The hairy problem of online political advertising

Why Twitter’s ban on political ads won’t fix our elections

Paige Morrow
Nov 5 · 4 min read

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey just banned all political and issue advertising. Facebook currently accepts all political ads, even if they include false content. Which one got it right? The answer is both, and neither.

In the digital age, social media serves as a place for political speech.

Dominant social media platforms are increasingly becoming the town square where we share ideas, debate viewpoints and exercise our right to freedom of expression. Banning ads has the effect of restricting political discourse, and we should be careful what we wish for. Twitter is due to publish its full policy by November 15 but it has said that in addition to adverts for political parties and elections, it will target ads that “advocate for or against legislative issues of national importance (such as: climate change, healthcare, immigration, national security, taxes)”. This would restrict the work of many NGOs and campaigners.

Additionally, the line between paid and organic content is increasingly blurred. Dorsey has said that the ban will stop political messages being bought:

“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.”

But there are other ways to artificially extend your reach. In the recent Hong Kong protests, social media accounts linked to China were found to be amplifying apparently organic pro-Beijing narratives. Simply banning advertising will not prevent bots or users from attempting to artificially increase the reach of unpaid content by systematically retweeting it.

In contrast with Twitter’s decision to ban political ads, Facebook has held firm, claiming that it is a platform for free speech. Zuckerberg rightly noted that it can be extremely difficult to definitively prove or disprove the truthfulness of any political claim. We should be hesitant about outsourcing censorship to a corporation.

The problem of addressing political advertising is tied to the bigger question of how to treat dominant social media as their roles evolve.

In the past, we typically relied on television, radio, and newspapers to get information about political parties and their platforms. Countries like the UK, France, and Spain ban political advertising on TV but instead give free air time to political parties before elections. The logic behind these rules is generally that voters should receive information that will help them to make informed decisions about who to vote for and this should be done fairly, to ensure that the political parties with the biggest pockets do not get the most access to airtime.

Now, broadcast audiences are in freefall as voters increasingly obtain their information online. 34% of 18–34s in the UK themselves say that they believe the information they read on social media influences their vote. We have not yet figured out how to fairly migrate existing rules online to ensure a level playing field, promote vibrant democratic discussion so that the public receives a range of viewpoints, and ensure voters receive enough information to develop informed opinions.

It’s not always adverts that are the problem but rather how social media platforms exploit data to target certain groups.

The Cambridge Analytica scandal showed us just how easy it is to use the business model of social media companies to target ads not only to the segment of the population most susceptible to it but also least likely to be exposed to opposing viewpoints.

There are also major issues around the funding of political campaigns, and whether social media is being used to obscure how campaign funding comes from and how it is being spent. These concerns can at least partially be addressed by better enforcing existing laws on spending limits, disclosure of spending, and data protection.

We need enhanced standards and more transparency on political advertising on social media.

Twitter’s ban shows how hard it is to manage political discourse online, and how tempting it is to restrict it. Certainly, we should revisit national campaign and funding rules to decide how they should apply online, with input from political parties, social media companies, and the public.

It is clear that certain limits are necessary but regulation also has its risks.

The EU, for example, asked platforms to sign onto the Code of Practice on Disinformation ahead of the EU parliamentary elections in May 2019, which included new measures to increase transparency, such as ad registries and registration requirements for advertisers. ARTICLE 19 critiqued the Code of Practice and called instead for an effective, transparent, independent and accountable self-regulatory mechanism that would better protect fundamental rights, including the right to freedom of expression.

If we collectively decide that online political ads are acceptable, then all parties and candidates should have access to ad space on an equal basis. All advertisements should be clearly distinguishable from editorial content, including news. If targeted advertising is permitted (which is debatable), it should be clear what selection criteria were used and this must not be based on prohibited grounds for discrimination. Online intermediaries should keep and publish a digital registry of all regulated ads and the identity of those who authorized the ad, which can be adequately accessed by researchers and the general public. Most importantly, we need a public debate about whether existing rules are adequate to preserve a healthy democracy.

Paige Morrow

Written by

ARTICLE 19 | International human rights lawyer | Trailrunner | Responsible governance

Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade