The latest technology and digital news on the web

— CNBC International (@CNBCi) November 7, 2019

ve political ads based on lies, Cheep took the aberrant step of banishing political ads altogether able November 22, abutting the ranks of Pinterest and ByteDance-owned TikTok to prohibit ads around political campaigning.

“This isn’t about free expression,” CEO Jack Dorsey tweeted. “This is about paying for reach. And paying to access the reach of political speech has cogent ramifications that today’s autonomous basement may not be able to handle.”

While this move has no doubt put burden on other ad-supported internet casework to follow with agnate moves, the development also raises questions about arbitrating political speech: who gets to decide what counts as a political ad?

Twitter‘s policy and legal lead, Vijaya Gadde, offered a alive definition: “Ads that apostle for or adjoin aldermanic issues of civic accent (such as: altitude change, healthcare, immigration, civic security, taxes).”

This hasn’t able Jourova’s notice either, who warned of coming up with rules that could enable censorship on these services.

“I am alone very afraid to come up with rules which will somehow define what is the truth, who will be the adjudicator of truth, how should we sanction lying,” Jourova was quoted as saying, adding, “I don’t want to create some kind of Orwell’s world.”

It’s too early to say if Twitter‘s access to political ads is the right way to go about it. It’s too acute a policy and a acceptable way to acquit itself of any responsibility. But then again, so is Facebook‘s accommodation to exempt political ads from its normal fact-checking processes.

What’s appropriate is a middle-ground and a charge to accuracy that showcases what ads are accustomed and those that are alone for being “political.”

Read next: Silk Road drug dealer apple-pie $19M in profits with Bitcoin

Hottest related news