5 ms·

I'm sorry, but calling this fraud is a stretch. Twitter served ads next to extremist content and doesn't deny it. Their defense is that it's rare because most p

I'm sorry, but calling this fraud is a stretch. Twitter served ads next to extremist content and doesn't deny it. Their defense is that it's rare because most people don't follow that combination of accounts* and don't doom scroll. If I were an advertiser using a service that said I could prevent my ads from appearing next to extremist content, I'd want the chance to be 0%, not rare. Rare at Twitter scale is still a lot. - * In light of the Bud Light boycott, I bet there are a decent number of users who follow brands (like Bud Light) and hateful content (anti-trans propaganda). Note Twitters use of the weasel word "average".

nvm0n2 3y ago
No, their defense is that Media Matters was passing this off to advertisers as representative of what normal Twitter users were seeing. I don't know much about US law specifically, but in most countries if a third party (usually but not always a competitor) goes to one party in an agreement and lies to them in order to induce them to cut business from a second, then that's libel/slander and can yield damages against the untruthful party. In this case Media Matters has clearly been untruthful. What they did is barely different from just outright Photoshopping the images together, or sticking a misleading caption on a cropped photo. The legal question is therefore only to what extent US law / first amendment protects such unethical behavior, not whether they did it at all.
- farrarstan 3y ago
  [dead]
yoniyoniyoni 3y ago
I think the most surprising thing about the Bud Light fiasco is that their marketing department thought that Dylan Mulvaney, with his insultingly misogynistic and creepy portrayal of 'girlhood', would reflect well on their brand. The only people who seem to celebrate Mulvaney's preposterous performances are a minority of overly-online zoomers, who aren't even the target market. Is it really 'hateful' to look at men like this and understand that they are not women in any way, shape or form? No, it's just common sense.
- farrarstan 3y ago
  [dead]

nvm0n2 3y ago

No, their defense is that Media Matters was passing this off to advertisers as representative of what normal Twitter users were seeing. I don't know much about US law specifically, but in most countries if a third party (usually but not always a competitor) goes to one party in an agreement and lies to them in order to induce them to cut business from a second, then that's libel/slander and can yield damages against the untruthful party. In this case Media Matters has clearly been untruthful. What they did is barely different from just outright Photoshopping the images together, or sticking a misleading caption on a cropped photo. The legal question is therefore only to what extent US law / first amendment protects such unethical behavior, not whether they did it at all.

farrarstan 3y ago
[dead]

yoniyoniyoni 3y ago

I think the most surprising thing about the Bud Light fiasco is that their marketing department thought that Dylan Mulvaney, with his insultingly misogynistic and creepy portrayal of 'girlhood', would reflect well on their brand. The only people who seem to celebrate Mulvaney's preposterous performances are a minority of overly-online zoomers, who aren't even the target market. Is it really 'hateful' to look at men like this and understand that they are not women in any way, shape or form? No, it's just common sense.

farrarstan 3y ago
[dead]