‘A political message earns reach when people decide to follow an account or retweet. Paying for reach removes that decision, forcing highly optimized and targeted political messages on people.’ This was one message in a series of Tweets by Jack Patrick Dorsey, the CEO and co-founder of Twitter, announcing a ban on political advertising on the social media platform.
This announcement did not take place in a vacuum. Social media giants have come under increasing pressure to improve transparency of not only political advertisements, but also who fund them. This is set against a backdrop of disinformation with Twitter bots and Cambridge Analytica swerving election results and even Whatsapp wildfires preceding violence.
There’s quite a stark difference between Twitter’s approach and Facebook’s. In October, Mark Zuckerberg went before an audience of students in Washington DC to defend the firm’s decision not to ban political adverts that contain falsehoods. He had considered barring all political adverts on Facebook, but said he believed the move would favour incumbent politicians and those who received most coverage in the press.
This is not the only reason for these differences. As one Facebook insider, Yaël Eisenstat explains ‘its business model exploits our data to let advertisers custom-target people, show us each a different version of the truth and manipulate us with hyper-customised ads [..] As long as Facebook prioritises profit over healthy discourse, it can’t avoid damaging democracies.’
Facebook makes a lot of money from political advertising. US federal campaigns are expected to spend about $6bn (£4.6bn) on advertising, with about 20% put into digital ads, advertising research firm Kantar estimates. It is difficult to make organic reach on Facebook if you are a politician unwilling to pay for advertising.
Source: Pixabay
It is important to note that Facebook has taken steps to improve transparency when it comes to funding political ads. Since October, if you want to advertise a political cause on Facebook in the UK, you will need to prove your identity and location to the company, and each ad will carry a message saying who paid for it. This comes after US Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee revealed 3,500 Russian government-funded Facebook political adverts aimed to sway American voters and cause disarray. This, of course, does not include non-paid content that aimed to be divisive and stir up American politics.
Twitter does not make as much from political advertising. A pessimist may point out that there is less at stake when making these radical policies. However, some politicians do not need to pay for political advertising on Twitter – they already have the following. If they want to say something misleading to their voters, they can do it freely.
When Twitter says they ‘believe political message reach should be earned, not bought,’ they are also ignoring that much of the divisive political speech on Twitter is not paid for. In fact, the most followed political accounts are often the most polarising, intent on causing division.
Once considered the source of amusement, Donald Trump’s Twitter account became a free platform for him to spout divisive information during his presidential campaign, intended to make society feel fractured and get people riled up. Of course, political voices are not limited to politicians – in the UK some of the most influential ‘political’ voices on Twitter have included reality TV star Katie Hopkins and until 2017, the deputy leader of Britain First, Jayda Hansen. Both have been known to put fake news or hate-filled comments into the Twittersphere without paying for it. Their far-right and polarising views have given them a platform and allowed them to advance their views. Even those who oppose their views contribute to their coverage and ultimately, helped them achieve their objectives in sharing their outrage.
Whilst Twitter’s ban on political adverts is a step in the right direction, it will not take away from the space those with the most demarcating views and want to exacerbate tensions in society. Whilst many find these voices intolerable and point out that occasionally what they are saying is untrue, they still depend more on being more outrageous than paying for promotion.
onsundays.tech.blog 