Banning political ads on Twitter does little other than slightly increase the already awful incentive structure for gaining enormous attention organically.
This is the only sensible part of the decision — getting rid of a small problem so Twitter execs can focus on a bigger problem. But... what's the quick and simple test to distinguish political from nonpolitical advertising?
Facebook has long had trouble with this. Try running an ad for an article related to a political subject and they'll consider a political ad. Such as this one, ironically: thenewatlantis.com/publications/g…
Anyway, this sounds like a 1997 understanding of 2019's problems. Paying for reach isn't what troubling online political speech.
The most direct explanation for Twitter banning political ads is probably that it subjects management to the most heat — not only from activists but its own employees — because leadership is seen as especially culpable from profiting from toxic speech.
Certainly if you look closely at the mercurial progression of Google's stances on political ads, they become clear as ad hoc responses to particular controversies, many instigated by outside activists but fomented internally by staff.
