• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Twitter stops running political ads on platform

code1211 said:
Your trust is admirable.

Can I sell you a good used car?
Click to expand...
There are very few things or people in this world that I trust. For all the rest, it’s “trust, but verify”.
 
code1211 said:
It is if it appears on the site due to a commercial arrangement.

Your question, though, demonstrates the problems with limiting the access to the public forum.

If a public opinion "influencer" is advancing a point of view without paying for the space or time to do so, that is STILL advocacy.

Trump was so entertaining that his rallies were covered by the dismissive media like they were displaying a dancing bear.

Billions of dollars of exposure advancing a particular message that they simply could not understand. All they were capable of seeing was the show- they could not grasp the ideas.

It got to the point on one day, and this is very amusing, that CNN was broadcasting the empty podium that Trump was going to use instead broadcasting the live speech being delivered by Hillary.

Was Trump's stump speech "news" to be covered or was it advocacy demanding payment therefore making it paid political advertising?

Allowing Trump's ideas to enter the marketplace of ideas changed everything. Stopping the entry of those ideas into the marketplace of ideas would have also had an effect on the marketplace of ideas.

The point is that the market place of ideas is a finite arena and the access, while expanding, is limited. Ideas censored or admitted, by their admittance or exclusion, will impact the opinions or beliefs of our citizens.

Brandenburg v Ohio is one of the enshrinements of the concept of the Market Place of Ideas in our legal tradition.

With the advent of mass media, social media and all forms of electronically enabled public communication, we are faced with the same question: Who is entitled to act as the gate keeper preventing certain ideas from gaining attention?

Banning any communication impacts ALL understanding. Photos of WW2 Concentration Camp victims are revolting. Photos of the piles of bodies from Stalinist Russia are revolting.

Banning the publication of these photos is justified to preserve of our delicate sensibilities, but denies us the reminders needed to avoid the central control of freedoms as protected by the Federalism enshrined in our Constitution.

The Market Place of Ideas is a Wild West Show of confusion and is messy. This is exactly what the Framers envisioned.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately they didn't envision the weaponization of speech itself, allowing mass manipulation below the level of cognition.

And considering that the Constitution is a tyranny defense system and every modern tyranny used these tools to establish and maintain their tyrannies I doubt they would be happy about the current situation.

You focus on the content.

I focus on the delivery system.

Without which all of the negatives you rail against could never have been in the first place.
 
ocean515 said:
No I can answer your question. Just surprised you need it explained to you. I had you on a higher pedestal.

I'm of two thoughts on the issue.

A private company should be able to do what it wants regarding content on it's platform.

On the other hand, where does it cross the line into gross manipulation and censorship?

Twitter has something like 330 million users, according to data I just looked up.

That is quite a reach.

How much censorship should be allowed?

What if all liberal points of view were blocked? What if an algorithm was developed that blocked anyone from posting thoughts and ideas Twitter decided it didn't like.


It's a private company, so it should be able to do what it wants.

Or is such a policy of selective screening taking people down a path that leads to crushing individual thoughts and ideas, where only approved points of view will be allowed?
Click to expand...

Sounds to me like they're just not gonna take money for political ads anymore.

Everybody can still spread all the manufactured narratives they like.

It'll just take more effort to reach the target demographics than an ad will.

Too bad, so sad.
 
code1211 said:
You post the words and yet do not understand both what they say and what they imply.

Who performs the consideration?

You still have not answered my question.

You assert that ABC follows rigid editorial practices that must result in uncensored and fair presentation of the news for the American Public.

Obviously, they do not. They run stories that are damaging to the people they wish to see damaged and kill stories that damage those people they seek to protect.

I have demonstrated this by presenting the coverage of the Kavanaugh libels and the spiking of the Epstein truths.

I'm asking you to provide the substance explaining this obvious deviation from your unfounded beliefs in light of what has actually happened in the real world at the hands of this gang of propagandists.

I'll give you a hint on finding the truth in this consideration: ABC is lying about their editorial practices. STARTING with this obvious truth, will aid you in your efforts to understand how ABC censors the information they broadcast.

Why CBS fired the individual that ABC said leaked the video is a wholly different question, but that firing will serve to further censor the product issued by both of these propaganda outlets.

In a bit of dark humor, Project Veritas informs that the employee fired by CBS for alleged actions at ABC was not the source of their story.

The propagandists are so crooked, they can't even hit the right victim at the firing squad. This, by itself, indicts ABC and CBS beyond anything anyone can say. Shoot first, ask questions later.

Even in their HR practices, they have no need or requirement for accuracy or truth. Accuracy and truth, in passing, are entirely different things in journalism.
Click to expand...

You might not want to cite veritas when talking about propagandists. Their entire model is propaganda.
 
What if...? said:
In the age of technological propaganda I do not have any problem with twitter banning political ads.

It isn't the marketplace of ideas.

It is the marketing of idea themselves.

Using the same tools that lead to anorexia and bulimia, for instance.

The same tools used to groom a suicide bomber.

The same tools used to get a bunch of folks' money at a fake university.

All this talk about censorship is really about maintaining the ability to manipulate below the level of cognition.

I would be fine if there were no political ads anywhere.

I see no net benefit to the species. But much harm.
Click to expand...

My question has nothing at all to do with the idea of eliminating political ads from any given forum.

My question is regard to who makes the decisions what a political ad is and is not.

Those decisions will be made by human beings. Human beings are not in any way free of bias. None of us are. None of us can be. it's not the way we're built.

There will undoubtedly be abuses of this noble goal and the result will be rampant favoritism and continued subliminal messages.

Is a plastic bottle political? How about a plastic straw?
 
What if...? said:
No. That would be relying on factual information as opposed to manufactured narratives we have already heard over and over and over again.

Doing what y'all say folks should do instead of addressing the manipulation industries and their output.

Helix already knew by the firat paragraph what you posted was bull**** so could save irreplaceable seconds of his life exposing himself to a manufactured narrative.
Click to expand...

"Irreplaceable seconds" as a concept for people posting in this forum is a comical idea.

Do you really believe that people posting here, who have the disposable time to post here, are pressed for time?
 
What if...? said:
Limiting content designed to promote misapprehension certainly is.
Click to expand...

Who determines what content will promote misapprehension?

One man's clear understanding is another man's misapprehension.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
There are very few things or people in this world that I trust. For all the rest, it’s “trust, but verify”.
Click to expand...

If half of the information needed test the veracity of any idea is withheld from you, what then?

Withholding information is the mark of the more powerful condemning the capacity of those they control.

Willfully supporting this withholding is agreeing that you just don't have the capacity to think.

Marketplace of Ideas Theory

<snip>
Marketplace of Ideas Theory
29-07-2012, 15:01 11 096 0 Comments


The marketplace of ideas theory stands for the notion that, with minimal government intervention—

a laissez faire approach to the regulation of speech and expression—

ideas, theories, propositions, and movements will succeed or fail on their own merits.

Left to their own rational devices, free individuals have the discerning capacity to sift through competing proposals

in an open environment of deliberation and exchange, allowing truth, or the best possible results, to be realized in the end.

<snip>
 
What if...? said:
Unfortunately they didn't envision the weaponization of speech itself, allowing mass manipulation below the level of cognition.

And considering that the Constitution is a tyranny defense system and every modern tyranny used these tools to establish and maintain their tyrannies I doubt they would be happy about the current situation.

You focus on the content.

I focus on the delivery system.

Without which all of the negatives you rail against could never have been in the first place.
Click to expand...

The highlighted part of your post reflects the absolute lack of understanding of the Constitution. You need to read it. It will be enlightening for you. Then again, it might not...

The Framers lived in a world, at a time, when anyone with a printing press could write anything with no responsibility for accuracy, and everyone had a particular ax to grind.

The current state of our journalism has reverted to that level of specious presentation.

The First Amendment's Protection of the "free press" was written to protect the ability to execute this style of attack. And the ability to attack right back. The resulting marketplace of ideas would allow discerning people to find the truth.

We all arrive at a verdict in consideration of the information we are exposed to. At its root, verdict means literally a statement of truth. Lacking all evidence, we will never find truth.

The delivery system is only the sewer pipe that fake news is delivered from.

The fake news is the sewage that is delivered and, incidentally, protected by the First Amendment that you seem to think is an instrument of tyranny. Where did this idea come from?
 
What if...? said:
You might not want to cite veritas when talking about propagandists. Their entire model is propaganda.
Click to expand...

They presented an unedited video showing the heartfelt commentary from the reporter saying she pitched a story that was complete, sourced, "had everything" and was rejected by ABC.

What in that is propaganda?

Obviously, the only problem with the story was that it did implicate Clinton and the Royals and did not implicate Trump. What level of willing compliance is required for you to accept the party line?

This Video Of Amy Robach Saying ABC News Killed Her Story On Jeffrey Epstein Looks Bad — What's The Full Story? - Digg
 
Mashmont said:
There you go, right there. Social media is now shutting out the conservative message. Ads was the only way conservatives could advertise, and the news feeds are always leftwing. Mission accomplished.
Click to expand...

If that's what you want to believe, sure.

Perhaps if you had better ideas more of the population would pick up on them on their own ...
 
tacomancer said:
I suspect this is a temporary solution until the problem of bots can be solved through better algorithms.
Click to expand...

Are you joking? Bots have nothing to do with it. Twitter is not looking for a 'solution'. The goal is to shut out conservative thought.
 
Mashmont said:
Are you joking? Bots have nothing to do with it. Twitter is not looking for a 'solution'. The goal is to shut out conservative thought.
Click to expand...

This is about bots. We don't require people to write content anymore and haven't for a while now.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
There is no censorship going on here. Twitter is a privately owned company, entitled to operate as it pleases.
Click to expand...

Not really. Media platforms have different rules than Mom and Pop's Burger Shop. This effectively shuts out conservative thought from this outlet. If Yahoo does the same thing, it will be 100% leftwing. All you have to do is look at Yahoo's news feed. 100% leftwing 100% of the time.
 
code1211 said:
If half of the information needed test the veracity of any idea is withheld from you, what then?

Withholding information is the mark of the more powerful condemning the capacity of those they control.

Willfully supporting this withholding is agreeing that you just don't have the capacity to think.

Marketplace of Ideas Theory

<snip>
Marketplace of Ideas Theory
29-07-2012, 15:01 11 096 0 Comments


The marketplace of ideas theory stands for the notion that, with minimal government intervention—

a laissez faire approach to the regulation of speech and expression—

ideas, theories, propositions, and movements will succeed or fail on their own merits.

Left to their own rational devices, free individuals have the discerning capacity to sift through competing proposals

in an open environment of deliberation and exchange, allowing truth, or the best possible results, to be realized in the end.

<snip>
Click to expand...

^^ More willfully ignorant nonsense.

The ban isn’t censorship. It eliminates all political ads from all parties/POV’s equally.

Twitter users are free to speak their minds and promote whatever views they like, within posting guidelines.
 
Mashmont said:
Not really. Media platforms have different rules than Mom and Pop's Burger Shop. This effectively shuts out conservative thought from this outlet. If Yahoo does the same thing, it will be 100% leftwing. All you have to do is look at Yahoo's news feed. 100% leftwing 100% of the time.
Click to expand...
Wrong. The ban does not stop conservative users from promoting their views. It simply eliminates paid political advertising. Two completely different things.
 
Mashmont said:
There you go, right there. Social media is now shutting out the conservative message. Ads was the only way conservatives could advertise, and the news feeds are always leftwing. Mission accomplished.
Click to expand...

No, social media is banning all political advertising. Do you understand the word, 'all'? Lying again (no surprise)?
 
Mashmont said:
Not really. Media platforms have different rules than Mom and Pop's Burger Shop. This effectively shuts out conservative thought from this outlet. If Yahoo does the same thing, it will be 100% leftwing. All you have to do is look at Yahoo's news feed. 100% leftwing 100% of the time.
Click to expand...

So don't look at it if it offends you. Go to Gateway Pundit, Breitbart or Sham Hannity instead for your conservative fix.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
^^ More willfully ignorant nonsense.

The ban isn’t censorship. It eliminates all political ads from all parties/POV’s equally.

Twitter users are free to speak their minds and promote whatever views they like, within posting guidelines.
Click to expand...

Is an ad that announces the scheduled times of religious services a political ad?
 
RaleBulgarian said:
^^ More willfully ignorant nonsense.

The ban isn’t censorship. It eliminates all political ads from all parties/POV’s equally.

Twitter users are free to speak their minds and promote whatever views they like, within posting guidelines.
Click to expand...

Is an ad that announces the scheduled times of religious services a political ad?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom