“Good. Your turn Facebook.”
Twitter recently made a statement that they will be banning political ads, stopping the direct influence online advertising, as well as hinting to Facebook’s Mark Zuckerburg to change his hands off stance. This I all agree with and am happy for, but what I do not stand for is Twitter’s statement to also ban all tweets that discuss major political topics such as climate change With this new claim, there would not be a clear line as to where to stop tweets from being broadcast and when to censor them. “Major political issues” is way too broad of a topic to be highlighted and discussed so I am very confused as to how Twitter will handle this newfound concept. Jack Dorsey, Twitter’s CEO made a very important claim, however. He said that “political message reach should be earned, not bought”. Earlier this month, Mark Zuckerburg addressed the issue of banning political ads. He also makes a point that cutting off political ads creates too much controversy for such an insignificant part of their revenue as a company, which makes sense from a business standpoint. Right now, it would create less controversy if Zuckerburg actually cut the political ads in light of the recent Twitter statements. Whether Twitter or Facebook are doing it right, they both have their own reasons for making their own decisions. Facebook respect the hustle of the up and coming candidates, but Twitter cares more about whether the information their audience gets is factual or not.
Found it. The nuance is in the word “ad.”
In addition to ads sponsored by political campaigns, Twitter also intends to ban ads that discuss political issues such as climate change.
AB, I was doing some routine housekeeping (visiting every post where the author had not UNCHECKED the 123 UNCHECK THIS BOX category) and realize now that you haven’t updated your posts to remove tags and put your posts into the proper categories.
PLEASE do that chore so I don’t have to do it for all your posts. Tags are invisible to my method of tracking your work, and give me the mistaken impression you’re not up to date with your assignments.
About this Writing Plan.
It’s nowhere near complete.
Break it down into the needed components, please (Thesis, Background, Sources, What I Need, Counterarguments, refer to the assignment for particulars).
What you’ve written is more like a rough draft of your OpEd. I recognize it’s not a polished product, but that won’t prevent me from making strong recommendations.
Fix the ambiguity in your claims throughout, AB.
Does not indicate in any way what position he took a ban.
Unclear. If the ad revenue is insignificant, why not cut them off and avoid the criticism for running them? Does he actually mean, “This petty problem is beneath my notice”?
Now you have to backfill to resolve the ambiguity of your first claim. Why cover the same ground twice, once to confuse us, then again to resolve confusion?
Then you introduce new ambiguity. Why do Twitter’s statements impact Zuckerburg’s decision?
I honestly have no idea what this means.
Apparently not by your earlier statement that they’ll deprive their audience of ANY discussion of major topics. That can’t be right. There must be a more nuanced version of Twitter’s position than that it will “ban all tweets that discuss major political topics such as climate change.” I’m going to test that claim by tweeting about climate change.
Ordinarily, I would advise the author of a Writing Plan to concentrate all effort on the OpEd instead of revising the Writing Plan, but in this case, the Writing Plan needs an overhaul too.
Good to see you’ve been posting, AB, but now that I’ve been finding your posts, you’ll have to suffer some feedback. 🙂