Individuals exercising their first amendment rights do not have the same reach as a propaganda apparatus of a major nation state. It's ridiculous to say that one person has the same reach as a government propaganda machine.
I think there's room for debate on what draws the line between "propaganda subverting the election" and "leveraging our modern scary-effective digital marketing techniques to spread your electoral message." Does it only count as an attack on democracy if a foreign state or individual is doing it?
Both parties made use of shops like Correct the Record in the last election, what does it mean when in addition to the campaigns, wealthy and influential individuals can exert even more reach in the next election? Is it only propaganda if the message is factually false or misrepresented, or is it enough to have enough money to spend or leverage over the platform that you crowd out all alternate dialogue? Is there a definable ethical spectrum for subversive digital messaging? I think there's plenty of subversive messaging online already, that's advertising. Personally, I think creating fake Americans on twitter to influence the American election crossed whatever the line is. It fails the smell test, it stinks of deception.
it's not purely about reach. A foreign government acting to affect elections to destabilize and weaken a country is very different from greedy citizens attempting to enrich themselves with political subterfuge. At the very least, rich American corporatists want to ensure the continuity of American hegemony; it's the cornerstone of their empires. Russian government interference is about deteriorating American hegemony; a system from which Twitter is a beneficiary.
Not the sort of thing that a grassroots could easily manage; buying a few hundred ads was just a small part of the wider propaganda and sabotage.
Twitter has just been complete shit at figuring out what happened on their platform, anyways; half of their 'identifications' come from, "Facebook told us this account was a sockpuppet on their platform..."
Might RT simply have the goal of getting a foothold in American news reporting by serving an underserved market? If learning more about the drastic mishandling of the Flint Michigan water crisis stirs class conflict in America, are you telling me you think that is a bad thing? It's what is missing from our democracy!
It's like Voice of America. They can break real stories of corruption and dysfunction, but I'd like to see them investigated and picked up by a more impartial source before I'm going to give them much headroom.
Which is another reason why local journalism is so important and criminalizing/demonizing it for being unflattering is so heinous.
What, exactly is the underserved market here? Who exactly are they serving with propaganda?
What is the propaganda you are referring to? You seem to assume all of RT's content is propaganda but can't name or link to any stories that qualify. Lol.
One could argue their reach is more efficient than pulling out a million dollar 30 second ad aired to less people. Also consider the millions in marketing materials that RT don't need.
e.g. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-...
It's still a false equivalence inasmuch as a rich American is spending money in a way to maintain the status quo; rich Americans like the Koch Brothers benefit from American hegemony. They spend their money to enrich themselves, but they still want the US to remain in power.
A rival government, however, does not want the US to remain in power. As an American company, Twitter benefits from American hegemony, and will act to protect it.
That's the kind of stuff RT publishes most of the time! Read through the historical headlines. This is a very embarrassing and inappropriate move by Twitter, likely intended only to curry favor with American elected officials.