Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
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This discussion has been archived.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: 5, Interesting) by frojack on Monday October 30 2017, @03:42PM (3 children)

    by frojack (1554) on Monday October 30 2017, @03:42PM (#589477) Journal

    So, the real question seems to be, just how much real Russian interference was there? The impression I've had all this time was, Russia did in fact purchase some advertising,

    As did just about every other country. Canada, Mexico, the UK, you name it. None of them have clean hands.
    And neither does the US. Our government influences election all over the world, often in support of parties and people who stand in direct contradiction to our alleged national values.

    When I read RT I know what I'm getting. Same for the BBC, or the Times of India. Even sites from tiny places like Switzerland. Its why I read them, to get a different point of view.

    Every news outlet these days seem to think that including a string of tweets constitutes actual reporting, and this is twitter's only source of revenue.
    I refuse to read them, I've got my ublock tuned to dump them.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=2, Total=3
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday October 30 2017, @05:49PM (2 children)

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Monday October 30 2017, @05:49PM (#589553) Journal

    As did just about every other country. Canada, Mexico, the UK, you name it. None of them have clean hands.

    [CITATION NEEDED]

    It's illegal for foreign organizations to purchase ads in US elections.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 31 2017, @03:51AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 31 2017, @03:51AM (#589850)

      Illegal where? Over in not-the-usa? Why would anyone believe that not-the-usa should care about usa law?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 31 2017, @09:38AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 31 2017, @09:38AM (#589934)

      Funny, I don't remember seeing any ads during the actual poll for the last election I *hrk* cast a vote in.

      Maybe you need to clarify your terms, or provide citations of your own, lest you accuse basically every large corporation in existence of criminal activity. Okay, okay, criminal activity specifically relating to "purchasing ads in US elections", which of course has some sort of undefined nebulous meaning.