3 ms·
Yes, they "demonstrated" it with this tactic described below: - *Media Matters’ Research Tactics*: - Created an alternate account to manipulate public and ad
by JPKab 3y ago
Yes, they "demonstrated" it with this tactic described below:
- *Media Matters’ Research Tactics*:
- Created an alternate account to manipulate public and advertiser perception.
- Curated posts and ads on the timeline to misinform about ad placement.
- Contrived experiences are not platform-specific and could be replicated elsewhere.
- *Ad Serving Instances*:
- After curation, they refreshed timelines to find rare instances of ad placement.
- Logs showed 13 times more ads served to their account than the median X user.
- *Ad Impressions Data*:
- On the day in question, of the 5.5 billion ad impressions on X, less than 50 were served against the content in the Media Matters article.
- *Specific Brand Exposure*:
- One brand had an ad run adjacent to a post twice, seen by only two users, including the article's author.
- Another brand had two ads run adjacent to two posts three times, seen only by the article's author.
- *Content Policy Evaluation*:
- The article highlighted nine posts believed to be inappropriate for X.
- Only one of the nine posts violated content policies.
- Action was taken on the violating post under the "Freedom of Speech, Not Reach" enforcement approach.
- kstrauser 3y agoIt's unimaginable that any advertisers took their word for it and dropped their Twitter ad budget simply because Media Matters said so. At the most, Media Matters might have called their attention to it (if it wasn't already on the advertisers' radio, which it almost certainly was).
- s1artibartfast 3y ago>It's unimaginable that any advertisers took their word for it It doesn't matter if advertisers actually believe it if enough people do, the impact is the same.