Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by mrpg on Monday October 30 2017, @12:12PM   Printer-friendly
from the Вы-говори́те-по-ру́сски? dept.

After RT published excerpts from Twitter's "limited offer" to spend millions on US election marketing, the company abruptly banned all advertising from the news network. This makes full disclosure and transparency imperative, so here goes.

On Thursday, the micro-blogging platform announced a policy decision to ban ads from RT and Sputnik, citing alleged meddling in the 2016 US election.

It followed Twitter's report implying that RT was trying to influence US public opinion, crucially without providing context that virtually all news media organizations spend money on advertising their news coverage.
...
RT was thereby forced to reveal some details of the 2016 negotiations during which Twitter representatives made an exclusive multi-million dollar advertising proposal to spend big during the US presidential election, which was turned down.

Having since been banned, and in order to set the record straight, we are publishing Twitter's presentation and details of the offer in full.

Lenin said it: "The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 31 2017, @09:53AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 31 2017, @09:53AM (#589937)

    What you obviously miss is that "contributions", as a legal term, are prohibited for foreign entities to provide for a US political candidate. Such activity is also illegal on BOTH ENDS of the transaction. What this means is two-fold:

    1. If there is no "contribution to" a candidate, the law does not apply. Ads that simply might be taken as damaging to a political opponent do not fit this definition of "contribution".

    2. The real reason I suspect this is being pitched is that the fakestream news wants these hilariously inaccurate accusations to stick in the court of public opinion, since both parties are criminally culpable in foreign contributions to political candidates, which explains the mouth-frothing fervor in pursuit of this fakenews as a weapon against Trump.