In what is being considered a bold move, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey has announced that his site won’t accept money for political ads. While Facebook is facing scrutiny for allowing bought fake ads, Twitter is doing something different. Dorsey doesn’t feel as if politicians should be able to buy influence. Instead, they should earn it.
“We’ve made the decision to stop all political advertising on Twitter globally. We believe political message reach should be earned, not bought,” Dorsey tweeted. “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. We believe this decision should not be compromised by money,” he added.
Twitter is leaving millions of dollars on the table by making this move. In 2018 alone, Twitter made around $3 million. Before the November 2020 election, politicians are expected to spend billions in ads. But to Dorsey and Twitter CFO Ned Segal, it’s not about money. They’re more focused on substance and having the candidates earn their stripes.
“This decision was based on principle, not money,” he said. This decision runs contrary to Facebook’s views on the matter. A lot of Silicon Valley’s scrutiny has come in how all these social media sites handle political ads.
Twitter and Facebook Have Different Philosophies
While Dorsey says a politician should earn their support, not buy it, Facebook feels differently. They know they have a lot of money to gain by allowing political ads. For Mark Zuckerberg, it’s all about free speech. How much should these companies interfere in what is being said? Who is to say what needs to be fact checked? And what is the bias of the people doing the checking?
“In a democracy, I don’t think it’s right for private companies to censor politicians or the news,” he said. Zuckerberg does have a great point. Even politicians should have the right to say whatever they want. It’s not up to them to fact check every point. Even on Twitter, everyone has the right to say whatever they want. But he may be doing what Twitter is doing soon.
In a speech in Washington D.C. earlier in October, Zuckerberg said, “Given the sensitivity around political ads, I’ve considered whether we should stop allowing them altogether. From a business perspective, the controversy certainly isn’t worth the small part of our business they make up. But political ads are an important part of voice — especially for local candidates, up-and-coming challengers, and advocacy groups that may not get much media attention otherwise. Banning political ads favors incumbents and whoever the media covers.”
