Twitter’s rebrand is a chance to recommit to free speech, even about abortion

State Sen. Rachel Hunt (D) is running for lieutenant governor of North Carolina. Her opposition to the state’s recently passed 12-week abortion ban is central to her platform and her decision to run.

Hunt wants to explain her views to voters in a video campaign advertisement. However, because she intends to discuss abortion, Twitter, since rebranded as X, refuses to allow Hunt to use the site’s content promotion and advertising tools. 

The platform rejected Hunt’s advertisement in June, admitting that “the mention of abortion advocacy is the issue here.” Providing a glimmer of hope, a Twitter employee told Hunt’s campaign that the platform might have “some good news to share on that front” in the following weeks. 

It’s been almost two months now. If Elon Musk is genuinely committed to free speech, he should immediately change the policy prohibiting Hunt’s ad and repeal the political ad ban entirely.  

Former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey used an alleged misinformation crisis as the reason to stop running political ads in the run-up to the 2020 election. Crucially, the policy banned both political candidates and issue groups from effectively using the platform for fundraising and organizing.  

Dorsey tweeted, “While internet advertising is incredibly powerful and very effective for commercial advertisers, that power brings significant risks to politics, where it can be used to influence votes to affect the lives of millions.”  

In defending the ban, Dorsey said the reach of political messages “should be earned, not bought.”

But this approach of course favors entrenched power. Incumbent politicians and legacy media can spread their political messages from Maryland to Maui, but small groups and political challengers don’t have the name recognition or institutional reach to compete. Social media ads provide a cost-efficient opportunity to persuade voters.

As others have pointed out, the ban isn’t as apolitical as it seems. It often gives an unfair advantage to corporate voices. Last summer, Issie Lapowsky and Hirsh Chitkara wrote that “under Twitter’s rules, ExxonMobil can advertise about the wonders of natural gas, but a climate PAC like 314 Action can’t buy an ad pushing back.”

In January of this year, company executives finally came to their senses when they said they would relax the cause-based ad ban. These ads, they reasoned, “facilitate public conversation around important topics.” The platform also announced its “plan to expand the political advertising we permit.”  

Leaders were correct to reverse course. Platforms such as X are a key venue for civic discourse, and political ads are a critical part of the conversation, whether it’s about abortion, gun rights, or climate change. A platform that values free speech shouldn’t muzzle democracy in action. And it shouldn’t prevent a political candidate from advertising her advocacy related to abortion, one of the most critical topics to voters. 

Last month marked the anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade’s precedent of a constitutional right to abortion. The ruling is still fresh in the minds of people on all sides of the debate.  

According to an AdImpact analysis, abortion became the second-most discussed issue in 2022 political ads. Political ads mentioning abortion increased by 500 percent from 2020. Democratic abortion ad airings significantly increased following the Dobbs decision, as 91 percent of their 864,000 abortion airings occurred after June. Abortion became the most-aired issue by Democratic advertisers and ranked 14th for Republican advertisers in 2022. 

What’s more, political ad bans don’t even stop false information from spreading. But they do prevent a culture of free expression from flourishing.  

Since his acquisition of the company, Elon Musk has indicated he wants to move X in a pro-free-speech direction. There’s a lot he can do. Lifting the political ad ban would be an excellent way for Musk and new CEO Linda Yaccarino to show their support for robust free speech protections for everyone. It would also prove that they won’t do favors to the incumbent politicians who fear new voices challenging the status quo.  

If executives aren’t persuaded by free speech or competitive politics arguments, they should nonetheless drop the ban for financial reasons. The New York Times reported that the company’s ad sales recently dropped by 59 percent. Allowing Americans to promote their political messages could help make up some of this deficit. It also happens to be the right thing to do. 

Tiffany Donnelly is deputy director of communications at the Institute for Free Speech.