Be Careful What You Wish For: Twitter Temporarily Bans 'Get Out The Vote' Ads To Comply With 'Fake News' Law

from the why-does-no-one-ever-think-these-things-through dept

If there’s one consistent theme that we’ve talked about on Techdirt over the past few decades, it’s that attempts to regulate the internet based on a specifically observed “harm” almost always leads to bad outcomes. That’s because trying to regulate away a harm frequently fails to take into account context and the specifics of how such laws would be interpreted. For example, over the last few years, there’s been plenty of concern about fake news and questionable “political advertising” that is really just, let’s say, “propaganda” from parties wishing to mess up the democratic process, rather than actually encourage effective democracy. Because of this we’ve seen attempts to pass “fake news” laws and “online political ads” laws that clearly come from a place of good intentions (mostly), but the actual impact can be far reaching and lead to unintended consequences.

For example, just last week people suddenly realized that, with the EU Parliamentary elections coming up next month, and France’s new anti-fake news political advertisements law, that Twitter would be blocking the French government’s own “get out the vote” advertising campaign:

Since December, France requires online political campaigns to declare who paid for them, and how much was spent.

But now Twitter has rejected a government voter registration campaign.

The company could not find a solution to obey the letter of the new law, officials said ? and opted to avoid the potential problem altogether.

Of course, rather than realize that maybe the law they wrote was too broad, French government officials immediately… blamed Twitter. Oh, and they did so on Twitter.

That’s France’s Minister of the Interior saying “Twitter’s priority should be to fight content that glorifies terrorism. Not campaigns to register on the electoral lists of a democratic republic.” But, of course, that ignores that it was France’s own extreme position on the law that lead Twitter to conclude the best way to comply was to block all political advertising, rather than go through the arduous process of keeping track of which political ads are allowed, which are banned, and to provide an open database of information about all of those ads.

Other French officials also complained… also on Twitter. Minister of Culture Franck Reister — most recently seen eagerly cheering on censorship filters — also chose to attack Twitter for trying to comply with France’s bad law:

That one roughly says:

We must put an end to the irresponsibility of the platforms: @ Twitter pretends not to understand a law allowing simply a better information of the citizens during an electoral period … whereas @ facebook has decided to apply it, in anticipation, in all the countries !

Note the focus: blaming Twitter for deciding it was too burdensome to host political ads, rather than recognizing it was the French law that made it so. Also, pointing to Facebook as a “good example” of agreeing to go through the arduous process kind of misses the whole point: the bigger companies (Facebook is a hell of a lot bigger than Twitter) can more easily comply with these laws, while smaller platforms find it too expensive. But, no matter. France’s Minister of Culture assumes that all companies should have to spend tons of money just so his government can advertise on them.

Then there’s Cedric O, the country’s digital minister, who apparently thinks that Twitter should be forced to host some kinds of political advertising, because “the vote is sacred.”

Right. The vote is sacred. But it was your government that passed a law that made it quite expensive to host any such advertising. Stop blaming the platforms for reacting appropriately to your bad laws.

Either way, after getting so much pressure in France, the company did back down, saying it was “clarifying” its political advertising rules in France to allow “Get Out The Vote” ads. So perhaps this is a happy ending situation, but what’s most annoying is how French officials seem to think their own bad lawmaking is never the problem — and that internet platforms making rational decisions based on the costs of complying with overreaching laws somehow reflects poorly on the platforms, rather than on their legislative abilities.

Filed Under: , , ,
Companies: twitter

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Be Careful What You Wish For: Twitter Temporarily Bans 'Get Out The Vote' Ads To Comply With 'Fake News' Law”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
79 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: en anticipation

Agreed. Online translators often lack context conversion, much like the "stop all evil" filters that certain countries are proposing/foisting.

Yes, that spacecraft is commanded by Captain Petard.

Oh. And of course, just like the "Do Not Call" legislation, political parties are always exempt from the rules.

Horace Hawkhead says:

The burden of thinking here is on Twitter, BEFORE blocking.

The moment before block / ban / whatever is when Twitter needs human intervention. But instead it causes the problem.

Twitter to conclude the best way to comply was to block all political advertising

This is a gov’t source. Twitter can’t understand that? With all their smarts?

Baloney. This is more deliberate obstruction, one of the oldest tactics.

Throw a few Twitter execs into jail, they’ll stop obstructing.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: The burden of thinking here is on Twitter, BEFORE blocki

Why exactly did you censor the post? The guy is right, it’s a douche move by Twitter. Telling people to vote isn’t a political ad or partisan issue, and Twitter knows it. And it’s easy for everyone to see they’re just being douches. Dumb.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: The burden of thinking here is on Twitter, BEFORE bl

It’s not a douche move.

If the government tells me I personally have to kick off everyone from my lawn that shouts in a certain way, when said speech is not illegal, I’m just going to tell everyone to get off my lawn because it’s too much of a pain in the ass to try and sort through all the shouting and hope I get it right and not get slapped by the authorities for not following the law.

Better to block everything and be 100% safe than try and comply with one of the dumbest laws ever and hope I don’t get in trouble.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: The burden of thinking here is on Twitter, BEFORE blocking.

They’re not obstructing anything. Again, for the mentally impaired, Twitter is not a government service and can host or not host whatever it chooses. Twitter generally tries to host everything that doesn’t violate its own Terms of Service. In these edge cases where it’s someone else’s rules or laws they can interpret it as they see fit and react accordingly. Absolutely no laws were broken here, moral or otherwise.

Your position is that everyone should do exactly what you think they should do, laws be damned. If the law happens to agree with you then all the better but where the law doesn’t match people should do whatever you think is right regardless of the law or even the cost. Cost should never be a factor in your mind. No matter the cost, people should be forced even against their will to do whatever you fantasize is the right thing to do.

Get help.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: The burden of thinking here is you don’t.

Comments like this are why laws banning "hateful content" had to be banned.

Uh, perhaps you should take an English class, because you just said we shouldn’t have any laws banning hateful content.

That’s some extraordinary self-own you got going on there.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: The burden of thinking here is on Twitter, BEFORE blocking.

The problem is – lots of fools, including you have told them they’re not allowed to exercise reasonably thinking before blocking. You know, since you’ll claim they’re pirates hiding behind section 230 if they do.

The problem here is that you’re getting EXACTLY what you asked for, but now that EXACTLY what everybody else told you would happen is happening, you’ll blame everybody but yourself.

Anonymous Coward says:

It would indeed seem like a "get out the vote" blitz on social media could easily be deployed as a stealthy partisan political manipulation tool if aimed exclusively at targeted segments of the userbase believed likely to vote for the "correct" party. (and If HUD can charge Facebook for racial discrimination for allowing targeted ads [which did not themselves racially discriminate in any way, and might only target a person’s interests], then why not election authorities?)

Google got caught doing something similar in the 2016 election, as leaked emails revealed that the primary purpose of Google’s presumably-tax-deductible "get out the vote" offering was to get Clinton and other Democrats elected, and even Sundar Pichai was in on it.

So these "get out the vote" campaigns might not quite be the kind of charitable public services their backers would like people to believe.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Sorry, I thought this story was such common knowledge that no proof was needed.

https://www.foxnews.com/tech/leaked-google-employees-email-reveals-effort-to-boost-latino-vote-surprise-that-some-voted-for-trump

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/09/10/silent-donation-corporate-emails-reveal-google-executives-efforts-to-swing-election-to-hillary-clinton-with-latino-outreach-campaign/

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Someone who thinks they speak for the whole world, and that the world agrees with them (of course), is really disconnected, that’s for sure. When they run their mouths like that they are picking a fight. Human biology recognizes people who speak that way as potentially violent. It’s why they have to do it from behind a monitor. They wouldn’t DARE speak to anyone like that to their face.

Just another piece of evidence that shows why Masnick will never be taken seriously in high-level journalism circles.

Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Human biology recognizes people who speak that way as potentially violent. It’s why they have to do it from behind a monitor. They wouldn’t DARE speak to anyone like that to their face.

So you are saying that if someone spoke like that to your face you might potentially become violent? Because there is no other way to parse your sentence for it to make sense.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Someone who thinks they speak for the whole world, and that the world agrees with them (of course), is really disconnected, that’s for sure.

You mean like every single comment from you?

When they run their mouths like that they are picking a fight.

Or they are giving their opinion.

Human biology recognizes people who speak that way as potentially violent.

I’m REALLY interested to hear how involuntary, non-sentient human biology can detect and recognize voluntary, sentient produced speech and induce an involuntary, physical, biological response. Please, PLEASE tell me exactly how this works. I really want to know.

They wouldn’t DARE speak to anyone like that to their face.

You really DON’T know anything about humans do you? They talk like this to each other’s faces ALL THE DAMN TIME.

Just another piece of evidence that shows why Masnick will never be taken seriously in high-level journalism circles.

And this is just another piece of proof that you’re a moron and an idiot who will not and should not ever be taken seriously.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Google got caught doing something similar in the 2016 election, as leaked emails revealed that the primary purpose of Google’s presumably-tax-deductible "get out the vote" offering was to get Clinton and other Democrats elected, and even Sundar Pichai was in on it.

This is not true and never was.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Regarding those leaked Google emails … a few quotes from Google executive Eliana Murillo, a key figure in Google’s supposedly non-partisan "get out the vote" effort:

"We also supported partners like Voto Latino to pay for rides to the polls in key states (silent donation)."

"On personal note, we really thought we had shown up to demonstrate our political power against a candidate who had vehemently offended our community by calling us rapists and drug dealers"

"But then reality set in. Only 71% of Latinos voted for Hillary, and that wasn’t enough"

"This is devastating for our Democratic Latino community. After all these efforts and what we thought was positive momentum toward change, the results are not what we expected at all. … What’s most difficult for us is we can’t even email the HOLA list to reach our community and discuss what this means for us because we know that apparently some may actually be Trump supporters."

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

"Do you have citations for those quotes? Or am I supposed to take your word for it?"

Is it a mistake to assume that the vast, vast majority of Techdirt readers would already know how to cut & paste (or even retype) the text of a quote into an internet search engine in order to verify that such a quote actually exists as well as see where it came from?

Breitbart was the first to put those leaked emails in writing, and Google has never denied their authenticity, including the time when Google CEO Sundar Pichai testified for several hours before the House Judiciary Committee last December, 3 months after those leaked emails were published. Department head Eliana Murillo, who wrote the leaked emails that were reprinted far and wide, would probably have a good case to file suit (or threaten to in order to have them redacted) or at the very least make a public denial if those emails were not authentic, but that apparently hasn’t happened either.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Is it a mistake to assume that the vast, vast majority of Techdirt readers would already know how to cut & paste (or even retype) the text of a quote into an internet search engine in order to verify that such a quote actually exists as well as see where it came from?

No, but I did that and couldn’t find the original emails. Only Breitbart and other similar sites purporting to have them but only listing select quotes. Nobody has published the full emails that I can find. Therefore, cite your sources or we have no reason to believe this is true.

Breitbart was the first to put those leaked emails in writing,

Well apparently not since I checked there and could only find quotes from the emails, not the full emails themselves.

Google has never denied their authenticity, including the time when Google CEO Sundar Pichai testified for several hours before the House Judiciary Committee last December, 3 months after those leaked emails were published

That still doesn’t make you right. That just means he didn’t know about them.

Department head Eliana Murillo, who wrote the leaked emails that were reprinted far and wide, would probably have a good case to file suit (or threaten to in order to have them redacted) or at the very least make a public denial if those emails were not authentic, but that apparently hasn’t happened either.

Some people have a thicker skin than you and are perfectly fine with ignoring people when they lie about them.

Regardless, NOTHING in any of those quotes from those supposed emails suggests that Google was trying to influence voters to vote for one or the other candidates. In fact, they provide evidence to the contrary. You still have not addressed this fact.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Trying to have it both ways

Make a vague law with significant punishments, and when a company decides not to risk it by blocking something the government wants it throws a tantrum about how unfair and unreasonable the company is for thinking of itself first, rather than the government.

I’d call their actions childish but I don’t want to insult actual children by lumping the french government in with them.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: I'd have banned all French Politicians from Twitter

“Displease you”
They passed a law with the rest of parliament that put a dick in the internet’s mouth lied and said that was not it and later bulshiddoed everyone and when that did not work they flat out said through action so what.

French politicians are looking out for French politicians. No regrets to be had about the tears they shed. They don’t care about anything else and that’s as far as it goes as far as anything else should be concerned.

Anonymous Coward says:

So we had a very temporary problem that was resolved once people complained. Hopefully any bugs in Article 13 will inspire similar solutions, just like our courts tend to define how the laws passed by our Congress should be applied in the real world.

It would seem that the law did its job here, though a slight bit late.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

So we had a very temporary problem that was resolved once people complained.

So because you managed to kill one mosquito, screw trying to prevent mosquitoes from entering your house; just let them infest the whole place since it’s so easy to kill them.

Seriously, if Article 13 and other existing systems like DMCA notices were actually enforced to the extent you knuckle draggers demand, HBO.com would have been nuked off the face of the planet via notice and staydown. By HBO’s own request.

Hopefully any bugs in Article 13 will inspire similar solutions

Based on how easy it is to punish companies for DMCA notice violations? Probably about as effective as a slug trying to chew its way to the center of the Earth.

just like our courts tend to define how the laws passed by our Congress should be applied in the real world

Right, about that… how did that Section 230-killing lawsuit come along, Herrick?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

I’m pretty sure that’s not what it means. Yes, it’s a pejorative used against a certain type of posturing, and that has its own connotations, but lots of not "white power" attitudes embrace the term.

Doubly so, since there would be no point to bringing it up in a discussion about a place as white as France.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...