Twitter stops running political ads on platform

[code1211]

“ 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.

"Any parts". What constitutes a "part"?

In one of the most famous ad campaigns in history, Salem cigarettes used a jingle that said, "You can take Salem out the country, but you can't take the country out of Salem."

The two clauses of the sentence were separated by single ping tone from a triangle.

As the Campaign moved forward across a time span of about a year, the jingle eventually just dropped the second clause and the entire country sang the clause a cappella.

Each "part" was built upon the previous part and led to the succeeding part. En toto, though, there was only one idea presented.

Again, in making censorship decisions, A DECISION MUST BE MADE. People with pre-existing bias and agendas make those decisions.

I don't understand why you are arguing in favor of censorship for political reasons. Is that really your stance? There is no impartially fair outcome that will occur from this.

Salem Cigarettes - You Can Take Salem Out Of The Country commercial music

 

[code1211]

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.

In passing, I will note for you that Fox News presented all of the Kavanaugh hearing lies. They also presented the story of Jeffrey Epstein.

FOX also presented the hot mic interview from project Veritas proving that ABC "spiked" the story on Epstein when they had it first in 2016. Let's see... What else was in the news in 2016...?

They have also presented the story on the reporter, formerly at ABC who was fired by CBS because ABC FELT that she had leaked the hot mic interview.

Incidentally, ABC was wrong in its conclusion, CBS was wrong to agree with no evidence and the reporter is out of work. Project Veritas confirms that she was not their source.

Also incidentally, why in the world would CBS fire this reporter for something she did while employed elsewhere?

Did the lying, biased, propagandistic, in the tank for the Democrat-Socialists Broadcast News cabal "report on any of this? I don't watch every minute of their broadcast news.

I have a well developed gag reflex so it's uncomfortable, sometimes messy, to watch their presentations.

ABC News, CBS News face growing backlash over handling of Epstein leaker: They 'colluded' and fired the 'wrong person'

 

[RaleBulgarian]

"Any parts". What constitutes a "part"?

In one of the most famous ad campaigns in history, Salem cigarettes used a jingle that said, "You can take Salem out the country, but you can't take the country out of Salem."

The two clauses of the sentence were separated by single ping tone from a triangle.

As the Campaign moved forward across a time span of about a year, the jingle eventually just dropped the second clause and the entire country sang the clause a cappella.

Each "part" was built upon the previous part and led to the succeeding part. En toto, though, there was only one idea presented.

Again, in making censorship decisions, A DECISION MUST BE MADE. People with pre-existing bias and agendas make those decisions.

I don't understand why you are arguing in favor of censorship for political reasons. Is that really your stance? There is no impartially fair outcome that will occur from this.

Salem Cigarettes - You Can Take Salem Out Of The Country commercial music

Yet again, you fail to comprehend a very simple concept.

Twitter isn’t censoring any particular political ads. That would be censoring. Twitter is banning all political ads. No group will be advantaged over another.

 

[snakestretcher]

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?

"Selective screening" of all political advertising from all sides. Why is that a problem? Like you said, it's a private company and they can do whatever they want. There's plenty of political advertising elsewhere if you're masochistic enough to want to read it.

 

[code1211]

Yet again, you fail to comprehend a very simple concept.

Twitter isn’t censoring any particular political ads. That would be censoring. Twitter is banning all political ads. No group will be advantaged over another.

Your trust is admirable.

Can I sell you a good used car?

 

[code1211]

"Selective screening" of all political advertising from all sides. Why is that a problem? Like you said, it's a private company and they can do whatever they want. There's plenty of political advertising elsewhere if you're masochistic enough to want to read it.

Is education political?

 

[What if...?]

It doesn't change the fact that subjective censorship is becoming the norm for people on the left.

That posses a clear and present danger to the fundamental rights our Constitution protects.

Bot, algorithm, or human, when unknown and unseen forces decide what people are allowed to see, we as a Nation are in danger.

If they don't take ANY political ads then they are just not taking political ads.

I know your side relies entirely on propaganda. And the left isn't far behind.

Everybody has to have their propaganda distributed by people already exposed to it elsewhere on twitter now.

Which will muddy it some.

And that is a good thing.

 

[What if...?]

Marketplace of ideas - Wikipedia

<snip>
The marketplace of ideas metaphor is founded in the philosophy of John Milton in his work Areopagitica in 1644 and also John Stuart Mill in his book On Liberty in 1859.[1]

It was later used in opinions by the Supreme Court of the United States.

The first reference to the "free trade in ideas" within "the competition of the market" appears in Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.'s dissent in Abrams v. United States.[2]

The phrase "marketplace of ideas" first appears in a concurring opinion by Justice William O. Douglas in the Supreme Court decision United States v. Rumely in 1953:

"Like the publishers of newspapers, magazines, or books, this publisher bids for the minds of men in the market place of ideas".[3]

The Supreme Court's 1969 decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio enshrined the marketplace of ideas as the dominant public policy in American free speech law (that is, against which narrow exceptions to freedom of speech must be justified by specific countervailing public policies).

<snip>

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.

 

[What if...?]

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.

You still have Fox and the rest of conservative media.

All of which manipulate the information they show to their audiences.

And I am positive you don't want anything done about that .

 

[What if...?]

Interesting claim, but the result is still censorship, as it assumes consumers don't know any better, and some unknown, unseen person/program does.

They don't know any better.

And every "narrative" is actually an attempt to manipulate, however benign.

 

[What if...?]

Well, I disagree.

The assumption, to put it bluntly, is that people are too stupid to know any better, so some outside force is going to decide what people are allowed to see. Whether that was generated by bots, or humans.

That is presumptuous, and it's another stake in the heart of the fundamental protections and rights contained in the US Constitution.

The people who want to place those ads are fully aware that their target audiences are oblivious to the potency of modern "persuasion".

Which is why people like you spend so much time protecting their access to folks' minds.

It has exactly nothing to do with spreading "truth". Quite the opposite in fact.

It is about causing deliberate misapprehension of the subject matter through emotional manipulation and exploitation of cognitive glitches.

All with the goal of getting folks to reject what they would embrace and embrace what they would reject if the information was simply presented to them honestly.

Communications, Marketing, And Political Science are all behavioral disciplines.

Over a hundred years of research has delivered potent tools of manipulation. Multi-billion dollar industries are based on these tools. Every ad is designed by a practitioner. Every political speech is written by one.

Our current divide is a product of these industries.

 

[What if...?]

US Citizens have a right to be easily manipulated. That is their choice. It's not for someone else to decide.

We go there, we have lost the country.

Until such time as people are actually educated on this **** you're just selling them deliscious poison and saying that they should have looked up all the words in the ingredients to see which one was a synonym for "cyanide".

 

[What if...?]

It's exactly what Twitter is addressing. Ads by conservatives are the only way to counter the leftwing Twitter feed. Now they can't do that, which was the Marxist goal all along.

You should go over there and fight the good fight. Mind to mind with you fellow citizens.

Right now! Before it's too late!

 

[What if...?]

I had a recent epiphany after reading through this thread and others like it, and noting the support for these actions by the usual crowd.

It seems there is a belief among them that people are incapable of applying rational thought and logical reasoning to what the see and hear.

In effect, an admission of a deficiency, and a susceptibility to propaganda and manipulation.

That drew me to the sources they use to understand what to think about any given topic.

It's explains why their fake news sources can feed them all this biased, distorted information, and they don't question it for a second.

Multiple multi-billion dollar industries prove that people are subject to emotional and cognitive manipulation.

They wouldn't be getting that money if it didn't work.

And I am positive that you know this and that this post is disingenuous in the extreme.

 

[snakestretcher]

The people who want to place those ads are fully aware that their target audiences are oblivious to the potency of modern "persuasion".

Which is why people like you spend so much time protecting their access to folks' minds.

It has exactly nothing to do with spreading "truth". Quite the opposite in fact.

It is about causing deliberate misapprehension of the subject matter through emotional manipulation and exploitation of cognitive glitches.

All with the goal of getting folks to reject what they would embrace and embrace what they would reject if the information was simply presented to them honestly.

Communications, Marketing, And Political Science are all behavioral disciplines.

Over a hundred years of research has delivered potent tools of manipulation. Multi-billion dollar industries are based on these tools. Every ad is designed by a practitioner. Every political speech is written by one.

Our current divide is a product of these industries.

Excellent synopsis.

 

[What if...?]

Your new post affirms that there IS censorship going on here.

What makes you think that anyone suppressing or prohibiting the flow of ideas is not censoring them?

Did you read your post before posting it?

All those ads are constructed with the intent to manipulate. That is their entire purpose. They don't lay out "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

The truth doesn't demonstrate that your soap is better than your competitor's soap by any real measure.

Marketing convinces you that it is.

We hear a lot of talk of "narratives". Narratives are designed to promote a certain perspective.

Like a house that looks great from the curb but is falling apart in the back. Narrative managers encourage folks to only look at it from the front.

So the "house" can be "sold" for the best price.

We live in a world where consumers of conservative media live in a world with a recent history distinct from that of the rest of the world.

We are ****ed as a society.

How can we mend our divide when we don't even live in the same reality?

 

[What if...?]

As McCluhan, said, the medium is the massage. More and more, it seems, people do not consume news as a source of information, but rather as a bias confirmation device.

They find comfort in the message they receive rather than critically analyzing what the news they consume is actually saying set in the world of actual events. Very few are asking, "If this is true, what else must be true?"

The current Impeachment device, the Quid Pro Quo, is the perfect example.

Biden confessed to and bragged about executing a Quid Pro Quo on behalf of Obama to interfere in the government's administration of a sovereign state for the personal profit realized by his son.

Trump did nothing of this sort. The Ukrainian president says he felt no pressure. Trump said he applied no pressure. The transcript reveals no pressure was asserted or acknowledged.

However, those who receive propaganda-as-news from CNN, NBC and the Leftist Elitists are told, and they believe, that Trump did what Biden has confessed to having done and then bragged about AND that Biden did no such thing.

Video taped evidence of Biden actually confessing and bragging about having done what they condemn Trump for having done is dismissed.

There is a cognitive disconnect in this. If it's not bias confirmation, then it's something worse. Good people can be diverted from good thinking. It's happened before and it's happening again all around us.

Nice place to post an example of manufactured narratives.

Thank you for this.

 

[What if...?]

In the case of 30's Germany that bought Hitler to power, one of his promises was that there would be food for everyone within a day of him getting power.

Germany at that time was a failing nation state and there were literally people starving in the streets. On the night of his win, there were wagons pulled through the streets by horses distributing bread to citizens.

As the saying goes; When the table is empty, there is one problem, when the table is full, there are many problems.

After Hitler "filled the table", he needed "the single issue" to focus thought and that was hate of the common enemy. The common enemy included Jews among a group that Hitler defied as denying justified wealth from the German People.

Today, the Democrat-Socialists are employing the same "common enemy" tactic to maintain their base of power and to divide the American people along contrived lines.

Today's US Conservatives think the Democrat-Socialists are odd and a little dim witted. They pity their opponents. The Democrat-Socialists think that anyone who stands in their way is evil. They hate their opponents.

Since they are filled with hate instead of logic or reason, they cannot see how silly and contrived their conclusions are. It's comical in a "Hitler's not laughing at you, he's laughing with you" kind of a way.

It's easy to see why you think of 30's Germany. The tools and tactics have been resurrected and put to use by a new group and they seductively use them. Again.

So much projection.

 

[What if...?]

Looks like Tweety will have to tell his Russian buddies to move their interference to Facebook this time around.

I had an interesting thought watching the news last night.

Do you think it is possible that what Putin has on trump is that the trump campaign did conspire with russia and that that is his "kompromat"?

That would explain a lot. Like mulvaney holding up the javelin missiles because Russia wouldn't like us giving them to Ukraine, among many other things.

 

[What if...?]

Oh and why is it so dangerous?

Because it has the president of the united states asking the president of Ukraine to find the DNC server at crowdstrike's rich Ukrainian owned home office in Ukraine as well as asking for a public announcement of an investigation into his primary political rival, by name?

 

[What if...?]

So what?
Those kind of quack cures have been around forever.View attachment 67267556

A better example would be trump university.

 

[Helix]

I had an interesting thought watching the news last night.

Do you think it is possible that what Putin has on trump is that the trump campaign did conspire with russia and that that is his "kompromat"?

That would explain a lot. Like mulvaney holding up the javelin missiles because Russia wouldn't like us giving them to Ukraine, among many other things.

Is he compromised? I don't know. It smells funny, though. As for whether he conspired, it looks that way to me.

 

[What if...?]

Self censorship?

Now THAT is an interesting approach.

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.

 

[What if...?]

Is an article about polar bears going extinct a political ad?

Was it paid for?

 

[What if...?]

So, then, the interpretation of what is political and what is not is an interpretation.

This is a slippery slope.

Limiting the ideas admitted into the marketplace of ideas is not a good way to promote understanding.

Limiting content designed to promote misapprehension certainly is.