CEO pulls candidates’ ability to pay for advertisements
Finally, someone with reputable influence started a conversation about the harm of online political advertising.
“We believe political message reach should be earned, not bought,” said Jack Dorsey CEO and co-founder of Twitter. “The internet provides entirely new capabilities, and regulators need to think past the present day to ensure a level playing field.”
Jack Dorsey released a string of statements on his Twitter account on Oct. 30, stating the company will ban all advertisements with political affiliations on their platform. Dorsey compiled 12 tweets from his personal account, further explaining the action that will be fully implemented by Nov. 15.
This act by Twitter’s CEO has ignited a much needed conversation among the public. On one end of the spectrum, the First Amendment allows Jack Dorsey to have choice in advertising because of freedom of speech.
Twitter is a privately owned business, but traded to the public. Dorsey still has the right to choose what advertisements and content are on the platform. It is up to the traders to decide if they want to continue with the same methods.
Sadly, saying the root of democracy is the power within the hands of the people has become an anomaly. The muddled world of marketing has taken away our ability to think for ourselves. The biased ways of advertising are sometimes point blank, and any political views can be determined with their agenda. In contrast, subliminal messaging can be used with extreme measures on innocent passerby.
Dorsey is heading in a refreshing direction unlike his competitors. Twitter’s path encourages us to take pride in the research that builds opinion, being unwavered by advertising. Despite the honest tweets explaining the choice, there are always displeased consumers.
The ban could hinder the employment rate of the political advertising field, says Shannon McGregor of the Guardian. The banning may result in a downfall for that targeted demographic, but overall beneficial for the public.
McGregor further digested the issue, demanding that it is near impossible to take away all political afflictions. The blurry lines fall around defining a political ad vs. policy. Health care centers and climate change organizations are anxiously waiting to hear the finalized rules to Twitter’s new system on Nov. 15.
Twitter and Facebook have been competitors for awhile, but this new advertising choice gives one point to Dorsey. Facebook has recently been in direct fire about political meddling on social media, but Mark Zukerburg failed to make any substantial changes. He welcomes all media vouching for freedom of speech. The ironic timing for Twitter to change advertising is just icing on the cake.
Jack Dorsey’s announcement brings the idea of campaign finance reform to the table once again. Technological strides are constantly improving advertising, changing the basic standards of what is acceptable.
“This isn’t about free expression. This is about paying for reach,” Dorsey said. “And paying to increase the reach of political speech has significant ramifications that today’s democratic infrastructure may not be prepared to handle.”
Without drastic measures, the boundaries of political advertising will continue to be crossed. The concept of paying for voters has tainted what an election should be rooted in– debates and personable actions.
Money shouldn’t buy the voters, but unfortunately this is not the case in recent elections, because the best advertising costs more than some candidates can afford. Twitter banning all political advertisements leaves room for a change. Social media will not be the pure source of political catch up, restoring faith into traditional news outlets.