It’s been the market leader for over 100 years! It gets nearly a 50% market share some years, and that’s without any advertising at all.
The perfect eDem election is one where they win without having to promise anything. That way they can access the higher level of grifting that comes with the levers of power but they’re not beholden to any constituents. They’re more than happy to reduce their chances of winning dramatically if they still have a chance but don’t have to make any commitments.
3 Likes
I saw this mentioned on Slashdot this morning. Had some thoughts and wondered if others would agree or disagree.
https://thehill.com/policy/technology/503123-facebook-will-allow-users-to-block-political-ads
I’m thinking this move will actually make things worse in some ways.
People who are clued in enough to notice there is a new option and understand how to adjust it are already more likely to be able to withstand the bullshit propaganda so it won’t help for them to turn off the ads.
The kind of people these ads work on are the less-savvy, more ignorant, and older ones who won’t know this option exists and won’t be able to flip the switch. So they’ll still get the firehose of nonsense full bore.
And even worse, by allowing the more clued-in people to turn them off, there could be an “out of sight, out of mind” effect, in that now the rational people won’t even know what outrageous nonsense is being piped into the feeds of the less-savvy people.
All in all, this seems like something Facebook is doing to make it look like they’re being responsive, but it’s at best going to be ineffectual and could possibly even be a subtle way to make things worse.
What do you all think?
I don’t think this is a particular concern, in that angry morons are seldom shy. I never see any political ads and I’m still pretty familiar with their work. I do think it’s potentially dangerous in that it offers an even narrower demo, that might allow the people making the ads to craft and target them more effectively. But I think it’s only a minor aggravation of a very bad situation, really.
https://twitter.com/robbysoave/status/1273656116573097984
The fuck is this story? 3000 words in the Washington Post on a dumb lady who wore blackface to a Halloween party. Not a prime minister, not the governor of Virginia, literally just some random woman.
Yeah it’s a nothingburger. My immediate reaction was that this will hit 0.0% of the people who the people buying these ads want to target. It might actually make the product better for a propagandist in terms of ROI.
A lot of people think that the emails from scammers are super flawed because they are idiots. In reality they are flawed intentionally to avoid getting caught by anti spam algorithms, AND to weed out people who have no chance of falling for the scam at the initial email so that they don’t waste a ton of time on them. The initial email is an IQ test, and if you pass it they have about as much interest in talking to you as they you have for talking to them.
Predators don’t want to tangle with the strong, they are looking for the young, the old, and the weak/sickly.
1 Like
Is it bad that the thing that troubles me the most about this is that I cannot, for the life of me, figure out if Robby Soave’s last name has one or two syllables?
1 Like
This is just typical avoidance of responsibility by providing “choice”. Users are Free to see the ads they want to see!
I never expected the dude from Workaholics to take such a serious stand on something.
2 Likes
Wrong both times. It’s three, So-ah-vey.
I know this because:
some low level copy editor is about to wrongfully become a scapegoat.
meanwhile the deplorable advertising editor is getting gifts of whiskey and a pat on the back
Maggie Haberman should be fired. 100% serious. This is absolutely disgraceful.
https://twitter.com/maggienyt/status/1274811139751325699?s=21
1 Like
that whole editorial board should be fired. Rebuild it from the ground up.
2 Likes
They really need to get a whole new team, invite over a community college journalism instructor, and have the basic purpose and fundamental rules of the road explained to them. Their whole situation reeks of not being able to see the forest for the trees.
1 Like
Journalism is broken.
Defund NYT!
1 Like
OK so the new editorial editor (???) person at the NYT is someone called Charlotte Greensit
https://twitter.com/cgreensit/status/1275098638474231809
from her twitter profile: Managing Editor, The Intercept,
Previous: Senior Editor at TIME in NYC & London. British. (Views are my own, yes.)
Unclear if this means she was previously British or still currently British. If the latter, I’m very concerned, hiring a British for the most prestigious take having job in USA#1?
Well let’s see if I can find something to calm myself…
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1275089914548363266
OK if my boy Glenn is good with her she ought to be all right.