[Thread] Twitter will stop accepting all political and issue ads on its platform globally starting on November 22

We've made the decision to stop all political advertising on Twitter globally. We believe political message reach should be earned, not bought. Why? A few reasons...🧵

@jack 2019-10-31

Context & Ripple Effects

Dorsey's announcement lands mid-election-season and immediately splits the ad-supported social market in two: Twitter exits paid political and issue messaging entirely from November 22 — with a follow-up carve-out for limited-targeting cause-based ads and news-org issue reporting — while Facebook, the far larger political-ad business, stays in. The Vox coverage frames the move as direct pressure on Zuckerberg to follow suit or defend the distinction. Days later, Slate's provenance-and-accountability argument widens the frame from political ads to all ads, setting up the debate Twitter's exit just accelerated.

First-order effects

Political campaigns and issue advertisers lose a paid distribution channel globally on November 22, shifting their spend and organic-amplification budgets to platforms that still sell reach — chiefly Facebook.

Second-order effects

Facebook and Zuckerberg face a forced positioning choice under public pressure to match Twitter's ban; refusing isolates them as the largest remaining paid-political marketplace, while matching forfeits revenue they have so far defended.

Third-order effects

If the pattern holds, paid political reach becomes a regulatory and reputational liability concentrated on fewer platforms, strengthening arguments like Slate's that provenance disclosure and advertiser accountability should apply to commercial advertising generally — not just explicitly political buys.

The trend: Social platforms are diverging into those that refuse to monetize political persuasion and those that sell it, turning ad policy into competitive positioning ahead of elections.

Discussion

@jack @jack on x
A final note. This isn't about free expression. This is about paying for reach. And paying to increase the reach of political speech has significant ramifications that today's democratic infrastructure may not be prepared to handle. It's worth stepping back in order to address.
@jack @jack on x
For instance, it's not credible for us to say: “We're working hard to stop people from gaming our systems to spread misleading info, buuut if someone pays us to target and force people to see their political ad...well...they can say whatever they want! 😉”
@aoc Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on x
This is a good call. Technology - and social media especially - has a powerful responsibility in preserving the integrity of our elections. Not allowing for paid disinformation is one of the most basic, ethical decisions a company can make. /1 https://twitter.com/...
@jack @jack on x
Internet political ads present entirely new challenges to civic discourse: machine learning-based optimization of messaging and micro-targeting, unchecked misleading information, and deep fakes. All at increasing velocity, sophistication, and overwhelming scale.
@jack @jack on x
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.
@jack @jack on x
We considered stopping only candidate ads, but issue ads present a way to circumvent. Additionally, it isn't fair for everyone but candidates to buy ads for issues they want to push. So we're stopping these too.
@jack @jack on x
We'll share the final policy by 11/15, including a few exceptions (ads in support of voter registration will still be allowed, for instance). We'll start enforcing our new policy on 11/22 to provide current advertisers a notice period before this change goes into effect.
@hillaryclinton Hillary Clinton on x
This is the right thing to do for democracy in America and all over the world. What say you, @Facebook? https://twitter.com/...
@jack @jack on x
In addition, we need more forward-looking political ad regulation (very difficult to do). Ad transparency requirements are progress, but not enough. The internet provides entirely new capabilities, and regulators need to think past the present day to ensure a level playing field.
@nedsegal Ned Segal on x
Since we are getting questions: This decision was based on principle, not money. As context, we've disclosed that political ad spend for the 2018 US midterms was <$3M. There is no change to our Q4 guidance. I am proud to work @twitter! #LoveWhereYouWork https://twitter.com/...
@jack @jack on x
While internet advertising is incredibly powerful and very effective for commercial advertisers, that power brings significant risks to politics, where it can be used to influence votes to affect the lives of millions.
@jack @jack on x
These challenges will affect ALL internet communication, not just political ads. Best to focus our efforts on the root problems, without the additional burden and complexity taking money brings. Trying to fix both means fixing neither well, and harms our credibility.
@jack @jack on x
We're well aware we're a small part of a much larger political advertising ecosystem. Some might argue our actions today could favor incumbents. But we have witnessed many social movements reach massive scale without any political advertising. I trust this will only grow.
@mcclure111 Mcc on x
Reading Jack's summary of the policy and it sounds to me like it will be legal for Shell to purchase ads but illegal to purchase ads talking about how Shell is causing global warming, because that's “political” or an “issue ad”? Uhhhhh https://twitter.com/...
@mcclure111 Mcc on x
So here's Twitter's “Legal, Policy and Trust & Safety Lead” with the incredibly alarming details pic.twitter.com/EQ3Q3Chypi
@kurtwagner8 Kurt Wagner on x
Also, basically no financial downside for Twitter on this. On their earnings call last week CFO Ned Segal said ad revenue from political ads around the 2018 midterms was “ less than $3 million for us.” so yeah, this won't really impact their business at all
@stevekovach Steve Kovach on x
What I find interesting — Dorsey is willing to over correct now until a better solution on political ads problem presents itself. And it'll happen with minimal impact to business. Plus, people can still tweet whatever they want. https://twitter.com/...
@snowden Edward Snowden on x
Wow. Big move by @jack, and a bigger contrast to @Facebook's increasingly problematic policy positions. https://twitter.com/...
@alexstamos Alex Stamos on x
The challenge with banning “issue ads” is that you catch every well-meaning NGO as well. Ever since FB started requiring account verification to run issue ads the press has been full of stories along the lines of “We didn't mean verify the people we agree with!” https://twitter.c…
@benthompson Ben Thompson on x
Precisely backwards. If there is no money at stake then there is no proof this is about principles. It's a Strategy Credit. https://stratechery.com/... https://twitter.com/...
@benedictevans Benedict Evans on x
Ah yes. Immaterial for Twitter... https://twitter.com/...
@kirstinestewart Kirstine Stewart on x
At a time when brands are increasingly focused on finding safer spaces and platforms for their ad spend, this isn't just a good thing to do, it's a smart thing to do. @Twitter throws down the gauntlet. https://twitter.com/...
@manvsgame @manvsgame on x
Good on Twitter for banning all political advertisements starting this November. https://www.theverge.com/... On that note, I'd like to see @Twitch stop putting political streams in the “Recommended Channels” section. https://twitter.com/...
@tpcarney Tim Carney on x
It'll be very interesting to see the exceptions. https://twitter.com/...
@nickconfessore Nick Confessore on x
Zuckerberg philosophy on paid political advertising (people can pay for whatever speech they want and we won't interfere) vs. Dorsey philosophy (we don't think political speech should be tainted by money) sounds a lot like the basic poles of right-left campaign finance debates. h…
@jonlovett Jon Lovett on x
Call me CRAZY, but you could read between the lines and see this as applying to other platforms too, places like Facebook that have made a different and dangerous choice. https://twitter.com/...
@mathewi Mathew Ingram on x
This 👇 Algorithmic amplification and micro-targeting are game changers when it comes to political messaging — something @alexstamos and I talked about just the other day re: Facebook https://galley.cjr.org/... https://twitter.com/...
@danriffle @danriffle on x
The execution will matter here. How do you define “political” and “issue” ads? You can imagine endless gray areas and workarounds. But I think I agree with the intent. https://twitter.com/...
@michelleinbklyn Michelle Goldberg on x
Cannot believe that Jack Dorsey and John Bolton are shaping up to be this season's heroes https://twitter.com/...
@sarahfrier Sarah Frier on x
This isn't over though. There's going to be a lot of debate about what Twitter considers an “issue” ad. Are ads related to education, health, immigration, etc “political”?? Everything is kinda political. https://twitter.com/...
@b_fung Brian Fung on x
Twitter's new policy gives it the responsibility to decide what's political and what's not. That'll be hard, but perhaps no more difficult than the other content moderation challenges it already has. As Twitter tries to thread this needle, Sec. 230 will be as important as ever.
@jeffjarvis Jeff Jarvis on x
When I tweeted that I think it's a mistake to ban political advertising, some folks at Twitter asked why. I explained. Apparently, I was not terribly persuasive. 😕 1/ https://twitter.com/...
@alexstamos Alex Stamos on x
I'm also not sure that the potential final outcome of issue ads being blocked online but allowed on TV will be progressive. Limiting advertising on climate change to people to can afford TV ads, like Chevron and Shell, is not conducive to a healthy debate.
@alexstamos Alex Stamos on x
Anyway, these long term impacts aren't as important as dunking on tech companies. Carry on!
@carolecadwalla Carole Cadwalladr on x
Paid for, amplified, microtargeted speech is not free speech. It has nothing to do with ‘speech’. It is corporate profit extracted from a toxic abusive industry & it should be nowhere near our elections.
@oneunderscore__ Ben Collins on x
Finally, someone who runs a social network realizes that limiting the ability for a rich person to saturate a space with one ideology is not “censorship.” The true censorship comes when important messages can't be heard on social media amidst a deluge of cash. https://twitter.com…
@kt_so_it_goes @kt_so_it_goes on x
he's he's exa he's exactly right who is this was the real jack dorsey kidnapped by intelligent principled people https://twitter.com/...
@jimwaterson Jim Waterson on x
For context, UK political parties spent £3.2m on Facebook ads in the 2017 general election and £56k on Twitter ads.
@randfish Rand Fishkin on x
Whoa. Remarkable to see Twitter leading on this (due respect to Microsoft for doing this back in 2018). Great time for Facebook and YouTube to step up. https://twitter.com/...
@pinboard @pinboard on x
I think in general Twitter users who have above a certain threshold of followers (10k?) are shown way fewer ads. I know for certain there's an internal category like “distinguished tweeter” (🧐) that is separate from the blue checkmark
@epro Emil Protalinski on x
This is a smart marketing move aimed squarely at Facebook. 1. Twitter makes less money from political advertising than Facebook does. 2. Twitter wants, nay needs, to position itself as “better than” Facebook. 3. The news is timed with Facebook earnings. https://twitter.com/...
@mikeisaac Rat King on x
you have to imagine that after FB dunking on twitter for so many years with copies and product unveils that Jack is feeling p good right now
@panzer Matthew Panzarino on x
Tired: Paid Reach for Lies Wired: Organic Reach for Lies
@jason_kint Jason Kint on x
This is spot on by focusing on velocity and reach of messaging. To be clear, candidates and organizations will still be able to communicate on the platforms. They just won't be able to run targeted advertising to accelerate the velocity of the reach. As I read it. https://twitter…
@laguarda Fernando Laguarda on x
Kudos for the thoughtfulness. Not sure about the efficacy. But important for industry to be more proactive. https://twitter.com/...
@zeynep Zeynep Tufekci on x
Twitter will stop accepting paid, promoted political ads. (Thread below!) https://twitter.com/...
@kurtwagner8 Kurt Wagner on x
Facebook's policy is that the company will not fact-check political ads or posts from politicians. Which means politicians can lie in ads. So far Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, and Mark Warner have all complained openly about that. Twitter just added some serious pressure IMO
@panzer Matthew Panzarino on x
Encountering misinformation on a platform is an individual experience, repeated at massive scale — not a universal experience. That's the dif.
@panzer Matthew Panzarino on x
This is correct, fwiw. Modern scaled platforms are so much more efficient at network effects and so much more opaque when it comes to manipulation at scale that they should be treated far differently than ‘broadcast’ mediums.
@panzer Matthew Panzarino on x
The timing of this during Facebook's earnings drop and call is H I L A R I O U S and totally accidental I am S U R E
@danprimack Dan Primack on x
... But have no fear. Politicians will still be allowed to lie and deceive on Twitter. They just won't be able to pay for the privilege.
@sarafischer Sara Fischer on x
0/ Twitter has been very careful to position itself as an antidote to Facebook lately when it comes to news and ads in the past week. Here's what I've noticed:
@laurengoode Lauren Goode on x
“Just setting up my subtweet” https://twitter.com/...
@sarafischer Sara Fischer on x
1/ Last week, Dorsey hosted a #TwitterNewsSummit and said that a publisher revenue split probably more sustainable for now than paying publishers, a direct jab at Facebook's new “News Tab” in which it will be spending millions to pay some publishers
@joshsternberg Petrus Smedes on x
Will Twitter address the algorithm, as the reach of the (unpaid) political speech, of which certain candidates seem to have mastered? https://twitter.com/...
@mikeisaac Rat King on x
::turns head, awkwardly looks towards menlo park:: https://twitter.com/...
@kateconger Kate Conger on x
zuck dunk https://twitter.com/...
@jbenton Joshua Benton on x
Twitter walking away from political ads has more than a whiff of @benthompson's “strategy credit”: “An uncomplicated decision that makes a company look good relative to other companies who face much more significant trade-offs ” https://stratechery.com/...
@stevekovach Steve Kovach on x
In which @jack subtweets Zuckerberg https://www.cnbc.com/...
@shiraovide Shira Ovide on x
1) Yes, good. 2) Twitter's political ad revenue is dinky. 3) This is obviously designed to knife Facebook when it's down. And the minute it releases earnings. https://twitter.com/...
@b_fung Brian Fung on x
.@jack pushes back on a Facebook talking point here about incumbency. He also implicitly notes that being able to “pay for reach” favors incumbency in another way, which is that rich incumbents can pay more for additional “speech” https://twitter.com/...
@rmac18 Non-Party Mr. Mac on x
This tweet, which is clearly directed at Zuckerberg, comes as Facebook announces earnings. It also follows months of FB sniping at Twitter with comments like “We've spent more on security than Twitter's whole annual revenue.” https://twitter.com/...
@kifleswing Kif on x
twtr falling sharply on this announcement https://twitter.com/...
@bcmerchant Brian Merchant on x
This is about as direct a potshot I've ever seen Dorsey take at Zuckerberg https://twitter.com/...
@davepell Dave Pell on x
Twitter bans political ads. Remember to buy stocks of companies when they do something good for society, not just for themselves. https://twitter.com/...
@richlightshed Rich Greenfield on x
Facebook says Political Ad dollars are less than 0.5% of revenues — based on 2019 consensus revs that is ~$350 million of political ad dollars Twitter has said Political Ad dollars are less than $3 million, which implies about 0.1% of revs based on 2019 consensus $FB $TWTR pic.tw…
@kantrowitz Alex Kantrowitz on x
Zuck says he's considered whether Facebook should run political ads and will continue to do so.
@donie Donie O'Sullivan on x
NEW: Facebook saying tonight they will NOT allow @adrielhampton run false ads on their platform. Hampton tells me he is now considering legal action against Facebook. https://www.cnn.com/...
@caseynewton Casey Newton on x
Here's a late newsletter about Twitter doing what Facebook won't (and why it's gonna be harder than it looks) https://www.getrevue.co/... https://twitter.com/...
@profgalloway Scott Galloway on x
Twitter wasn't the first platform to ban political ads. LinkedIn, Pinterest & TikTok made the calculation that whatever benefits are to be gained from politicians paying to reach voters, they are outweighed by the drawbacks.@CaseyNewton https://www.getrevue.co/...
@vijaya Vijaya Gadde on x
@WillOremus hi - here's our current definition: 1/ Ads that refer to an election or a candidate, or 2/ Ads that advocate for or against legislative issues of national importance (such as: climate change, healthcare, immigration, national security, taxes)
@willoremus Will Oremus on x
How does Twitter decide what constitutes an issue ad? https://twitter.com/...
@tonyromm Tony Romm on x
lemme respond to some feedback: people keep saying, oh, what's it matter, pol ads are tiny on twitter. and yes, they are. but it can be small, and still symbolically important, and a good decision if you think it that, and yet at the same time, also one of many steps to take. htt…
@willoremus Will Oremus on x
I know people are excited that Twitter's taking a stand, and I appreciate that they're taking these questions seriously. But the inclusion of “climate change” here is an example of why I think banning political ads is more problematic than it might seem. https://twitter.com/...
@chimeracoder Aditya Mukerjee on x
I absolutely, 100% guarantee you this policy will be used to ban promoted tweets about LGBTQ rights (esp. trans rights), even tweets that don't call for specific legislative or policy action. https://twitter.com/...
@benedictevans Benedict Evans on x
Twitter banning ads for climate change will be very... entertaining. All sorts of people are going to get a nasty surprise when they find out that ‘banning political ads’ doesn't just apply to people they disagree with. 🍿 https://twitter.com/...
@alexstamos Alex Stamos on x
Twitter is adopting language that is very close to Facebook's current definition of what ads require identity verification and transparency, so a good first-order approximation of what Twitter will completely ban is every ad in this archive: https://www.facebook.com/... https://t…
@mathewi Mathew Ingram on x
One potentially large problem: How do you define “issue” ads? Seems like a pretty broad category — FB has had problems here. Everything involving an important topic gets defined as a “political ad” https://twitter.com/...
@benedictevans Benedict Evans on x
(This will be a rerun of all those people doing research on Facebook who were upset to discover that ‘Facebook clamping down on collecting data’ meant that *they* couldn't collect data. 'It was only supposed to apply to other people!')
@benedictevans Benedict Evans on x
Is Twitter going to disclose the ad revenue it's giving up by not taking political ads? It would be good to get an actual number on how big the financial incentives here are.
@davidgura David Ghoulra on x
“It is yet another example ... of social media not only starting to clean itself up but also beginning to understand the major responsibility it has to the well-being of society at large, well beyond just making money.” https://www.nytimes.com/...
@karaswisher Kara Swisher on x
Despite Zuckerberg's strong statement today on keeping political ads vs. Twitter banning them, please recall he said the same to me about Alex Jones whom he said would stay on ⁦@facebook⁩ until he was later de-platformed: Your Move, Facebook https://www.nytimes.com/...
@karaswisher Kara Swisher on x
To those hoping @jack would also take action against one of the platform's most famous rules violators, let's make one thing clear: @realdonaldtrump can still huff and puff away on his disingenuous digital sousaphone, but his campaign cannot pay to do so. https://www.nytimes.com/…
@karaswisher Kara Swisher on x
That's one small step by @jack, one giant leap for tweetkind. https://www.nytimes.com/... via @NYTOpinion

Chronicles