Can We Support Free Speech and Curb Misinformation at the Same Time?

The CEO of Twitter, Jack Dorsey, announced on October 30 that Twitter would be banning all political advertising, including both candidate endorsements and messaging about political issues. Dorsey stated that the company will share its final policy by November 15 and will start enforcing the policy starting November 22. Dorsey explained through Twitter, “Internet political ads present entirely new challenges to civic discourse: machine learning-based optimization of messaging and micro-targeting, unchecked misleading information, and deep fakes.” Dorsey felt the need to entirely ban political advertisements instead of simply eliminating misinformation because he feels that the company “needs to focus [its] efforts on the root problems, without the additional burden and complexity taking money brings.”

Twitter’s recent ban has been highly controversial. While some argue that the policy is an attack on free speech that should be repudiated, others suggest that Facebook should follow Twitter’s lead in attempting to stamp out misinformation. Interestingly, the debate doesn’t break down neatly along partisan lines. While Democrats such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Elizabeth Warren have attacked Facebook for continuing to run false political ads, there are aspects of a ban on political ads that would harm Democratic causes as well.

Indeed, The Intercept, a left-leaning media company, published an article arguing that a Facebook ban on political ads would be a major blow to the left, citing Ocasio-Cortez’s social media-based campaign as evidence. The article points out that Ocasio-Cortez’s rise to office was fueled by a combination of on-the-ground organizing and targeted political ads on Facebook. Opponents of a ban on political ads purport that the ban would hinder grassroots political movements such as Ocasio-Cortez’s, favoring incumbent candidates whose office provides them ample opportunity for promotion.

According to The Intercept, the organization that backed Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign recruited volunteers, identified donors, built an email list, and created a support base all through targeted Facebook ads. Dorsey’s response to the use of Twitter for similar grassroots political movements echoed his statement in the Tweets announcing the ban: “We believe political message reach should be earned, not bought.” However, this philosophy gives incumbent candidates a nearly insurmountable advantage, since they already have a wide-reaching political platform.

In addition to acting as a tool for insurgent candidates like Ocasio-Cortez, targeted advertisements also support progressive causes such as climate change and Planned Parenthood. Twitter’s ban on political advertisements will include issue advertisements in addition to campaign advertisements. For example, Twitter will ban advertisements on climate change—but the resulting catch is that they will still be allowing big oil companies to, say, advertise their products. Could there be a better way to address the issue of misinformation in political ads? 

A compelling argument by the chair of the Federal Election Commission, Ellen Weintraub, provides a middle-ground solution: banning microtargeting of political ads rather than banning political ads writ-large. In a Washington Post op-ed, Weintraub argues that microtargeting, which is the “limiting of the scope of an ad’s distribution to precise people,” contributes to misinformation because of the limited accountability that results from targeted advertisements. 

In the 2016 election, microtargeting was used by both foreign and domestic actors to spread misinformation and help Trump get elected. Weintraub argues that the “counterspeech doctrine,” which posits that the proper response to negative speech is positive expression, is limited through microtargeting. In this case, the counterspeech doctrine means that misinformation would be countered by factual evidence, but this can only be done if the false political ads are visible to the general public and not a targeted few. Eliminating microtargeting’s use in political advertising, therefore, would enhance accountability and flush out disinformation. In her article, Weintraub provides Internet advertisers with the rule of thumb that they could only target groups “no more than one political level below the election”. For example, the most specific groups that ads for a city council election could target are council districts.

What makes Weintraub’s case so compelling is that it implicitly acknowledges both the benefits and costs of political advertisements. Weintraub’s rule of thumb does not ban targeting entirely, but does partly regulate it. Thus, insurgent candidates such as Ocasio-Cortez would still be able to use social media as a means of gaining a voter base. Weintraub’s argument similarly does not suggest banning political issue advertisements but does suggest that they be disseminated to an audience large enough for people to engage in discussion and debate. 

Although a ban on microtargeting would not stop misinformation entirely, it would greatly reduce it without losing the benefits of broader political targeting. Weintraub’s plan is therefore a savvy alternative to the extremes put forward by Facebook and Twitter, with the former refusing to police political advertisements at all and the latter banning political advertisements entirely. Spreading misinformation through microtargeting does not constitute free speech if the speech is not put forth to the general public to be debated and discussed. Microtargeting allows for false political ads to be distributed only to people who might be receptive to the message, disallowing any potential oppositional responses. Microtargeting only reinforces online echo chambers, which ultimately harm our democracy by stymying discourse. In order to combat misinformation in political advertisements without negating the benefits of targeted political advertisements, we should follow Ellen Weintraub’s advice and ban microtargeting in political campaigns as an effective middle ground.