2 ms·

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

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.
        leereeves 6y ago
        I'm not alleging it. I'm just picturing the possibility. The truth is neither of us knows, so how can we consider the number 88 evidence?
        dragonwriter 6y ago
        Because evidence for something doesn't require proof beyond the possibility of conjecturing alternative explanations, and if it did, nothing would be evidence of anything, since any sense data could just be hallucination, and ultimately anything that could be cited as evidence at some point relies on sense data.
        anigbrowl 6y ago
        You are absolutely alleging it. So the ad had run 88 times when Media Matters took the screenshot? [...] 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. I was willing to listen to your argument, but instead of making a case you're just insulting my intelligence.

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.
      - leereeves 6y ago
        I'm not alleging it. I'm just picturing the possibility. The truth is neither of us knows, so how can we consider the number 88 evidence?
        dragonwriter 6y ago
        Because evidence for something doesn't require proof beyond the possibility of conjecturing alternative explanations, and if it did, nothing would be evidence of anything, since any sense data could just be hallucination, and ultimately anything that could be cited as evidence at some point relies on sense data.
        anigbrowl 6y ago
        You are absolutely alleging it. So the ad had run 88 times when Media Matters took the screenshot? [...] 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. I was willing to listen to your argument, but instead of making a case you're just insulting my intelligence.