WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Twitter Inc’s (TWTR.(N) the decision to scrap political advertising will have little effect on the re-election of the US President, Donald Trump, the candidate that spent the most on digital ads in the 2020 election, have a Trump card campaign, an official said on Thursday.
FILE PHOTO: a Twitter App to load on an iPhone in this illustration picture taken in Los Angeles, California, USA, on July 22, 2019. REUTERS/Mike Blake
“I’ve never had any love as a channel, a pipe, and is turned off due to the quality of the product and the opportunity,” the senior official told reporters on a conference call a day after the Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey announced that the ban. “Not at all, it will not have a significant impact on us.”
The Advantage of the campaign and its backers have spent a little more than $6,000 for the promotion of an official, @TeamTrump a Twitter account for the president’s campaign. Twitter’s records show no expenditure to promote a tweet on Trump’s @realDonaldTrump account, in which he used a lot of that has more than 66 million followers.
In addition, the campaign has already made more than $21.3 million on Facebook (FB.(O) advertising in 2018, according to data published by Facebook.
Of the 18 Democratic candidates in the 2020 election, and their supporters, more than $5.4 million for the promotion of the tweets in 2018, compared to a minimum of $ 52.2 million on the ads through their Facebook pages, according to a Reuters review of data from the office of public ad-libraries.
(Image: the Social welfare, here.)
Overall, political ad spending on the 2018 U.S. mid-term election results on Twitter it was less than $3 million, Twitter’s Chief Financial Officer, Ned Segal, said in a tweet on Wednesday.
However, while Twitter’s move will not make much of a dent in her finances, or the strength of the strategy, it does increase the pressure on arch-rival Facebook’s policy, the fact-checking the ads of the politicians.
“We believe that the political message will have to be earned, not bought,” Twitter CEO Dorsey said in a statement on Wednesday.
Responding to this criticism, a Facebook spokesperson on Thursday told Reuters: “We don’t change our approach to political speech, but only because there is public disagreement.”
Civil rights activist Reverend Al Sharpton said Thursday he and other civil rights leaders were to meet with Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s next week to discuss the policy.
“I’m very worried that it is a disinformation vehicle, it would be able to help you, the voter suppression, and voter misinformation, efforts, and needs to be stopped immediately,” Sharpton said in a statement.
Facebook has also come under fire for its political ads and the policies of the Democratic presidential candidates, such as former Vice-President, Joe Biden, and Senator Elizabeth Warren.
“It saves money and Twitter is a major headache in a market, which means that they are running out of money. It doesn’t help anyone else – in fact, it hurts the candidates and the voting public,” tweeted Jessica Alter, co-founder of the Tech, a campaign, a not-for-profit organization that helps the Democrats with their digital strategies.
Speaking to Reuters, on Thursday, the Strike, said that she was afraid of the politics, the money would have to be pushed in “to less transparent and less accountable” post.
A senior adviser to the campaign of the Democratic candidate, Mayor Peter Buttigieg also said Twitter’s move can be in pain less and less well-known, political candidates are trying to spread their message.
“I think the ban will help with the incumbency. Instead, the police are on their end, so they took the easy way out and banned everyone who hurt challengers are trying to get involved in the process,” the adviser told Reuters.
Brad Parscale, who will be running Home to his re-election campaign on Wednesday, and described Twitter’s move as an “attempt to silence conservatives,” and “made a really stupid decision for the company.
A Twitter spokesman declined to comment on the complaint.
In Facebook’s transcript on Wednesday, Zuckerberg emphasized the company’s stance was not aware of the financial concerns, assess the extent to which the ads of the politicians, it would be less than 0.5% of the turnover for the next year.
He also defended the policy, saying that Facebook did not want to stifle political speech, and the ability to predict it, it would be a “tough year” ahead, due to the potential for controversy with the political content.
Reporting Elizabeth and Illustrator based in San Francisco, Jason Lange and Steve Holland in Washington; Additional reporting by Jarrett Renshaw in Washington; Editing by John Mitchell and Stephen Coates