Twitter details political ad ban, admits it’s imperfect

Twitter’s new ban on political s will cover appeals for votes, solicitations for campaign contributions and any political content. But company quickly ackwledged Friday that it expects to make mistakes as individuals and groups look for loopholes.

Twitter is defining political content to include any that references a candidate, political party, government official, ballot measure, or legislative or judicial outcome. ban also applies to all s — even n-political ones — from candidates, political parties and elected or appointed government officials.

However, Twitter is allowing s related to social causes such as climate change, gun control and abortion. People and groups running such s won’t be able to target those s down to a user’s ZIP code or use political categories such as “conservative” or “liberal.” Rar, targeting must be kept bro, based on a user’s state or province, for instance.

News organizations will be exempt so y can promote stories that cover political issues. While Twitter has issued guidelines for what counts as a news organization — single-issue vocacy outlets don’t qualify, for instance — it’s unclear if this will be eugh prevent partisan websites from promoting political content.

Twitter anunced its worldwide ban on political s Oct. 30, but didn’t release details until Friday. policy, which goes into effect next Friday, is in stark contrast to Facebook’s approach of allowing political s, even if y contain false information. Facebook has said it wants to provide politicians with a “level playing field” for communication and t intervene when y speak, regardless of what y’re saying.

Response to Twitter’s ban has been strong and mixed, with critics questioning company’s ability to enforce new policy given its poor history banning hate speech and abuse from its service. company ackwledges it will make mistakes but says it’s better to start dressing issue w rar than wait until all kinks are worked out.

Aside from ongoing concerns about foreign elections interference, political vertising issue rose to forefront in recent months as Twitter, along with Facebook and Google, refused to remove a misleing video from President Donald Trump’s campaign that targeted Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden.

In response, Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren, ar presidential hopeful, ran her own on Facebook taking aim at Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. claimed — mittedly falsely to make its point — that Zuckerberg endorsed Trump for re-election.

Over past several weeks, Facebook has been pressed to change its policy. But it was Twitter inste that jumped in with its bombshell ban.

Drew Margolin, a Cornell University communications professor who studies social networks, said Twitter’s bro ban is a reflection that “vetting is t realistic and is potentially unfair.”

He said a TV network might be in a position to vet all political s, but Twitter and Facebook cant easily do so. While ir reliance on automated systems makes online s easier and cheaper to run, Margolin said it also makes m an “attractive target” for spreing misinformation.

Political vertising makes up a small sliver of Twitter’s overall revenue. company does t break out specific figures each quarter, but said political spending for 2018 midterm election was less than $3 million. It reported $824 million in third-quarter revenue.

Because of this, ban is unlikely to have a big effect on overall political vertising, where television still accounts for majority of money spent. In digital s, Google and Facebook dominate.

Unlike Facebook, which has weared most of criticism, Google has been relatively quiet on its political s policy. It has taken a similar stance to Facebook and does t review wher political s tell truth.

Twitter, Facebook and Google alrey take steps to prevent political manipulation by verifying identities of some political vertisers — measures prompted by furor over Moscow’s interference. But verifying systems, which rely on both humans and automated systems, have t been perfect.