• 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

Either you are unbelievably naive or you are pushing an agenda that makes no sense.

As long as you are not a Supreme Court Justice, your thoughts on this, as well as mine, really don't matter.
All I can say is that if you aren’t even capable of distinguishing the difference between a political and non-political ad, you shouldn’t be participating in this forum.
 
Sure, but I doubt you could get a full article on Twitter within their advertising structures (and even if you did, nobody would read it).

The key distinction Twitter was making is that advertising is paying for reach rather than individual posters who earn it. Adverts are pushed to users regardless of whether they want them but you have to choose to follow an “influencer” and see their posts.

I think the whole thing is a mess when so many people are getting their socio-political understanding from Twitter (regardless of whether it is from posts or ads). I’m not saying it’s a perfect solution but in itself there is a rationality to Twitters political advertising policy.

EVERYTHING can be rationalized. Jeff Goldblum said in "The Big Chill" that rationalization is more important to people than sex.

There is a legal battle coming on this topic and the various platforms will either be included with broadcasters and publishers or they won't.

I'm guessing that they will gain this dubious credential even if it is under a separate general heading.

With the Market Place of Ideas concept already firmly established, including additional media types beyond the single page at a time printing press has been occurring across the centuries.

It will occur again soon.
 
There is a legal battle coming on this topic and the various platforms will either be included with broadcasters and publishers or they won't.
A legal battle over what exactly? I don’t see why there’d ever be any kind of legal dispute over the freedom of publishers and platforms to determine the class and form of advertising they choose to sell space for. There are other kind of disputes which are ongoing but that isn’t linked to this specific decision in the way some people want to spin it to be.
 
All I can say is that if you aren’t even capable of distinguishing the difference between a political and non-political ad, you shouldn’t be participating in this forum.

Is a tiki-torch a political symbol? How about a running shoe? How about a haircut? A crucifix? A Star of David? A Luxury Car? A homeless person?

The point is that in today's world, there is NOTHING that is NOT political. Even a child in day care or not in day care is a political hot potato in the hands of the inflamed zealot.

If you cannot understand that, with respect, YOU shouldn't be participating in this forum.
 
Agreed.

These questions of subjective censorship being deployed by these dominate social media platforms raises some real Constitutional issues.

On one hand, a business/corporation should have a right to make business decisions that it feels best suit it's objectives.

On the other hand, given their dominance as a means of social discourse, should they be allowed to manipulate the information they allow their consumers to see?

It seems obvious these questions will need to be hammered out in the courts.

What is concerning to me is the endorsement of censorship on the part of so many people.

Like the clerck who wouldn't give marriage licenses to gay people or the baker who won't bake cakes for gays, that kind of censorship?
 
Is a tiki-torch a political symbol? How about a running shoe? How about a haircut? A crucifix? A Star of David? A Luxury Car? A homeless person?

The point is that in today's world, there is NOTHING that is NOT political. Even a child in day care or not in day care is a political hot potato in the hands of the inflamed zealot.

If you cannot understand that, with respect, YOU shouldn't be participating in this forum.
Depending on how something or someone is described, political meaning can be attached however, only inflamed zealots find political meaning where none is described.

You should reconsider my previous advice. ;)
 
A legal battle over what exactly? I don’t see why there’d ever be any kind of legal dispute over the freedom of publishers and platforms to determine the class and form of advertising they choose to sell space for. There are other kind of disputes which are ongoing but that isn’t linked to this specific decision in the way some people want to spin it to be.

Sigh...

When the First Amendment was written, "freedom of the press" to protect the freedom of the folks printing single pages on hand operated presses.

The content of the printed materials was not regulated. Abuses in practices that were widespread then continued to the injury of citizens.

Since that time, there have been laws passed including libel and slander that help to curb the lesser proclivities of the lesser mass communicators.

The FCC was established to oversee the Broadcast industry citing the limited availability of the broadcast wave lengths.

Film makers, in an effort to avoid strict government regulation have regulated themselves with the silly rating system they use to help engineer audiences.

Television programming when broadcast over the "air" is constrained by "community standards" as defined by the FCC.

Zuckerberg has appeared before Congress on various occasions be questioned on the need for government regulation of his particular platform, Facebook.

Are you really unaware of these issues?

Yes, there is a legal battle coming and it will likely be initiated by some political issue.
 
Like the clerck who wouldn't give marriage licenses to gay people or the baker who won't bake cakes for gays, that kind of censorship?

I was discussing the impact of censorship in news and other forms of media.

Your examples have nothing to do with censorship.

Perhaps it would benefit you if you knew more about the words you're planning to use before deploying them.
 
Are you really unaware of these issues?
I was obviously aware of all of that but that is related to content. I just don't see any specific relationship to a general policy against political advertising on the platform.
 
Depending on how something or someone is described, political meaning can be attached however, only inflamed zealots find political meaning where none is described.

You should reconsider my previous advice. ;)

I observe the actions of the zealots who find political meaning in non-political words, objects and actions.

It happens all of the time.

ANY censorship will result in politically motivated applications to silence undesired ideas or voices from unapproved people and organizations.

It has happened, is happening and will continue to happen.

If you don't see this, you are being willfully ignorant.

Do you wonder why ABC spiked the extensively sourced story exposing the child rapist, Epstein, in 2016 but ran with the unsourced stories on Kavanaugh every night for a month in 2018?

If you don't, you should. People do things for reasons. Not all reasons are pure and honest.

abc spikes the Amy story - - Video Search Results
 
I was obviously aware of all of that but that is related to content. I just don't see any specific relationship to a general policy against political advertising on the platform.

Are guns political?
 
I observe the actions of the zealots who find political meaning in non-political words, objects and actions.

It happens all of the time.
Agree.

ANY censorship will result in politically motivated applications to silence undesired ideas or voices from unapproved people and organizations.
You’re confused here. The silencing of one idea/perspective over another is censoring.

If you don't see this, you are being willfully ignorant.
Clearly, I understand better than you.

Do you wonder why ABC spiked the extensively sourced story exposing the child rapist, Epstein, in 2016 but ran with the unsourced stories on Kavanaugh every night for a month in 2018?
The story just popped, so no, and neither did you until now.

As to the why, stop taking the lazy approach of watching clearly biased YouTube videos and look for a reliable and trusted news source.

ABC News On The Defensive After Video On Epstein Coverage Is Leaked : NPR

You’re welcome.
 
A business should be allowed to make decisions it believes are correct.

However, any rational thinking person should be very concerned when those actions amount to censorship.

This slippery slope the left is racing down is a danger to the fundamental ideals this Nation was founded on.

Rubbish. You say a private business can do what it wants, but in the same breath you believe banning political advertising is censorship? A "slippery slope" to what, exactly?
 
Rubbish. You say a private business can do what it wants, but in the same breath you believe banning political advertising is censorship? A "slippery slope" to what, exactly?

And here I thought you might have the intellectual creds to be able to answer such a question all on your own.
 
So you can't answer it yourself and are blaming me? Priceless:lamo

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?
 
Agree.


You’re confused here. The silencing of one idea/perspective over another is censoring.


Clearly, I understand better than you.


The story just popped, so no, and neither did you until now.

As to the why, stop taking the lazy approach of watching clearly biased YouTube videos and look for a reliable and trusted news source.

ABC News On The Defensive After Video On Epstein Coverage Is Leaked : NPR

You’re welcome.

Regarding the fig leaf defense of ABC's editorial malpractice, my question stands.

"Do you wonder why ABC spiked the extensively sourced story exposing the child rapist, Epstein, in 2016 but ran with the unsourced stories on Kavanaugh every night for a month in 2018?"

There was absolutely NOTHING in any of the charges from any of the accusers against Kavanaugh that has since been corroborated. In your link, ABC says some of the things could not be corroborated in the Epstein story.

You seem to agree on what censorship is and that it's not a good thing. Then you also seem to endorse it. Why is this?
 
Not in and of themselves. There is politics about guns but that doesn't make guns fundamentally political.

Could you envision the possibility that a zealot employed by Twitter right reject an ad from Smith and Wesson?

Is an unborn baby political?
 
Could you envision the possibility that a zealot employed by Twitter right reject an ad from Smith and Wesson?
We’re talking about the structure of the rules, not potential inappropriate conduct by individual employees. It could be argued that clear and simple rules applied across the board actually reduces that risk. As per the proposed restriction (and all the existing ones), the producer of the advertising largely isn’t the issue, the content would be.

Is an unborn baby political?
No. Are you going to keep asking stupid questions to avoid acknowledging the simple facts, because that’d be a waste of both our time?
 
"Do you wonder why ABC spiked the extensively sourced story exposing the child rapist, Epstein, in 2016 but ran with the unsourced stories on Kavanaugh every night for a month in 2018?"
No “wondering” is necessary as to Trumpsters habit of obfuscation, deflection and whataboutisms. They can’t offer legitimate arguments to protect their Dear Leader, so they try to muddy the waters with entirely unrelated matters.

You seem to agree on what censorship is and that it's not a good thing. Then you also seem to endorse it. Why is this?
You’re in denial of what censorship is.

“The term censorship refers to the suppression, banning, or deletion of speech, writing, or images that are considered to be indecent, obscene, or otherwise objectionable.”
Censorship - Definition, Examples, Cases

By definition, not what Twitter is doing.
 
No “wondering” is necessary as to Trumpsters habit of obfuscation, deflection and whataboutisms. They can’t offer legitimate arguments to protect their Dear Leader, so they try to muddy the waters with entirely unrelated matters.


You’re in denial of what censorship is.

“The term censorship refers to the suppression, banning, or deletion of speech, writing, or images that are considered to be indecent, obscene, or otherwise objectionable.”
Censorship - Definition, Examples, Cases

By definition, not what Twitter is doing.

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
“ We’ve made the decision to stop all political advertising on Twitter globally. We believe political message reach should be earned, not bought.”
https://mobile.twitter.com/jack/status/1189634360472829952

cen·sorship
/ˈsensərSHip/
Learn to pronounce
noun
1.
the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

Really can’t make it any simpler for you.
 

Score one for democrats, you mean. For years democrats ruled the airwaves while promoting lies and propaganda in support of the liberal agenda. Donald Trump was one of the first who bypassed the leftist media dogs and went straight to the American people, using twitter very effectively to get out his message. Democrats have been trying to silence conservative voices in the various media outlets and this latest move by twitter seems to be playing into democrat hands.
 
Score one for democrats, you mean. For years democrats ruled the airwaves while promoting lies and propaganda in support of the liberal agenda. Donald Trump was one of the first who bypassed the leftist media dogs and went straight to the American people, using twitter very effectively to get out his message. Democrats have been trying to silence conservative voices in the various media outlets and this latest move by twitter seems to be playing into democrat hands.

iu


Or the twitter CEO just recognizes that the conservatives have become interested in having their way, they invented things like alternative facts, their own special news agencies, or other things to generally leave public discourse, preferring their own comforting fantasy to the real world. Because of that, political ads can no longer reflect the truth given that your side has long lost interest in that.
 
Back
Top Bottom