http://www.npr.org/2017/10/26/560276801/twitter-says-it-will-ban-ads-from-russian-news-agencies-after-interference-in-20
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/26/twitter-bans-ads-from-russia-today-and-sputnik-over-election-interference
Twitter has announced that they will begin blocking Russian Advertisements because of their interference with the 2016 elections. They will additionally be giving away 2 million dollars already earned from Russian advertising. Advertisements from RT Sputnik have been backed by the Kremlin, and their is no question that the Kremlin's agenda is carried out through these platforms. Russian officials have stated that this is a violation of the freedom of expression.
I personally believe that Twitter has the right to block any advertisements that they don't stand behind. If they don't like the idea of the Kremlin using their platform to persuade viewers, then I don't think there is a problem blocking their ads. Only when the government itself is blocking speech of others does this become a problem.
Optional Questions:
On a previous post about RT, it was unanimously decided that the news outlet's voice should not be suppressed. Is it different when it comes to advertisements? Do you agree with Twitter's choice?
Do you think Russia's attempt to interject itself into American media is especially concerning?
Why do you think Twitter decided to block Russian ads? Was this a selfless act or does this benefit the company in some way?
21 comments:
I definitely agree with you in claiming that free speech is different in this situation. As a company, Twitter ought to have the right to choose what advertisements they want to include on their website. Furthermore, Twitter has inevitably been pulled into politics, so their reason for banning an aspect of politics within their site isn't shocking. In the end, they aren't the government and their not blocking Russian "tweeters" they're merely refusing money. I don't see a problem with that.
As a private company, Twitter has the right to refuse an advertiser that has a conflicting political view with them. Twitter refusing an advertiser is not censorship in the same way that the government banning that position would be. People can still legally voice their opinions, and if people who share the condemned view want to, they still have the choice of abandoning twitter to protest. While not necessarily as a protest, many people have quit twitter, and this stagnation has done a great deal of damage to their company.
It's ironic and hypocritical that the Russians are using a "free speech" argument to defend their actions pertaining to the US even though free speech in Russia itself is very questionable. Free speech should not apply to a multinational private company like twitter; after all, it's not regulated by the government, and Twitter has the right and the option to censor people on their platform and choose who can run advertisements. While blocking some people from accessing their website may be sketchy in some sense, it is definitely within their right to do so.
I definitely agree that twitter has the right to block advertisements from people and places that have a negative affect on American citizens. As a private American company, Twitter has the right to refuse service to anyone, and can refuse the money that the advertisements brought in. I think that other social media companies, such as Facebook, should follow what Twitter is doing, and make sure that the advertisements that people are seeing are not likely to radicalize people.
I believe that the ability to block the advertisement is rightful in every way. Twitter is a privately owned business and therefore giving them the right to do as they please. Especially because its an advertisement, they do not have to support the advertisement because it is an bias visual that is convincing people of what idea to believe.Twitter has every right to stand with their own beleifs and run their company as they please.
Ads are a form of speech, yes. But the platform that is displayed is owned by someone, so when you are trying to use that platform of course they can deny the ads. You know, I trust twitter enough to make the right decision. And I am sure this will be nothing but benefit them. I agree with most choices they make, the decision was probably discussed extensively to reach a consensus. Russia's involvement with the U.S is not particularly concerning. It is possible that they are really trying to fight us, but somehow, I doubt anything will happen from them involving themselves with our media. If I had to guess, twitter blocked ads as a PR move. Seriously though. I do not have any faith in America's goodwill. Everything and anything revolves around money. Any decision they make revolves around money. I seriously doubt they did this because x y or z. Their only is money.
I believe that Twitter has the right to block Russian advertisements because they are a private company and, with that in mind, it is completely acceptable for Twitter to refuse ads. I view this as more of a business compromise rather than taking away rights to free speech. People can still share their opinions on the app, but Twitter definitely has the right to censor what advertisers they do business with.
I agree with most of the sentiment here that such advertisements can/should be blocked if twitter decides to. If it were the censorship of twitter users or the suppression of articles on twitter, that would be a whole different debate. Being that twitter is its own entity, they are not obligated to add certain advertisements as they also have the right to refuse their money as well. Given the heat in current events surrounding Russia and the whispers of collusion between Trump and Russia, it would also be a smart business move to remove Russian ads. This would apply to many other news organizations as well; each entity has the right to refuse to show advertisements.
I believe that freedom of speech is a separate issue from the ability to interfere with elections through acts of advertisement. First and foremost, Twitter is a private organization, owes no affiliation to the government and can decide to withhold service from any persons they deem unacceptable. Doing so would not be censorship or violating the freedom of speech. Interfering in elections is an important matter to be considered and shouldn’t be taken lightly, so I believe Twitter is in the right for withholding usage from Russian advertisements.
I agree with your sentiment that it is in Twitter's right as a company to censor Russian advertisements. Twitter is not obligated to defend Russia's right to free speech, both due to Russia not adhering to free speech rights in the first place, and the fact that Twitter is not affiliated with the government. Especially with the rising tension between the U.S. and Russia due to suspicions of Russian collusion, it would be a wise decision to hide these Russian advertisements.
I believe that Twitter was justified in banning Russian advertisements. The Russians interfered with the US election, so Twitter banning their freedom of speech on their website is their own choice as a private company. Since Twitter isn't affiliated in way with the government, they can make these choices.
I think that Twitter had the right to ban the ad because they're a private company and they have the right to do what they want. They can take away the right of free speech if they believe that what is being published is not something that they like. If they do not like Russia getting involved, as a private company they have the right to take it off.
Twitter is in the right to stop the advertising from Russia since they're a private company. I think that Twitter is most likely looking for positive PR from this move as the collusion would've already happened. However, I think taking action and giving away the 2 million dollars is a good move. In all, it wasn't a selfless act because companies will do good, but only to get a benefit.
I definitely agree with you in claiming that free speech is different in this situation. As a private company, Twitter should have the right to pick and choose what can me made public as far as advertisements or anything else. I believe their freedom of expression doesn't apply in this case, especially if the advertisements are degrading. If I said something against Twitter guidelines, it could be reported and my account possibly suspended. Twitter is a business and it can decide what goes against their guidelines. Also, to piggy back off what Ariana said, I think That Twitter realizes that it has become a political measure which they would try to limit because maybe they want to keep it as solely for entertainment purposes. I think there is a good motive for what they are doing and they should have every right to do so.
Can we just take a minute to appreciate the humor of Russian officials calling Twitter out for violating freedom of expression? I appreciated that a lot.
In all seriousness though, Twitter has every right to restrict advertisements on its feed. Commercial speech is not a form of free speech that is sacrosanct under the Constitution. There are a variety of restrictions on advertisements throughout the tobacco industry and many other industries. Moreover, our country has not hesitated to restrict free speech in the name of national security. Clearly Russian interference in U.S. elections constitutes a threat to national security. As such, Twitter has every right to restrict the meddling of the Kremlin in our elections. This being said, I am not overly concerned about Russian interference in our elections, as we have interfered in so many foreign elections that it seems a bit hypocritical to me that people get so worked up over Russia funding advertisements in favor of Trump.
I think that there is a lot of pressure on a lot of companies right now to do something to filter content on their platforms. Twitter might be helping their cause by establishing themselves as one of the first companies to take measures towards filtering their feed, but the extent of the impact of this move on revenues is yet to be seen.
Freedom of speech is definitely not applicable to private companies like Twitter, especially in terms of advertising. As a company, they have the right to choose what to advertise and what to censor when it comes to content published. In this case, it is not really a matter of government, but a matter of business. I think it reflects positively upon Twitter that they are considering foreign affairs and politics in their business endeavors because it's such a large platform for media and such a big influence on people in our current society.
Russia arguing about human rights? What is this, backwards day?
Twitter is in the right here, as they have acted within the confines of the law. They have the right as a private company to regulate the advertisement on their feeds. Russia is arguing that what Twitter has done is against the constitution, however, the constitution does not speak bout commercial speech.
I also believe that there is ulterior motives behind Twitter's decision. After taking many losses recently, the company is seeking support from the US by making a 'patriotic' move. They are sacrificing almost 2 million dollars, to show the American people that they have the interest of the nation and aren't a greedy organization. I consider this a PR move.
I think that free speech definitely applies here. As in twitter has a right to not support an agenda that they don't agree with. Twitter can do whatever they want on their website. It seems like the situation is that the kremlin thinks twitter was too mean the them and human rights should protect them from the horrible meanness of twitter. Donating the money is an excellent touch. Very Ironic situation.
Twitter is a private company so in my opinion it's a bit ridiculous to criticize them for not displaying messages they disagree with. If you owned a website, no matter how many people use it I should still have the right to choose what is put on my website. The free speech vs. hate speech argument has no application here; only free speech is relevant, and that is Twitter's right to free speech and showing the messages it wants.
I think it's quite worrisome that Russia might be able to hijack the American people through social media. It shows the influence that social media holds over the thought of people, and the receptiveness of people to political ads. Social media sites started as a way to connect with friends, but has now become a large part of people's information source. It is unfortunate that so many people rely on and trust social media and advertisements as sources.
I agree with Karen above. Twitter has the right to know what goes on their site, because it is their site. If they are doing it for their own safety reason, and giving away the money made from the advertisements, that it completely their choice, and freedoms to do so.
Post a Comment