that falls under free speech. >> or earned speech as jack dorsey put it. >> or earned speech. now is where we get into the other tricky situation f. we're going to tell social media networks, fast becoming the most powerful microphones in the world that they shouldn't engage in political advertising then the only campaigns that are going to get access to any political advertising are major ad spends more expensive. >> do you buy that argument? that is facebook's argument here. this isn't going to hurt president trump. it will hurt smaller, lesser candidates that don't have the mega funding that he does. do you buy that? >> there's a corollary with facebook's fight that oftentimes by trying to penalize people or put limits on what they do you end up benefiting the entrenched powers. that may be a conversation for another day. >> regulatory capture is a real thing. it's what helped all the mega banks after the financial crisis and killed the community banks. >> absolutely. for me the bigger question is for the last three years since the 2016 campaign we've talked about how we do

dorsey saying he doesn't need them >> that's right. twitter ceo jake dorsey and facebook ceo mark zuckerberg facing off just as facebook reed better than expected earnings, dorsey tweeted he stopping all political ads taking a dig at mark zuckerberg's defense that it's key for free speech >> the today's democratic infrastructure may not be prepared to handle in facebook's earnings call mark zuckerberg defended his position saying it's not a financial decision >> we estimate the ads will be less than 0.5% of our revenue next year. that's in the why we're doing this to put this in perspective, these same critics said it wouldn't be enough to change our incentives the reality is that we believe deeply that political fee speech is important and that's what's driving this back over to you >> thank you let's talk more about this social media showdown brewing between mark zuckerberg and jack dorsey it's great to see you. stephanie, i'll start with you regulartorially speaking who has this one right we know there are rules. broadcast has to ta

it will have repercussions and dorsey was the first to admit there will be some cons. i think for the most part, a lot is left to as far as what the effects will be. forjack dorsey, though, the boss of twitter, they can make these decisions stop me they don't make a lot of revenue from political advertising, in the same way that facebook might in the future? ——. that's the funny thing about it stop it twitter made less than $3 million on political ads. it's not a huge loss for them in terms of bottom—line —— about it. loss for them in terms of bottom-line -- about it. mark zuckerberg recently was grilled about facebook‘s role in the run—up to elections and was an rains to say we will allow political ads because we will allow political ads because we wa nt we will allow political ads because we want to protect freedom of speech. it's almost like these two big names in tech are going head to head. yes. facebook has been mired ina lot head. yes. facebook has been mired in a lot of controversy lately. zuckerberg gave a speech before georgetown university earl

with ceo twitter jack dorsey saying no more political ads on his site. starting very soon. >>> in an unexpected announcement twitter ceo jack dorsey at suite threat about social platform will no longer be running political ads. saying in part we believe political message should be earned not bought. spent seeing twitter take the lead especially right now really does two important things. it defines democracy in a nonpartisan way by saying they are not going to take the money for these types of political ad.>> reporter: henderson believes it is related to the facebook founder took on capitol hill last week. on the topic of paid political ads. >>> you plan on doing no fact checking on political ads.>> chairwoman our policy is that we do not factcheck politicians speech. the reason for that is that we believe in a democracy it is important that people can see for themselves what politicians are saying. pope >> reporter: zuckerberg fired back saying the reality is we believe deeply that political speech is important and should be heard. that is what is drivi

i much prefer the point of view of zuckerberg and twitter -- then dorsey. his point was why don't we show the political ads? it does not really matter in terms of the revenue number to facebook. 0.5% of their number. let's show the ads and have complete transparency. there are some ads probably in poor taste. absolutely. they are called attack ads. they have been around for decades. let's make it really clear who is spending the money on those ads and if senator warren or president trump or somebody who supports those sides or candidate biden -- let's find going out and getting bad, unfair ads. in the past, at the end of the tv ad, you would hear "sponsored by" or "paid for by." make it obvious it is a political ad and here it is so we can fact check it ourselves. theor: they had beat on operating income, margins, and bottom line. are you worried they're not spending enough to clean up the platform? >> i think that is such a great question. most people would go the other way and think it is great they are not spending enough. they are still expending aggres

maria: where is jack dorsey on capitol hill? has jack dorsey testified? mark zuckerberg has gone to capitol hill. he's trying to sit with lawmakers, trying to sit with the president. you haven't seen jack dorsey on capitol hill. i'm sure they're calling him. >> he has been on capitol hill. it hasn't been as recent as zuckerberg. yeah, they're both there. they're both trying to defend the hot seats they find themselves in for this very issue that you and i are talking about. dagen: number one, twitter is a mosquito and facebook is a rhinoceros. it's just -- in terms of the scale and the size of. there's clearly some jealousy there, number one. maria: that's a good point. >> like a bulldozer is more like it. dagen: jack dorsey ought to get on the same page as mark zuckerberg and i'm not saying they should collude with one another. nevertheless -- because congress could turn against both of these companies and basically eliminate that liability waiver that they have under the communications decency act where they can't be sued for user posts. again, they're

twitter ceo jack dorsey announcing that his company will no longer take political ads. a shot across the bow at fellow bay area social network facebook and the ceo mark zuckerberg. >> i believe that -- that it is important for people to be able to hear and see what politicians are saying. the speech will be heavily scrutinized by journalists and other people. >> what does it mean for twitter users? >> i think jack dorsey realizeds it's easier to ban it than fact check. >> social media professor matt cab on the says with more political troefrps loom on whatever network you use it's more important than ever to be skeptical. >> i think there has to be a buyer beware thing. be slow to believe, thoughtful about it, check multiple sources. find sources that have an editorial process. >> we can also tell that you twitter's ad ban will take place starting november 22nd. by the way, during the facebook conference call, zuckerberg said that political adz count for less than 1 o of one% of the fv ref snu. >> home security cameras cau thieves red handed but now milpitas police need

plus, twitter ceo jack dorsey is doing what she -- what mark zuckerberg would not. twitter is banning political ads of all types. we have details. google's former head of design ethics talks to bloomberg from the event in new york. his thoughts on to knology, apple has beati across the board, topping estimates from both last quarter and next quarter. this is a significant accomplishment for apple despite some sputtering iphone sales. to break down the report, i am joined by our analysts. let me start with lee. broad-based beat, what is your take away with this? thatit is not a surprise the stock had performed pretty well coming into the report. especially on the services side of of this was a pretty large beat. that and the gross services number was pretty unexpected. that and the guidance for the holiday quarter was pretty good. look at the expected revenue numbers, the midpoint for the holiday quarter is about $5 million below the all-time high, which was last year. in terms of apple's business, they will be a smaller business. the financialization has led to high

jack dorsey shutting down political ads on twitter why and how that puts him at odds with facebook's mark zuckerberg that's coming up next. medicare is great, but it doesn't cover everything - only about 80% of your part b medicare costs, which means you may have to pay for the rest. that's where medicare supplement insurance comes in: to help pay for some of what medicare doesn't. learn how an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by united healthcare insurance company might be the right choice for you. a free decision guide is a great place to start. call today to request yours. so what makes an aarp medicare supplement plan unique? well, these are the only medicare supplement plans endorsed by aarp and that's because they meet aarp's high standards of quality and service. you're also getting the great features that any medicare supplement plan provides. for example, with any medicare supplement plan you may choose any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. you can even visit a specialist. with this type of plan, there are no networks or referrals needed. als

dorsey for doing something dorsey feels that company is stupid. enter charlie gasparino. >> from a business standpoint it is pretty smart. it is free publicity. on the side of the angels, jack dorsey is. it doesn't cost them much money. that is not a big part of the revenue stream. neil: facebook says that as well. >> it's a bigger company. gazillions on their side. the number he, gave you the number. i will say this, we've been talking to facebook shareholders, major players that own the stock, trying to gauge their position on this, here's what they're saying, and they have good sources inside the company. they are saying that zuckerberg is facing a large degree of employee pressure to do something on these political ads. what does that mean? neil: that unusual to put it mildly. >> employees do have a say in the company. they do walkouts. you see what they do in silicon valley. woke or walk they call them woke or walk? get the terms right. neil: woke. >> they boycott, put pressure on management. they're facing pressure. what shareholders are tel

the timing of this was pretty canny on jack dorsey's part. . he announced it on twitter an hour before facebook earnings dropped, so it was quite a neat way of sticking the knife into facebook a little bit, trying to own the conversation at a time when facebook had some very good earnings numbers to announce. it is an easy decision for twitter to make. they have very little revenue, i think about $3 million, from political ads. they are trying to be seen as being more of a responsible citizen, given that they are such a huge mouthpiece for, not others,nald trump and to speak directly to their base. but twitter makes money off of the fact that people are engaging in its platform to read those posts, to see them, and it is pushing ads in those peoples directions, so it is slightly hypocritical because ultimately, they are still looking money from what could be damaging political content. guy: we talked to sheryl sandberg last night. let's take a listen. yl: we are not doing this because of revenue. it is less than 1% of our thenue, and it is not

>> political speech is probably the most scrutinized speech of all in the world. >> reporter: dorsey hitting back, without naming zuckerberg, tweeting this isn't about free expression. paying to increase the reach of political speech has significant ramifications that today's democratic infrastructure may not be prepared to handle. some on capitol hill agreed, taking aim at facebook's policy during a hearing with zuckerberg last week. >> do you see a potential problem here with a complete lack of fact checking on political advertisements? >> well, congresswoman, i think lying is bad. and i think if you were to run an ad that had a lie, that would be bad. >> so you will take down lies or you won't take down lies? it's a pretty simple yes or no. >> reporter: president trump's 2020 campaign saying putting a ban on political ads a dumb idea and another shot at conservatives. >> to either accept the responsibility tore truth or question whether they should be in the business at all. >>> new at 11:00 for you, china officially starting commercialization of the 5g services today. the country

we are hearing on the call from mark zuckerberg, he is taking on a jack dorsey -- taking on jack dorsey of twitter. he says he is opening up the cause. he wants to talk about principles. while it does not impact his business, all of this controversy is creating a lot of these headline risks so to speak. even the political ads still make up a big portion of facebook's business, i wonder how much of these headlines are really starting to distract the debbie: that is one of the things i was feeling very .trongly about this is taking a lot of attention away from running the core business. timeis taking a lot of share away from the major executives to defend their practices. even though it doesn't account for a lot of facebook's ad revenue, it is accounting for a lot of mind share across the company. that is concerning to me. taylor: before we dig into the network, your take on political ads and outside influences on the company, lee? especially from the regulator standpoint. kurt: political ads were 8.9% of the revenue. political ads were 8.9% of the revenue. i think it would make sense for

it's not what jack dorsey is necessarily right or mark zuckerberg is necessarily right, it's a nuanced and important conversation. the question is, and we come back to this every time i'm on your show, at a certain point we have to turn to washington and regulators to say what are we going to do here? >> self-regulation is not necessarily the answer. always good to see you. dylan byers. we'll continue with special coverage after this. you are watching msnbc. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. i wish i could shake your hand. granted. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

. >> reporter: dorsey and zuckerberg facing off. dorsey said he is stopping owl political ads. he started with a dig at political advertising, and defense it is key to free speech he said this isn't about free expression, it is paying for reach and paying to increase reach of political speech has significant ramifications that today's democratic infrastructure may not be prepared to handle it's worth stepping back in order to address and zuckerberg saying it is not a political decision, they'll be less than 1% of the company's revenue, saying it is commitment to free speech >> so over the next year of campaigns we're going to be at the center of the debate, anytime there's consent or policies on any of our services that people believe could advantage or disadvantage their side this may lead to more investigations and the candidates are going to criticize us i expect this is going to be a very tough year. we try to do what we think is right but we're not going to get everything right >> facebook shares are trading up about 2.25% on earnings that beat expectations on every metric

if jack dorsey can pick a fight with mark zuckerberg, jack dorsey wins because he is the minnow compared to the whale in this fight, twitter versus facebook. neither company by the way has much to lose or gain from the actual political ads. so dorsey is not giving up ton in the same way mark zuckerberg is not gaining much so they're each taking what look like principled stands but pretty easy to knock holes in those principles. i'm happy to do so. connell: big deal for facebook, that's why they're doing it. what if facebook gave them up? doesn't seem, what if if they did, wouldn't be a huge deal? >> i think anything the companies do is a slippery slope. for example, twitter, dorsey is saying we won't take political ads. but they're specifically allowing politicians, sanctioned politicians to say whatever they like. we'll not do anything about that. well they can run ads against all normal twitter traffic. so no one is pure as the driven snow here. connell: no, i guess not. that argument on the merits you think is just flawed? the idea that on social media you have to earn your attention,

dorsey tweeted out about eight more explanations. he finally ended with this, a final note, this is not about free expression. this is about paying for reach. and paying to increase the reach of political speech has significant ramifications that today's democratic infrastructure may not be prepared to handle. it is worth stepping back in order to address it, end quote. so steve, what do you think of this? >> well, i like jack dorsey, but i think, david, this is absolutely gobbley-gook it is about the suppression of free speech, in the sense how do you get your message out there? you advertise. in the old days you had brochures. you've got to get your message out there. this is one way to do it. is this the prelude to dropping president trump from twitter? >> steve, they can't afford to do that. that would be their biggest money maker in a while. i think this is good gobblel gobblely- -- they were having fake robot accounts following to get people to think they were more popular. twitter is doing a good job cleaning up the platform l

twitter ceo jack dorsey often maligned for his policies on hate speech harassment and neo- nazis made a surprise move and banned political advertisements on the social platform. we believe political message should be earned and not bought. the announcement comes days after facebook founder mark zuckerberg found himself facing tough questions about paid political ads on capitol hill. >>> facebook does not factcheck. what we do is we have feedback the people in our community don't want to see viral hoaxes or. >>> you do know fact checking on any ads is that correct? >> reporter: today zuckerberg fired back saying the reality is that we believe deeply that political speech is important and should be able to be heard. that is what is driving us. political analyst paul henderson said this move is twitter regulating itself. before the government does. >>> it takes twitter outside of the growing conversation demanding higher accountability and social media platforms. so we have pure speech. pure ideas. impure conversations about politics and voting that isn't influenced by money and politica

let's look at this story about jack dorsey's decision. you already touched on it, twitter saying we won't have any political advertising on our platform from tomorrow, thursday of november, ahead of the uk election but also significantly the us election next year. what do you think it will make is a difference? lots of viewers have said it won't make much difference because there's so much political bias on twitter anyway. i would like to look at it from a business perspective, forget the emotional side and also the decency side, which is incredibly important, and bringing influence to bear. twitter had bad figures the week before last, and the share price drop 16%. they need advertising. and for want of a better... i salute jack dorsey being holier than thou, it's going to affect his bottom—line because trust me, all the others... but it might not much because their political ad revenue in the past hasn't been that great, unlike facebook and others. you have some in the united states, for example, those running trump's campaign, saying

on twitter, ceo jack dorsey said that political message which should be armed and not bought. he said this is because it can be used to influence votes and affect the lives of millions. some regard this move asa of millions. some regard this move as a swipe at facebook, which recently ruled out a ban on political advertising. it is not to impact twitter massively. as we have seen, the amount of money spent on advertising on twitter is tiny, but this is a symbolic gesture because we are all now focusing on the influence and power of paid advertising on social media. facebook founder mark zuckerberg said he did not think it was right for private companies to censor politicians or the news. mps, including former home secretary amber rudd, and liver‘s david lammy, have welcomed the ban. but donald trump us election campaign team so it is yet another attempt by the left to silence the president. sam jeffers is the co—founder of the who targets me campaign, which monitors the use of political adverts on social media. he told my colleague annita twitter has a mixture of motivatio

jack dorsey said that political ads quote force highly optimized and targeted political messages on people. this he said significant risk to politics where it can be used to influence votes to affect the lives of millions. are joining me now to talk about this is my colleague ollie also girths good to see all that it sounds like that dorsey is saying basically that social media has become a platform where political misinformation can be spread easily is that what this is about yeah i mean we all remember the example from 2016 the u.s. presidential election which really showed that targeted political ads on social media can spread misinformation and can sway votes i mean anyone can buy an ad which targets if it's this if a demographic or location or an interest and there are thousands of these dot up points that you can single out and this is really how of course this could have a targeting online defense from traditional political advertising the social media companies know everything about as they know what we love what we hate what we fear and when you when you take that knowledge and us

today we want to know where you stand on mark zuckerberg versus jack dorsey? do you think political ads should be banned from platforms such as facebook and twitter? let us know — just use the hashtag #bbcworklife. good to have you with us. we begin with the rejection by facebook founder mark zuckerberg of calls to follow twitter and introduce a worldwide ban on paid for political advertising. he said it wasn't right for private companies to "censor politicians or the news". the move came as the social media giant delivered its latest results. facebook made revenues of more than $17.5 billion betweenjuly and september — up 28% on the same period last year. $6 billion of that was profit. the company says more than 2.8 billion people use at least one of its services — facebook, instagram, whatsapp, or messenger — every month. well over 2 billion use one every day. those figures are just extraordinary. with us now is raoul lumb, a solicitor expert in technology at legalfirm simons muirhead & burton. over1.5 over 1.5 billion people logging on to facebook e

i think for, you know, it's fine for jack dorsey to say this now. how they will implement it and it might cut into their bottom lined when you, expand this beyond politicians. >> the trump campaign said this is a way for jack dorsey and twitter to silence conservative voices. is that true? >> i mean, donald trump is the biggest and most prominent user of twitter. twitter has rules for world leaders, where they are allowed to break their -- break policy on the platform and say things that regular users can't and still stay on the platform. also, the trump campaign, compared to what they're spending on facebook, has been spending little on twitter. >> all right. donie o'sullivan, thank you, my friend. >> there is no problem. >> quite the megaphone there. >>> coming up, teachers in chicago have a tentative deal to go back to work. so, why is the strike now entering day 11? >>> the pentagon releasing newly declassified video and images of the raid that killed abu bakr al baghdadi. the cent-com commander said that the raid was prestaged in syria, after p

twitter‘s ceo jack dorsey announced the ban, unsurprisingly, on twitter. in a thread of tweets he said: "a political message earns reach when people decide to follow an account or retweet. paying for reach removes that decision, forcing highly optimized and targeted political messages on people. we believe this decision should not be compromised by money." in an apparent veiled attack on facebook‘s decision, he tweeted: it‘s not credible for us to say: "we‘re working hard to stop people from gaming our systems to spread misleading info, buuut if someone pays us to target and force people to see their political ad, well they can say whatever they want!" and he addressed possible free—speech critics by saying: "this isn‘t about free expression. this is about paying for reach. and paying to increase the reach of political speech has significant ramifications that today‘s democratic infrastructure may not be prepared to handle. it‘s worth stepping back in order to address." the ban will be enforced from 22 november, with full details released by

dorsey attacking facebook in a series of tweets. this came about when twitter said it would in longer allow people to place political ads on its service. to be clear you can post about politics all you want. you can't buy political ads. this raises lots of questions, of course, about what a political ad is. donald trump for president, obvious ad. something that supports gun rights, is that a political ad? twit letter have to work this out. now on twitter dorsey attacks facebook for not doing the same thing. zuckerberg is rudderless on political ads on facebook, rules are changing every day. clearly referencing facebook dorsey says if not credible to say we're working hard to stop people from gaming our systems to spread misleading info, but if someone pays to us target and force people to see their political ad, they can say whatever they want. and added a winky face. mark spent more time talking about the political ad crisis than he did money. he said i expect this is going to be a very tough year. he is under attack from all sides

incumbent's rights or jack dorsey has already said this the trump campaign has said that it's dumb and then we've had mostly positive reactions from the democratic side so i'm curious break that down for us to how how will this affect campaigns leading up to the 2020 election well campaigns to spend money on these political ads he's paid political ads to influence people and oftentimes that the as if they pay for are meant to meant to cast their opponents in an unfavorable light so these are very very important very important tool for campaigns they want to define their opponents before the opponents have a chance to define themselves and they want to defy the poets in a negative way and so that's how people in campaigns use paid political advertising in this case. the drum kit pay would probably think this is obviously trying to slow them down slow down the people who would on their behalf pay for these ads and twitter and so that's why the trump campaign would like it but on the other hand it's not going to slow the president down from being able to get his message out on twitter to

jack dorsey taking a shot at facebook's ceo, mark zuckerberg, moments of before facebook released its latest earnings report. twitter now banning all political advertisements on its plaplatforel. platform. lauren: the fight on capitol hill, in just hours, the house will vote on an impeachment resolution. we're live in washington with what happens next. cheryl: 2020 hopeful elizabeth warren making a big admission on medicare for all, plus how her war with wall street may be smoke and mirrors. lauren: history made in houston, washington is the district of champions this morning after the nationals beat the astros in game seven. we're going live to houston for the world series series epic v. it is thursday, october 31st. happy halloween, everybody. "fbn: a.m." starts right now. ♪ ♪ we are the champions, my friends. ♪ and we'll keep on fighting till the end. ♪ we are th the champions. lauren: they are the champions, celebrating in the nation's capital this morning. welcome to the show, "fbn: a.m.." i'm lauren simonetti. cheryl: what a world series. we're going to tal talk about it

ceo jack dorsey shocking everybody saying from now on, twitter will not run political ads. saying, quote, political message reach should be earned, not bought more on this big story >> jack dorsey setting up a clash with facebook ceo that twitter will ban all political advertising. quote, paying to increase political speech that today's infrastructure may not be prepared to handle zuckerberg fired back defending his decision to allow political ads on the basis of free speech. >> we estimate that these ads will be less than 0.5% of our revenue. that's not why we are doing this to put this in perspective, the fine that these critics wouldn't be enough was more than 10 x bigger than this we believe deeply that political speech is important and that's what is driving us >> lawmakers critical of facebook's position praised twitter's policy which will go into effect november 22. trump's campaign responded blasting twitter saying, this is yet another attempt to silence conservatives. twitter shares did trade lower but ultimately this decision seeming to be less about ad revenues m

jack dorsey saying the company is banning political ads from its platform in a series of tweets, dorsey said he thinks the reach of political messages should be earned, not bought he wrote that paying to have a message amplified ends up forcing it on twitter users as opposed to the message earning a wider reach through account follows and retweets dorsey making those comments as facebook was making his third quarter results about an hour before the q3 conference call. facebook has received criticism, of course, in the past several weeks for its policy to neither fact check nor remove political ads placed by politicians. c.e.o. mark zuckerberg addressing the situation when he spoke with analysts yesterday. >> although i considered whether we should not carry these ads in the past, and i'll continue to do so. on balance so far, i've thought that we should continue. we estimate that these ads from politicians will be less than 0.5% of our revenue next year. that's not why we're doing this. to put this in perspective, the ftc finds that these same critics said wouldn't be enough to change o

jack dorsey, appropriate enough goes on a bit of a twitter rant to make news. deirdre bolton in the newsroom. that was interesting timing. no more political ads. >> here is what jack dorsey tweeted out, ceo of twitter, essentially saying long store short, they are not going to accept, pull the tweet up on the screen, to follow along as well, no longer accepting political ads. we made the decision to stop all political advertising on twitter globally. we believe political messages should be earned, not bought. why? he goes into a few reasons you see on subsequent tweet. this really does stand out to your point, connell, especially for what we reported yesterday from facebook with this open letter to facebook from 250 employees. of course we'll keep in mind that facebook has about 35,000 employees. that said, they did make their voices heard saying that listen, we screen and third party check ads from brands. thinking for example, proctor & gamble, from individuals, why not political figures? facebook did respond saying, okay we understand the point. we welcome f

the time is 20 minutes until the top of the hour and political -- jack dorsey breaking from facebook and google to been political ads from his platform. was it the right move? democrats and donald trump are divided. imagine that. abca15 breaks down all sides. ♪ ain't no mountain high enough ♪ >> a judicial nominee brought to tears over a letter claiming he cannot be impartial. lawrence van dyck was picked for the ninth circuit court of appeal and currently a deputy assistant ag for the doj. the bar association called him, quote, not qualified because he won't be fair to the lgbt community, he broke down when senators asked him about that letter. watch. >> i did not say that. i apologize. >> van dyck eventually went on to say everyone should be treated with dignity and respect. megan mccain accusing cory booker of dodging her questions on gun-control. watch this. >> this is a really important issue. what we say about other people says more about us -- >> what about the gun buyback? gun buyback's? >> which is related to gun buybacks. >> just tell me how you will get my brother's gu

jillian: an interesting move by jack dorsey, getting reviews from donald trump in his contenders. pressure is mounting for facebook. >> it is not about freedom of speech but paying for reach. the political message earned, and account for retweet. they removed the decision, targeted political messages or not. donald trump's campaign calling this a dumb decision asking will twitter be stopping ads for biased liberal media outlets that run unchecked as they by obvious political content to attack republicans. this is an attempt to silence conservatives. 2020 opponents, putting on a statement for the move, saying we appreciate twitter recognizes they should not permit smears like those from the trump campaign to appear in advertisements on the platform. dorsey seems to associate at mark zuckerberg who last week was on capitol hill where he was defending his decision to allow political ads, even one that makes false claims. zuckerberg saying i don't think it is right for private companies to censor politicians or the news. instead the better approach is to work to increase transparency.

this is what jack dorsey challenged today and his tweet. he said it is not credible for us to say, we are working hard to stop people from gaming our systems to spread misleading information, but if some one pays us to target and force people to see their political ads, they can say whatever they want. obviously a swipe at facebook. brent: there is an argument there. you can tell lies and untruth as long as you pay for the right to do that. all eyes are on facebook to see >> the pressure is growing, not just from competitors, from inside facebook as well. 250 facebook employees wrote a letter to mark zuckerberg, saying they objected to this policy. there is political pressure from the democrats, particularly in the u.s., including elizabeth warren, who is one of the democratic contenders. she recently challenged facebook policy by rurunning an ad, falsy claiming that facebook ceo mark zuckerberg had endorsesed donald trump for reelection. facebook did not take that down. that was a test to see how the system works. it's too early to tell wh

this is a change for jack dorsey of twitter. why make the change now? wa>> a lot of ways jac reacting to pressure provided by a different company facebook. a lot of controversy ov facebook's policy of not pulling down misleading posts politicians pulled up. jack was saying we're taking a different ad than mark zuckerberg and facebook decided to go down. >> schifri dorsey made this announcement before an earnings call for facebookand zuckerberg was asked about it on the call and said in a democracy i don't thk it's right for private companies to censor private policy or the news. do they feel pressure because of what twitter has done? >> they don't. there's a great deal more attention on them, they are aware they say wede the decision, our problem is we haven't articulated it as wll but we'll stick to it. >> schifrin: their decision is what? >> that if politicians put up posts that are misleading they will count on voters to look at the ads and say that's not true, allow the public to make the decisions about truthfulness and not do the fact checking on

laura: on another topic, the ceo of twitter, jack dorsey, has is going to ban politicalinr advertfrom global platforms. is that going to put pressure oe ok to do the same? reid: i think it will. facebook has been at the center of the storm of whether or not they are capable of banning advertising that includes false information. senator elizabeth warren made a big point of putting a false advertisement on facebook to eghlight the fact that th are no guard rails here. that is a worrying concern forid caes across the spectrum at a time when we know that russia and other actors are going to try to influence elections laura: does it show that political pressure of the hearings in washington is beginning to take effect on the social-media companies? reid: it certainly is, and this is a glimpse into the y between jackorsey, the ceo of the ceo of facebook, who are, rivals at best, if you will. this is sort of designed, it seems, to put pressure on facebook. jack dorsey made veiled references to facebook, and i won't hesitate to note that today is facebook's shareholder phone call. we will se

ceo jack dorsey arguing it isn't about free expression and in an apparent shot of facebook he blasts other platforms were not doing the same. the trump campaign calling out twitter saying, twitter bands political ads and yet another attempt by the left is to silence trump and conservatives. i wouldn't be surprised twitter lifted the ban after 2020. okay. let's take around the table. we were talking about halloween candy during the break and, i got off track. >> you are trying to bring up some kind of concern for the story. that's the standpoint of, do you think it's good for public debate, or to have a debate about freedom of expression? because basically you have two of the biggest tech companies taking very different opinions on this. >> i think it's excellent. i think it's interesting that jack dorsey has taken such an i am the anti-facebook stance and i am the antidote, we do it so much better here and there are lots of fundamental flaws with his reasoning. for example the fact that they have now banned issue ads also and that will likely -- >> how do you decide to. >> watch your

jack dorsey from twitter and facebook founder mark zuckerberg. twitter said it would no longer allow people to place political ads on its service. to be clear can you post about politics all you want. but candidates and political action committees cannot buy ads. this raises lots of questions, of course, about what a political ad is. donald trump for president an ad. we'll find out where this turns into a fight is when jack dorsey attacked for not doing the right thing. he is rudderless when it comes to policy on political ads telling congress one thing and candidates another. jack dorsey went for the jugular in a long string of tweets explaining the new policy and attacking zuckerberg if not by name. it is not credible for us to say we're working hard to stop people from gaming our systems to spread misleading info, but if someone pays us to target and force people to see their political ads, well, they can say twhafr they want. and adibi winky face. the reason i am making a big deal out of this today and will in the future is it is a big deal.

jack dorsey said that political ads force targeted political messages on to people and because of social media's vast reach political ads can then be used to spread lies and misinformation twitter saying it will not be part of a situation in which politicians have the right to lie to the public simply because they pay for the advertising. i'm joined now by a man who is not shy about sharing his opinions about the news media and social media jeff jarvis is a journalism professor and author of several books including what would google do he joins me tonight from new york good to see you again you posted earlier today your thoughts about twitter banning political ads and you wrote that you're not going to please anyone with what you think why is that. well you just the popular opinion these days which we see on twitter itself that people should these services should ban political ads because there are some bad apples out there i think that's a mistake i think the intent that jack dorsey has is very good i think he's very thoughtful about this is trying to figure it out but i think that in a

jack dorsey has now come out against and he talents as he challenged up in his announcements he said that it's not credible for them to say we're working hard to stop people from gaming our systems to spread misleading info by someone pays us to targets and force people to see their political ad well then we can say whatever they want so this is obviously a swipe at facebook how he's. trolling marc sucker bergeson here right there so all eyes now on facebook yeah. there are a lot of pressure but not just from competitors also from their own employees recently joined 50 facebook employees signed a letter to monks like a bug saying free speech and paid speech and not the same thing misinformation affects us or our current policies on fact checking people in political office or those running for political office are threats to watch facebook stands for we strongly object to this policy as it stands and of course one of those politicians running for office is elizabeth warren she is one of the democratic. contenders for the presidency she recently challenge facebook facebook's policy by

jack dorsey looked to reassure investors. >> unfortunately we had some missteps in our map ads in july and august despite that, saw strong september results and good advertiser momentum. >> he stressed the commitment to clean up the platform and eliminate abuse. >> 2020 elections and integrity of the conversations around them is our first priority within how we think of health we are paying a lot of attention to all of the dynamics at play, specifically looking at misinformation and misleading information. >> analysts are starting to weigh in as we see stock selloff. mkm saying we view twitter's issues as internal, self inflicted, probably fixable over the near term, however, amplified impact on revenue due to a technical bug wonders whether one can have confident have a view on twitter's long term potential. >> moving the opposite direction, tesla, posting a surprise profit, sending shares surging. phil lebeau has more on that quarter from chicago phil >> morgan, this is what happens when you post a far better result than many were expecting. tesla earning 1.86 a share in third quarte

i think that's why dorsey made this decision. i think it's why it's a good decision. political ads don't bring in a lot of money, as we've seen from zuckerberg, they bring big headaches. this is way of stepping out and saying, you know what, i'm not going to get my company involved in this. >> mark, you headed up advertising for three presidential campaigns. you also went to jail in defense of free speech as a newspaper editor. is the best way to deal with the fake claims in political ads not to run them at all? >> no, it's not. i mean, here we have two alternatives. there's a third way which is to do which most broadcast stations and other responsible platforms do which is they take a look at the content. they determine whether or not it's factual. and it's not factual like when we did campaigns in the old days, they'd send it back to us and say, fix it. so there's got to be some responsibility and some accountability. mark zuckerberg saying we have no accountability. and then on the other hand, we have twitter saying we're not even going to play the game. and by the

wow, dorsey, big time philosopher. i wonder what that will cost investors. the trump campaign said twitter just walked away from 100's of millions of dollars. a dumb decision for their stockholders. will twitter stoppen biased liberal media outlets who will now run unchecked as they buy obvious political consent meant to attack republicans? facebook ceo mark zuckerberg said he considered banning political ads from facebook but ultimately decided not to do so. a political poll shows that more people disapprove of the dimms' handling of the so-called impeachment inquiry of president trump. while 48% disapprove of the dimms's method for impeachment, only 39% approve of the way they have been handling the inquiry. it's not exactly an endorsement of schumer and schiff. more bad news for the radical dimms. only 18% approved of how congress is handling its job overall. disapproval, 54%. joining us, former president reagan political director and fox news analyst, ed rollins. i don't know what it would take to wake up these folks. but those should be a good installme

is fighting with mark zuckerberg a couple weeks ago, a reporter asked twitter ceo jack dorsey, would you do the cryptocurrency the facebook syria guys have. >>now. >>they're talking smack each other yesterday right before facebook comes out with greater needs twitter on them and said we're going to take any political advertising globally period. facebook has said you it's not up to a big corporations censor free speech, even if it's lying free speech even though you and i can't go into a a movie theater and yell fire there's a fire we we can't promote that. so it's messy and it's both facebook and twitter only a little teeny tiny amount of money is in the political ads believe it or not about $3 million for political ad spend on twitter in the last midterm election. so it's not it's not make sacrifices and dorsey's new keen all political ads now as take talk is did facebook said it's not up to us but all think about it certainly zuckerberg's thinking about it ok minute i could post whatever we want we just can't post advertisements that are misleading and false something and like i c

dorsey, who actually went after mark zuckerberg. it was a little bit of a low blow, i think, to mark zuckerberg. here you go. there is always some amount of revisionist history in all of his story telling, talking about zuckerberg, takes away from the authenticity and genuineness of what we're trying to do. i mean, twitter's not doing that well. let's be clear here. >> i think you're right in that all these companies, twitter and facebook, have room to improve. i think some of the comments out of dorsey and frankly, some of the comments we have seen from other tech executives when they're exchanging barbs of course on twitter or in the headlines, that's just part of the, really the landscape and it speaks to the importance of really getting at the heart of these issues. but again, there is no silver bullet. cheryl: john and daniel, i have breaking news to get to. we were expecting this news. thank you very much. we want to head right back to chicago. grady trimble has breaking news on the uaw vote. what is it? reporter: we just lear

george dorsey and his wife,may, and robert and dorsey malcolm. >> urging african-americans to vote in the all-white primary of 1946. the ku klux klan and law enforcement agencies decided we're going to teach these black folks a lesson. >> reporter: roy was a local farmer and klansman. he drove both couples across the bridge. >> the klan had blocked the road. these klansmen were not hiding. they opened the doors and drug the women out. they said, we know mr. so and so. we have to kill all of them now. >> reporter: the couples were dragged outside, beaten, dragged into the woods and tied together by a tree. the ambush became a massacre. the mob opened fire, 60 shots, point-blank. and no one has been held accountable. georgia's governor at that time said 15 of 20 of the mob members were known by name. but the grand jury indicted no one. >> they sealed the grand jury files. >> reporter: why is that? >> they were elected officials. they were farmers. everybody knew their names. >> reporter: critics believe those names are hiding in grand jury transcripts. the department of justice argues a

content of the film and the songs the light style them features a number of just singers including galen dorsey who played bass in david bowie's band for more than 20 years so did matt berninger find it hard to share the spotlight. i think there was one text message they sent me hey do you think you sing enough on this record and then matt's response was i've heard enough from myself as i get regular here i'm not going to miss myself. it's the last weekend of munich's october fests and here in germany the huge drunken funk there divides people into those who love it and those who don't but around the world people have imported the idea of october fest and german style beer and they've made it their own even in places you might not expect like the palestinian west bank. this is how a palestinian october fest kicks off orthodox priests and scouts process to mark the festivals beginning almost $10000.00 visitors have come to the village of tiger from around the world. posting the event is the core family the founders of the tide a brewery considered the oldest microbrewery in the middle east there