📣 Should social media platforms ban political ads?

👋 Welcome to the first issue of The Great Debate, where every week we throw today’s spiciest questions into the ring to punch with arguments. One question. Two sides. You decide.

Should social media platforms ban political ads?

Political ads on social media have been one of the most hotly contested features of the digital age. Supporters see them as a democratic equalizer, giving new movements and underfunded candidates a cheap megaphone. Critics warn they turbo-charge misinformation, microtargeting, and manipulation at a scale democracy has never faced before.

Now the European Union has stepped in. Under its new Transparency and Targeting of Political Advertising (TTPA) regulation, platforms must disclose who paid for every political ad, how much was spent, and who was targeted. Rather than navigate the compliance minefield, both Meta and Google have announced they will suspend political ads in the EU starting in October 2025 — effectively pulling the plug on one of the most powerful political tools of the last decade.

That decision raises a stark question: is this a victory for democracy or a dangerous curb on political speech? Let’s hear the best case for both sides.

Political ads on social media are precision-guided persuasion weapons. Powered by microtargeting and surveillance capitalism, they let campaigns whisper different promises to different voters, with no accountability.

As Cambridge Analytica whistleblower Christopher Wylie exposed, Facebook enabled the improper harvesting of over 50 million profiles in 2016, fueling deception and division¹. Jamal Watkins of the NAACP went further, calling it “modern-day voter suppression” after Trump’s campaign used tailored ads to deter 3.5 million Black voters² in swing states.

Human-rights lawyer Susie Alegre argues this goes beyond dirty politics: it violates the freedom of thought itself through manipulating internal thoughts. And the public agrees: a 2025 study by Kozyreva et al. found majorities in the US, UK, and Germany reject personalized political ads outright, seeing them as manipulative and misleading³. Academics like Eric Goldman and Irina Raicu stress the obvious: platforms can’t reliably fact-check lies or track who’s being targeted.

The EU’s new TTPA regulation recognizes this danger. Rather than risk compliance chaos, Meta and Google are suspending political ads altogether. Good. As scholars Crain and Nadler note in their book⁴, bans cut off pipelines for foreign meddling and emotional exploitation. Democracy isn’t for sale — and banning political ads keeps it that way.

Blanket bans on political ads don’t protect democracy, they muzzle it. They silence challengers and grassroots movements, as Duke University’s 2021 report notes⁵, while handing the microphone back to incumbents with TV or billboard budgets and lobbyist armies.

Niam Yaraghi of Brookings Institution warns⁶ that even defining “political” is a mess: is healthcare an issue ad or a campaign ad? What about education? Bans risk sweeping in legitimate advocacy and choking real debate.

History proves why digital reach matters. Obama’s 2008 campaign used microtargeting to outmaneuver wealthier rivals⁷, showing that social ads can level the field. A 2019 study⁸ found digital ads boost turnout, especially among younger voters who live more actively online.

So what’s the smarter fix? Don’t ban but build guardrails⁹. One proposal: require platforms to allow counter-speech, so if one party targets an audience, verified rivals can reach the same group without data leakage. Another: force platforms to donate all political ad revenue into independent election integrity research or improving their own election integrity tools.

Who made the stronger case? Cast your vote below!

💬 Do you also want to share your argument on this topic? Share your thoughts on the voting page or add your comment to this topic’s post on our website by clicking Read Online on the top of this email.

My mission is simple: make debates civil, smart, and (yes) sexy again. This newsletter is just the opening argument. But to grow it into a movement, I need fuel.

If you believe strong opinions deserve a good stage, support the cause by buying me a coffee (or, if you’re feeling Soros-level generous, a whole Starbucks franchise).

Thanks for your vote & for growing the opinion market!

See you next week with another hot debate.

✌️ Máté - The Great Debate