Twitter bans all political ad’s
- Thread starter FaTaL
- Start date
thank you, jack
I might need an ambulance
Thomas Friedman and his old flat earth globalist ass can kick rocks. (EDIT: he doesn’t literally think the earth is flat it’s an economic philosophy of his)
Really? Do you think political/issue driven ads should be removed from TV and newspapers too?
I don't see this as removing money as much as restricting speech.
I’m guessing this is paid ads that are getting the hammer. The politicians can still engage thru Twitter.
American execs, wall street and the GOP do this every day. Why would we expect facebook to be the exception?lol at valuing a companies stock value over the integrity of you democracy
Am I naive in thinking that the majority of working class potential voters that will now somehow be cut off from progressive messaging are not spending a significant amount of their daily lives on twitter?
I really don't see how this is somehow a death knell to progressive mobilization, but maybe I have blinders on cuz I'm not on Twitter like that and neither is anybody I know offline.
Progressives are just middle class people who don't know how to manage credit now. The help the poor or I am poor real progressives are few and far in between.
Twitter still hasn't banned nazis though.
What would be great is if all qualifying campaigns got the same airtime and PACs (therefore 3rd-party political ads) were banned. Third-party political ads don't make the country better.
If this is a restriction of speech then speech is already restricted, by money. All you're saying is that you believe how much money you have should be the primary determinant of how many people hear your message.
ADevilYouKhow
Rhyme Reason
Why is GS trying to infringe on Twitter’s first amendment rights and freedom of association? Amirite
I'm intuitively against banning 3rd party political ads; free speech.
But I am curious about equal airtime to "qualifying candidates". Has it been tried anywhere? What were the results?
It's important to note that while there is a threshold for how much money is needed in a successful campaign, it's not the case that the most money wins. Also it's easier and cheaper now than it's ever been to reach more people.
Still I'm used to money restricting things. In every aspect of life. I've never seen the government subsidize political campaigns in the way you suggest. But I'm not necessarily opposed.
However, in order for this to have your desired effect you must ban PACS in addition to subsidize political campaigns that qualify, right?
They can ban political ads, I can disagree.
That's a slogan, I prefer better arguments for principles than slogans.I'm intuitively against banning 3rd party political ads; free speech.
But I am curious about equal airtime to "qualifying candidates". Has it been tried anywhere? What were the results?
The USA itself has had an equal airtime law for 100 years, it just isn't publicly financed. But several other countries have predominantly publicly financed politics, such as some of the Scandinavian countries. It's basically just combining those two ideas.
Equal-time rule - Wikipedia
Things have changed so quickly that precedent probably isn't sufficient to predict future results right now. In general, technology has made it easier for people with power and money to manipulate others even without public manpower. This could have a corrosive effect on democracy, where the quality of your algorithms and the resources you have to promote them (or to harvest the data needed to create and perfect them) matters more than the degree of your organic support.
That's basically the issue. People have been conditioned to the Dollar as God, the worship of mammon. It's okay for dollars to be the deciding basis for virtually any moral or practical decision despite no one having a convincing argument for why a dollar should hold moral weight. But the people with the most dollars have gained the power and they spend a lot of money and power ensuring that such a system remains.