tv The Stream 2019 Ep 180 Al Jazeera November 11, 2019 10:32pm-11:01pm +03
the netherlands must actively help repatriate the children of dutch women who join the slum explained in syria a judge in the hague said that the children are victims of the actions of their parents the 23 women and the 56 children who all have dutch nationality were living in the whole camp in northern syria britain's prime minister boris johnson has been given a boost in the country's election race after the head of the bracks it party i just said he would not challenge the conservative party for seats both parties are in favor of the u.k. leaving the e.u. but deferred over the terms of the exit agreement those are the headlines stay with us the stream is coming up next looking at the role of social media in politics and i'm going to have more news for you in half an hour i hope you'll join me that way.
and you're in the stream today should twitter allow political ads we ask what role social media plays in politics and what impact a ban on political ads will have join the conversation tweet us stream or leave a comment on our live chat and you too will be in the stream. twitter's c.e.o. jack dorsey recently announced that the company will no longer allow political advertisements on its platform the move the company says is to make sure politicians and political campaigns tell voters the whole truth it's the 1st such
declaration by any social media company and stands in stark contrast to facebook's policy but will the prohibition actually prevent the spread of misinformation but joining us to discuss this in hyderabad india. she's a journalist with the hindu where she covers technology entertainment and lifestyle in london tom jarvis he's founder and managing director of wilderness agency that's a social media strategy company and in san francisco california just a call to become founder and chairman of tech for campaigns an organization that helps political campaigns build a digital strategy welcome everyone to the stream it's really good to have you here tom i want to start with our online audience our community there we tweeted this out char viewers not too long ago have you seen a political ad on twitter let us know for the show you can see the results there one day left for people to actually vote but the yes is 59 percent and the nos
coming in very close after 41 percent so based on this unscientific poll but poll of our viewers twitter political ads don't seem like they were making that big of a splash online anyway with many people not being able to recall seeing any myself included in that how big of a deal is this decision this twitter decision in your view and does it matter. hi i think it does matter. i think it's the 1st step for any big social network like this to political advertising. from a military point of view from a financial point of view the. the numbers went great for twitter so in some respects this is a great piece of p.r. for them. they were only making you know 3 to 4000000 pounds last year on the 20 mid-term elections so from a from a platform point of view i think it's it's a really good move in terms of trying to drive more positive conversation on the
platform and it's a really great p.r. exercise you know this really reminds me of. where a couple of years ago when there were having such p.r. problems so i think it's a really good move from a p.r. point of view. less so in terms of the financials you know it's not a real but not what i was apart from it's interesting you say that here one of our committee members tweeted mark is just for the money referencing market after birth of baseball while jack is socially responsible interesting take away from that just i could see you smile at bad would you agree that this is just a p.r. move or does it go beyond that is there something of substance that we can take away from this move. i mean the tweet earth the percentage. facebook's revenue. political ads are a drop in the bucket i think you know it's much higher than twitter is but that's because it's book makes you know many times more exponentially more money than
twitter so i think they announced in the last 2 weeks that it's less than one percent of their revenues so this isn't for money and they've definitely lost money on trips to washington in mitt lobbies and by that i don't think political ads are super are positive for facebook at this point. and i would agree that it's mostly a p.r. move i would go one step further i'd call it a sleight of hand issue on twitter isn't paid to reach the issue on twitter is an organic reach problem not put organic in quote no box etc so they basically followed a problem that they didn't have and then shined the faceplate on the shine a spotlight on facebook. and so you know the issues that are on twitter are still there and they're as bad as ever and. you know bravo to them on a slate of hand p.r.
move but it doesn't make a difference in the political space or be in solving any problem that twitter actually have. so i want to share the decision of course it was sent in a twitter thread from jack just our audience all in the same page this was that decision we've made the decision to stop all political advertising on twitter globally we believe political messages reach should be earned not bought why a few reasons and jack goes into it it's a whole thread but we pulled up this one here while internet advertising is incredibly powerful and very effective for commercial advertisers that power bring significant risks to politics or it can be used to influence votes to affect the lives of millions divya i'll direct this one to you it's an idea of one team to change this influencing of votes that seems to be what it's coming out of this week here what's your take on that. i believe there is definitely
a sway that digital space to me has and like jack said he talks about paying for reach which is really what he wants to address and a sense these ads does you know undermine the integrity of political discourse at its core and not that lately there has been much integrity to it. honestly whether like this is a good move or a bad move i just believe it doesn't really address you know the main issue which is online literacy for a lot of people people have to know whether they should trust that ad and there's not enough information for people out there to especially the 300000000 users on facebook and 40000000 users on twitter just in india alone we need those for you to give us an example or do you have what you mean by a lack of digital literacy what would that look like in practice so obviously there's the big phrase that everybody likes to use fake news and just today actually twitter posted to their blog about so that
a minute belated media and that's the kind of content that you know does have the power to sway and once you monetize that content the reach is absolutely. it's unprecedented and i think that when you take advantage of that there's definitely repercussions that other people need to. and that people don't know obviously like you know what the consequences of paying for reach is and they want things for granted every tweet me can be maybe there's an endorsement and i think that. resources on how to differentiate the real from the fake is important very. very if i could just jump in you know 2 points. that the good thing you know about paying for reach and jack a thing about paying for it but i think what we just talked about and you know 2 minutes ago is that no one is paying for reach on twitter politically $3000000.00
is almost nothing when it comes to political ad spend $9000000000.00 spent in the 2018 just us elections $9000000000.00 only $600000000.00 of that was actually on line so $3000000.00 is is is absolutely nothing and so no one is paying for reach on twitter that's the thing the problem is or injury that is the problem so the other part i would say of i agree with that. users need more information and transparency but what i don't agree with is this that ok so then we should have a ban no the answer is let's have more information and transparency and figure out a way to do that when you get a on but i'll just charge this. when you do a ban on you should think about the people that actually suffer i think everyone is so obsessed with what we call here the top of the ticket in presidential and even
some senate races but tucker campaigns works primarily with state legislative races and it's those races and lesser well known candidates and less wealthy candidates they're going to suffer if you take away political ads donald trump is going to be totally fine he's got tons of money he can get to give money to t.v. and he can put it in much less transparent places it's incumbents it's reality t.v. stars that have earned to reach and it's wealthy candidates that are going to be fine after this bam tom. yeah i think to address that i think. you know the numbers bandied around for twitter are usually around 20 midterms actually about 3 to 4000000 figure was the major political figures in the midterms in the us. you know but the problem is systemic you know 3 to 400000000 worth of advertising next year all on facebook alone from political individuals that doesn't include all
of the conversation advertising so i do think. yes those figures are low for twitter but i do say this but it does have an impact and i do think you know some of the steps that whatever make it now to. look at the conversation on the platform and try to make it more positive are a good step forward. you know. this does feel like a good practice for jack but tom i want to pick up on just that as 2nd point. this chart here from ward's twitter spending by candidate and this is data that comes from twitter and you can see some of the top presidential u.s. presidential candidates here they're spinning this is just in the thousands and you scroll down a little bit and this is ad spending on facebook it is in the millions so you can see the discrepancy there and of course jessica mentioned the president trying to
just take his advertising elsewhere as of right now elsewhere could be phased out because there was $15700000.00 spent on ads from january to october 29th team so what do you make of this point you say that there's it's a good thing because there is something happening a change is happening but does it make an impact if a spark is it making that change i think is 2 points here the 1st point is that twitter is not just burned out full time thing from political figures they've also . political topics so they've banned advertise. around key topics that political figures or groups related to political organizations can advertise against so the numbers band in a round are small when you look at individual campaigns but when you look at those overall topical topic data for advertising it's a bigger group so they are making some commitment and i do think that's a great 1st that the 2nd point about facebook is very interesting you know they've gone very quiet on this have as have google. and it's well known that they're
making a great deal of money and will probably make a step from google. in terms of do i think they're going to make a move no i think you know we've seen a long history now of facebook stepping back on these things waiting for the p.r. storm to. ride right itself out and i think they'll do that in this case you know i think they're in a position where they see this so i can jump in jessica. i just want to clarify this because not making a ton of money from political ads just it's just not the case like it's a ton of money when you when you see when you say 302400 1000000 but when you think about their overall revenue which is in the in the many like 30000000000 the it's just not a lot. of their revenue so i just want to dispel this myth that been restated twice now that it's bogus doing this for the money or google who seems to not be in the
conversation as much but no one's doing this strictly for the money if you were just to make a business decision then you would probably get out political ads because the cost to them on p.r. branding alone is probably not worth that but it's just not it just clearly not about that at about something bigger for the company and probably mark. and i think i just want to go back to my earlier point which is they realize and and it's been . told again and last 2 weeks with the stanfords. 30 that there is about 10 times as many state political candidates advertising online than on t.v. and they concluded that one of the biggest impact digital political ads a pet is just the sheer number of candidates that can now get their message out and hence actually have a chance to contest an election it's actually the biggest impact will not be on
presidential candidates it will not be on the candidates that you and i all know by name it will be on these smaller candidates that don't have a way to get their message out still in the us almost 70 percent of campaign spend goes to t.v. so if we end digital advertising in politics that money is not going to go it's just going to go to a less transparent place that's harder for many people to access and then again you have incumbents while the candidate and people who have quote unquote earned their reach where it is mostly reality t.v. stars that are going to be having an outsized advantage because they have the follower account anyway i want to pick up on the point that you made about this not hurting those at the top necessarily but the smaller candidates we got a comment from. the foreign editor at global times here's what he told a stream of about point a do nothing it's still the purpose of deterring the spread of misinformation by
politicians in reality the big political players do not need to either asked to amplify their voices they already have enough forwards who could make their troops cool viral organically and he's a special treat by a big politician irrespective of the information powell is true or false it is most likely to find a place in the news so this week that entire idea that politics or masses reach should be earned not bought a questionable one. so david i'll give that one to you he says that this is not going to hurt the people that it's perhaps intended to target what you make of that point well i mean i definitely agree with him when he talks about you know the existing follower base. just last week we had a very prominent person here in india who said that there was gold present in cow's milk and a lot of people were ready to make life changing financial decisions because of it so there is
a genuine threat to society and. these are life altering decisions people are making at the sake of what somebody says on a whim on a public forum and i think you know that there's an ideal and very utopian notion. ideal democratic society you know citizen to have access to all the facts in order to. know what kind of society they should be living in but that's just not true that we live in a real world misinformation exists whether you ban ads or not. picking up on that this is from someone watching live on you tube james fox says the problem isn't that they are removing political ads more so that they are allowing falsified information of opponents of political positions here nodding your head as i'm reading that is tom tom you're nodding your head and it raises a point that someone made a little bit earlier that this isn't necessarily about the money i think jessica you made that point so what then is that about because our community and our
viewers say what this should be about is not allowing things that are blatantly false fake not true to be on these platforms. yeah i think that's a really complex issue the spread of misinformation you know where we're in we're in a storm now of misinformation across digital platforms and this ban by twitter doesn't go far enough to to effect but i don't think you know we've just seen this week in the u.k. with the stein of the general election the conservative party. being brought up for . don't have video of a. labor candidate so we're seeing these tactics used to cross the border misinformation and doctored videos and content that's clearly untrue being used by political parties all across the world so i think really looking at the effects of this information and how this information is being spread i think is a really important part of the job now of these platforms. this is
a 1st step in it i think it's a good one but but it's a really small 1st step i agree with you. did you got arson and just gave it up after i mean i definitely agree with tom there is definitely a threat but i guess i again and as i point earlier made about. the recent literacy of tools that twitter netizens need to understand this information and again yes a utopian concept that people will always know what's wake and what's not so i think yes while the ban is a. while drop in years and barely a slap on the wrist we need to really. understand what's you know what the real issue is and that's access to the real resources the real facts the real conversation and. we really need to work on for sure just because before you jump
in there i wanted to share something with you maybe might make people think this is one person's view on how to do that how to create that literacy there on twitter he says if the issue is the danger that they can use can be easily peddled by political parties why not regulate those kinds of ads instead of a blanket ban that effects even legitimate political ads so that's one person's view he's not alone this is one other that i'll share with you on twitter to hari says it's not a business is job to regulate lying politicians since congress in her view is full of liars congress should enact laws that regulate the lying of politicians congress expects facebook to do what it doesn't even do itself so regulation where do you fall on that who should do the regulating yeah i agree with tom i think that the complex issue it's definitely a complex issue and i don't think there is. no solution yet but a band seems like sort of a lead the way out. and as far as regulation goes i think there's sort of 2 stacks
of the platforms get all the attention but actually they've done more in terms of. sunlight being a disinfectant and showing information than google so i think both facebook and google need to do more on their own forms if they're not going to in the short term backtrack political ad which t.v. ads in the united states are actually not backtracked on broadcast news they should at least have a warning about that they can include more information about you know who's behind the ad and. how it's been targeted that people can access without going into an ad archive or could be quote a like a nutrition label on the back of ads that anyone can see very quickly but ultimately i agree with twitter. comment that yeah we need actual regulation and i think it's absolutely
a complicated issue it's most complicated because it's not clear who should do the regulating right now both from a overall standpoint but also who's actually has a staff and a make up that's qualified to understand the issues and then actually hold them accountable in that congress if i'm not sure is that the f.t.c. you know as we sit here today i'm not sure anyone actually equipped and that that actually scares me the most or should be it international body which of course is something that is hard to think about because who would that body be but i wanted to share this from you on twitter who says this is a very good topic at least politicians in countries like nigeria would no longer have an avenue to instigate against one another i advise facebook and instagram to emulate this but bringing the point home tom that this is an international issue so while twitter of course is a company that's a u.s.
company based here in the united states it is used everywhere so how would regulation work in that sense. i think that's one of the really complicated things you know in order to do this really effectively we need a global regulation of this type of advertising. how that would work and who would do that are those really unclear you know we've tried things in europe. for regulation point of view and it's not really worked so i think it's a real challenge but what we can do i think is allow the platforms to self regulate you know we tried that in the u.k. with the media businesses after leveson and it hasn't worked. so i think you know we swishy here today and we talk about facebook we talk about group will we talk about the steps that have made i think the reality is these platforms. in the best place to do this but shouldn't be expect to have to do this i'm really this is for
governments. to to look at a framework in which advertising on these platforms works. one thing i would add to that is i think when we as we sit here it's easy to say the ban is good or bad and political advertising is good or bad but you have to actually define what is political advertising and my feeling that twitter has not bigger and out exactly what political advertising means so of course it's going to be campaigns but that's the easy part is health care political advertising healthcare is basically the number one issue in any us campaign so that would mean planned parenthood is not allowed to advertise but it might also mean like a yoga studio or are they health care it's just not clear what the guy lines are going to be and. i would i part of that. twitter is going to spend a lot of time not only figuring that out but policing it. as
someone on you tube agrees with what you're saying saying that there is a big gray area when it comes to. what is a political advertising i want to thank all of our guests of course for being part of this conversation it is one that will continue of course because on the 15th of november is when twitter will actually announce the regulations and then they will go into effect on the 22nd so lots more to keep an eye on thank you so much for joining us of course they were out of time for this part of the conversation but thank you to dave and just and of course star online community for your tweets your you tube comments and your video comments until next time i'll see online.
was taken 2 minute. and i was submitting me to. most of us that don't think he intends to make sure that we're no longer entitled to be there basic rights or citizenship rights once their villages were burnt down were funneled into what is now become complex where a moving car and basically a prince exiled coming soon on al-jazeera. to notice their own. they don't believe in the 2 state solution the do you still believe in the 2 state solution we listen what i said it was that pakistan would never start
a war and to walk we meet with global news makers and talk about the stories that matter is their own. hello i'm barbara sarah in london these are the top stories on al-jazeera hong kong is reeling from one of the most violent the days of anti-government demonstrations in more than 5 months one protester is in critical condition after being shot at close range by police while demonstrators are accused of setting a probe aging supporter on fire chief executive caroline called the protesters the enemy of the people and said that she will not yield to pressure sarah clarke has more now from hong kong. protesters started blocking roads and ran lines during the morning rush hour at a crossroads inside one home district on the.