Two-time Democratic presidential loser Hillary Clinton is celebrating the decision by Twitter to not allow political ads of any kind on their website. This comes in the wake of Facebook receiving major pushback over their relatively lax fact-checking on advertisements run by politicians.
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey composed a multi-tweet threat regarding the latest decision, explaining that “political message reach should be earned, not bought.”
We’ve made the decision to stop all political advertising on Twitter globally. We believe political message reach should be earned, not bought. Why? A few reasons…?
— jack ??? (@jack) October 30, 2019
Hillary Clinton was more than happy to see the political reach of candidates squashed, as it is likely she still believes that Trump won the 2016 election as the result of Russian ad buys on Facebook.
This is the right thing to do for democracy in America and all over the world.
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) October 30, 2019
Prior to her celebratory tweet, she had posted another message bashing Facebook for allowing “false information in political advertisements.” Naturally, this boiling hot take received some backlash.
The reality is that political ads are usually arguably true and arguably false. So who gets to decide what’s true and what’s not becomes the key question. In this polarized atmosphere, whom would you trust to make the calls? https://t.co/QbCjpQXmKu
— Brit Hume (@brithume) October 30, 2019
I could have sworn you said false information was on the dark web.
— Kambree Kawahine Koa (@KamVTV) October 30, 2019
Google/YouTube conspicuously absent from Hillary Clinton’s attacks on big tech ? https://t.co/lONwWirLDX
— Peter J. Hasson (@peterjhasson) October 30, 2019
What I don’t understand is why is it okay for TV stations to run lying political attack ads back-to-back-to-back for over a decade and suddenly this interest in Zuckerberg. Bit of a double standard it seems.
— JUSTICE FOR ALL! (@MJ34Hig44) October 30, 2019
If you let something you see on Facebook determine who you vote for… you shouldn’t be voting.
— KeithTheTriple (@keiththetriple) October 30, 2019
Sort of like that dossier you paid for and put together? That kind of misleading information?
— Kevin McCullough (@KMCRadio) October 30, 2019
Oh please. If we’re going to disallow misinformation, then we’d have to throw out most of the rhetoric on race and gender.
— Oscar Emerson (@oscar_t_emerson) October 30, 2019
One particularly clever user suggested that the real reason behind the liberal celebration of this move is simple: Democrat presidential candidates don’t have the funds to run ads.
The swamp recently embarked on a new strategy for sowing confusion and distrust in 2020. They are pretending to attack their own asset Facebook for allowing “false information” which is really just anything pro-Trump because Democrats have no money this time around to buy ads! https://t.co/mmpxtXOrzI
— Joe M (@StormIsUponUs) October 30, 2019
It is unclear what an outright ban on political ads will mean to the 2020 presidential election, or if the impact will be felt by one party more than the other. What is known, though, is that Hillary Clinton still can’t get over the fact that she isn’t president, and she will blame that fact on everyone except herself.
- Scalice breaks out milk carton in old-school roast of VP Harris, who won’t visit border - April 14, 2021
- Rep. Cawthorn’s ‘Donument Act’ protects Trump border wall as national monument - April 14, 2021
- ‘MLK would be proud!’ High school student lauded for handling brow-beating race lecture from teacher - March 30, 2021