4 ms·

Hardly. It's 14 words, not 14 anything else. Furthemore, neo-Nazis have in fact also used these numbers in their esoteric numerology in varying degrees of freed

Hardly. It's 14 words, not 14 anything else. Furthemore, neo-Nazis have in fact also used these numbers in their esoteric numerology in varying degrees of freedom.

koheripbal 6y ago
Maybe it's 14 seconds long, or was released 14 hours after a tweet, or maybe on the 14th of the month, or... This is like astrology
- guerrilla 6y ago
  It's 14 words specifically. [1] [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteen_Words https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteen_Words
- GaryNumanVevo 6y ago
  It's been studied for decades how crypto-facists use symbols and codes to communicate to other facists and sympathizers
leereeves 6y ago
It's 14 words, in the same way that "And if you check out some of her other tweets on this, such as" is 14 words. And where is the proof that there were 88 versions of this ad? The Media Matters article has a link "ran 88 ads" that points to [1], but there are only 3 ads on that page. This "evidence" is a Rorschach test. People see what they're predisposed to see. 1: https://www.mediamatters.org/media/3878791 https://www.mediamatters.org/media/3878791
- anigbrowl 6y ago
  If you look at the picture of the 3 ads, each has a number in the top left corner showing how many times it ran, apparently generated by the Dewey Square Adwatch tool set cited in the article. The numbers are 30, 28 and 30, which sum to 88. This could have been better explained in the MM article. It could also be a coincidence, but repeated coincidences eventually qualify as a pattern.
  - leereeves 6y ago
    So the ad had run 88 times when Media Matters took the screenshot? Then if it had continued to run, wouldn't it have run more than 88 times? Or possibly it did run again before Facebook took it down, and actually did run more than 88 times? Now I'm picturing Media Matters watching the ad counter like teenage boys watching an odometer approach 80085.
    - ceejayoz 6y ago
      It’s not an impressions count.
      - leereeves 6y ago
        Of course not. The article doesn't specify what is being counted, but Media Matters was clearly counting something. And like any counter, it's bound to pass 88 on the way to however many versions/targetings/updates/campaigns/whatever the campaign had planned to run.
        anigbrowl 6y ago
        You say 'of course not' but then just carry on as if the previous poster had endorsed your theory. I am not an adtech person but I had the distinct impression that the tool cited counted the number of promotional spots purchased for each ad placed. On what basis do you say they were 'clearly counting something' as if it were a dynamic rather than a static process?
        leereeves 6y ago
        On what basis do you say it's a static process? The burden on proof is on those making the allegations.
        anigbrowl 6y ago
        You're the one alleging that they took the screenshot as it counted up in a dynamic process. I'm asking why you seem so sure about about that, in contrast to alternative possibilities. Seems like you can't answer.

Hardly. It's 14 words, not 14 anything else. Furthemore, neo-Nazis have in fact also used these numbers in their esoteric numerology in varying degrees of freedom.

koheripbal 6y ago

Maybe it's 14 seconds long, or was released 14 hours after a tweet, or maybe on the 14th of the month, or... This is like astrology

guerrilla 6y ago
It's 14 words specifically. [1] [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteen_Words https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteen_Words
GaryNumanVevo 6y ago
It's been studied for decades how crypto-facists use symbols and codes to communicate to other facists and sympathizers

leereeves 6y ago

It's 14 words, in the same way that "And if you check out some of her other tweets on this, such as" is 14 words. And where is the proof that there were 88 versions of this ad? The Media Matters article has a link "ran 88 ads" that points to [1], but there are only 3 ads on that page. This "evidence" is a Rorschach test. People see what they're predisposed to see. 1: https://www.mediamatters.org/media/3878791 https://www.mediamatters.org/media/3878791

anigbrowl 6y ago
If you look at the picture of the 3 ads, each has a number in the top left corner showing how many times it ran, apparently generated by the Dewey Square Adwatch tool set cited in the article. The numbers are 30, 28 and 30, which sum to 88. This could have been better explained in the MM article. It could also be a coincidence, but repeated coincidences eventually qualify as a pattern.
- leereeves 6y ago
  So the ad had run 88 times when Media Matters took the screenshot? Then if it had continued to run, wouldn't it have run more than 88 times? Or possibly it did run again before Facebook took it down, and actually did run more than 88 times? Now I'm picturing Media Matters watching the ad counter like teenage boys watching an odometer approach 80085.
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    It’s not an impressions count.
    - leereeves 6y ago
      Of course not. The article doesn't specify what is being counted, but Media Matters was clearly counting something. And like any counter, it's bound to pass 88 on the way to however many versions/targetings/updates/campaigns/whatever the campaign had planned to run.
      - anigbrowl 6y ago
        You say 'of course not' but then just carry on as if the previous poster had endorsed your theory. I am not an adtech person but I had the distinct impression that the tool cited counted the number of promotional spots purchased for each ad placed. On what basis do you say they were 'clearly counting something' as if it were a dynamic rather than a static process?
        leereeves 6y ago
        On what basis do you say it's a static process? The burden on proof is on those making the allegations.
        anigbrowl 6y ago
        You're the one alleging that they took the screenshot as it counted up in a dynamic process. I'm asking why you seem so sure about about that, in contrast to alternative possibilities. Seems like you can't answer.