4 ms·

>Media Matters executed this plot in multiple steps, as X’s internal investigations have revealed. First, Media Matters accessed accounts that had been active f

>Media Matters executed this plot in multiple steps, as X’s internal investigations have revealed. First, Media Matters accessed accounts that had been active for at least 30 days, bypassing X’s ad filter for new users. Media Matters then exclusively followed a small subset of users consisting entirely of accounts in one of two categories: those known to produce extreme, fringe content, and accounts owned by X’s big-name advertisers. The end result was a feed precision-designed by Media Matters for a single purpose: to produce side-by-side ad/content placements that it could screenshot in an effort to alienate advertisers.

hnburnsy 3y ago
>Tellingly, Media Matters used X’s privacy features in order to hide its methodology from its readers. That is, Media Matters set this account to “private,” blocking anyone from seeing which accounts Media Matters actually followed, thus disallowing anyone from understanding how its feed was manipulated. Indeed, Media Matters at no point includes images with any information about the account that was exposed to these images; the cropped nature of Media Matters’ deceptive screenshots leaves its profile picture out of frame.
- cratermoon 3y ago
  I don't believe it really matters to the advertisers how their ads end up alongside extreme, fringe content. The advertisers aren't saying, "it's ok to show our ads next to that content if a user likes that content and our products". Advertisers don't ever want their ads in that context, hard stop.
  - hnburnsy 3y ago
    Is that even possible when serving 90B post impressions and 5B ad impressions per day where some of the fringe content is obfuscated or image-based? I guess if an advertiser's expectation is that one or few unwanted placements are unacceptable, maybe they should not be advertising on the internet, but regardless IMO, MMA should be forth coming on the prevalence and methodology it used.
    - cratermoon 3y ago
      > Is that even possible Apparently it is, because up until October of last year, advertisers felt Twitter's ad placements were acceptable and they were not stumbling over each other to abandon the platform.

hnburnsy 3y ago

>Tellingly, Media Matters used X’s privacy features in order to hide its methodology from its readers. That is, Media Matters set this account to “private,” blocking anyone from seeing which accounts Media Matters actually followed, thus disallowing anyone from understanding how its feed was manipulated. Indeed, Media Matters at no point includes images with any information about the account that was exposed to these images; the cropped nature of Media Matters’ deceptive screenshots leaves its profile picture out of frame.

cratermoon 3y ago
I don't believe it really matters to the advertisers how their ads end up alongside extreme, fringe content. The advertisers aren't saying, "it's ok to show our ads next to that content if a user likes that content and our products". Advertisers don't ever want their ads in that context, hard stop.
- hnburnsy 3y ago
  Is that even possible when serving 90B post impressions and 5B ad impressions per day where some of the fringe content is obfuscated or image-based? I guess if an advertiser's expectation is that one or few unwanted placements are unacceptable, maybe they should not be advertising on the internet, but regardless IMO, MMA should be forth coming on the prevalence and methodology it used.
  - cratermoon 3y ago
    > Is that even possible Apparently it is, because up until October of last year, advertisers felt Twitter's ad placements were acceptable and they were not stumbling over each other to abandon the platform.