushed further underground.
Robert.·Faye (RobertFay), The Center for International Governance Innovation
Twitter's move to ban political advertising is commendable. However, it emphasizes that there must be a consistent set of rules across platforms - not only in this area, but also to determine what fake or malicious content is, and then decide what to do with it. Should notifications be flagged in some way? Should I delete a user before they see it? Should twitter be banned in this situation? These and other difficult issues can be addressed through a multi-stakeholder process that develops a set of principles and standards that can then be implemented among countries to reflect different perspectives and values. I propose to build oneDigital Stability BoardStakeholders can come together to make these and other necessary efforts for the digital platform era. This may seem like a difficult task, but it can be done.
Twitter's decision not to accept political advertising distracts from appropriate platform regulations and acknowledges that political advertising has never been an important source of revenue for the company. Instead, it emphasizes that Twitter itself is a political ad (as U.S. President Donald Trump's usual usage proves) that Twitter does not encourage people to pay, but rather encourages people to play a tweet-based political game. In terms of focusing on engagement and increasing usage, Twitter hopes to increase overall advertising revenue by further enhancing its position as a major arena for open political debate.
Twitter hopes their decision will further promote and motivate the public to engage and discuss political issues on its platform, not on other platforms. If successful, it will fuel polarization, sensationalism, automation and the power of the work force. Like other social media platforms, Twitter has ignored existing research into the impact of its free-flowing model and focused instead on their bottom line, driven by user growth and engagement. Social issues associated with social media will continue to grow and expand as long as the platform adopts a minimal and inadequate governance model.
Twitter's decision has put new pressure on other platforms, such as Facebook and Google (as well as Instagram and YouTube, respectively). Now, we have two extreme positions: Facebook's "everything is all" approach and Twitter's "nothing" approach. I hope that these two extreme positions will help us to see more clearly the platform's middle ground on self-regulation of political advertising. That is, these platforms should allow political advertising, but create greater friction in the relationship between content and citizens for candidates or reasons. The problem is providing micro-targeted political data and sophisticated advertising tools, not political advertising. These tools enable paid political content to be developed and targeted at a very small number of voters. Platforms promote and motivate the most extreme content because they allow political characters to speak only to those who may be most sympathetic and responsive to ads that are often extreme, highly emotional, and fear-based. As a result, Twitter and Facebook amplify the most extreme political rhetoric. By limiting the use of political data and reducing the accuracy of targeting, greater friction is caused in the advertising system, which forces political actors to talk to the wider public and thus motivates them to control their message.
Twitter's political voice is the right to speak in business, while the paid voice is organic (especially the elite). First, while it's unclear how Twitter defines "politics," the company may have larger barriers to advertising entry on advocacy groups than advocacy groups. For example, companies will continue to promote consumer goods freely, and advocacy groups will face obstacles in trying to promote ethical choices to consumers. Twitter may also prevent companies such as Nike from advertising social issues. Second, research shows that digital advertising reduces the cost of showing paid messages to voters compared to television, which is especially important when the public is distracted. A wide variety of candidates, such as in-person challengers, are more likely to engage in digital advertising than in other forms. To get organic coverage beyond paid coverage, Twitter is making political choices to favor those who already get the most attention online and in society, and to expand it to a wider range. Often, political nonies have long relied on digital advertising, which has laid the groundwork for organic coverage. Twitter's decision will further strengthen the capital of the media and political elites. This lays the foundation for organic coverage. Twitter's decision will help further consolidate the capital of the media and political elite. This lays the foundation for organic coverage. Twitter's decision will help further consolidate the capital of the media and political elite.
As I avoidedDorsey's health advice is the sameI think it's wise to avoid his advice on online advertising. The real solution is to reduce the cost of digital monitoring by regulating behavioral advertising and limiting the data used for targeting. In Canada, we should consider setting up a royal commission into digital advertising and making sure Dorsey's tweets don't have a policy agenda. Dorsey's Twitter thread and strategy statement was an attempt to set a policy agenda and propose a solution that was easy for Twitter to implement, but not enough to solve the whole problem.As we did from Susan Dellacour（Susan Delacourt knows that, Twitter is a small figure in Canadian political advertising, and may be right globally.
Twitter's exit has distracted people by blaming politics rather than the industry as a whole. The problem is not that the wrong people use targeted advertising (whether politicians, activists or foreign agents), but the digital economy based on data-driven advertising. There is a growing consensus that there is little public interest in behavioural advertising. I'm not sure what else: Dorsey's announcement or attention seems to be the only online advertising agency that has set a policy agenda. These debates should not be conducted by people like Twitter, and this proposal can only distract attention from more necessary reforms.
Dorsey's announcement that Twitter "has made the decision to stop all political advertising around the world" has spread a lot. But the discussion focused on political advertising, not global influence. Will Orems（ Will Oremus）argumentBanning political advertising would "hurt activists, labor groups and organizers." Shannon McGregorPointed out.Ironically, the policy could eventually amplify Trump, since 80 percent of his tweets end up in news stories anyway. Trump doesn't need ads; Twitter's policies make it harder for new visitors to use them. The upcoming 2020 election is understandable to concern the United States. But, like social media platforms, global policy is designed to take U.S. policy into account. For example, uganda's LGBTQ market for advertising products how the current market will be gay andPlan.The death penalty for gay men? The lines between politics, economy and society are blurred. They have always been, and always will be. As McGregor points out, Twitter's policies are "big PR" in the United States, though they can be tricky to implement. Law enforcement around the world can be more cumbersome.
Go to "Discovery" - "Take a look" browse "Friends are watching"
sent to have a look