4 ms·

> Only 2 users saw Apple’s ad next to the content, at least one of which was Media Matters. So did Media Matters hack your server and inject the ads? I don't s

> Only 2 users saw Apple’s ad next to the content, at least one of which was Media Matters. So did Media Matters hack your server and inject the ads? I don't see why they or the other person would not be "authentic" users otherwise.

rpmisms 3y ago
Maybe the best analogy would be speed running a video game and then suing the developer because you didn't get the "estimated playtime" listed on the box. You're abusing the product, it will not perform to spec.
- anon23432343 3y ago
  So your spec sucks... If you have the requirements that in no case your ads should be shown with content that you don't like but it happens at least twice. You have a buggy mess of an unfinished software. Oh wait that the game industry right now...
  - rpmisms 3y ago
    Social media is a really poor spec, to be fair.
- meheleventyone 3y ago
  Just to correct the analogy, it’d be the person speed running describing what they did in an article and the developer suing them.
throw310822 3y ago
Rather, the question is "how unlucky you must be if the offending content made just two views, and one of the two was on the organisation that spends its time checking content on social media platforms"? Unless Media Matters has ways to make infinitely more probable to provoke the occurrence. Which, I guess, is what happens. I wonder, for example, if they spend a lot of time browsing nazi content, and then Apple content, and then reload the page until the two appear next to each other?
- defrost 3y ago
  Which would never occur in RealLife™ as no Tru Apple fanboi would follow The Daily Stormer ?
  - throw310822 3y ago
    But it would mean that the nazi apple fanboy is seeing exactly what they want to see. The problem lies with the user, not with the platform.
    - hlieberman 3y ago
      That doesn't matter -- the issue here isn't that "innocent" people might see Apple advertisements, or nazi posts. The issue here is that Apple doesn't want their ads _next to_ nazi posts, no matter what the user is interested in. That's why they pulled the ads, not because they were worried that their targeting might offend one of the nazis.
      - throw310822 3y ago
        For me, it is like saying that Apple doesn't want me to open a tab of my browser on their homepage and another on nazi content while using a Macbook. It might be a problem if someone takes a screenshot and circulates it under the caption "Apple allows nazi content to appear on their laptops and alongside their homepage" but it's a fake problem- Apple has really nothing to do with it. My feeling is that the issue has been shifted from the legitimate worry that "ads might appear alongside content that offends the viewer" to the made up one "ads might appear alongside content that offends us but that absolutely no one will see except those who are fine with it".
    - ZeroGravitas 3y ago
      One of the problems is the user. Another problem is that Apple is effectively paying people to say extremist things via Twitter ad revenue shares. And, apparently in order to enhance this funding, nazi followers just need to follow a few big brands alongside their extremist content. A third problem is that makes Apple look bad and damages their brand.
Mandelmus 3y ago
> Neither Paxton nor X argues that Media Matters was falsely claiming to see ads on pro-Nazi content. In fact, the suit confirms that the screenshots the organization posted are real. But it alleges the organization “manipulated” the service to make X serve the offending ads. “Media Matters has manipulated the algorithms governing the user experience on X to bypass safeguards and create images of X’s largest advertisers’ paid posts adjacent to racist, incendiary content, leaving the false impression that these pairings are anything but what they actually are: manufactured, inorganic, and extraordinarily rare.” The alleged manipulation involved creating an account that exclusively followed a combination of major brands and extremist content, then “endlessly scrolling and refreshing its unrepresentative, hand-selected feed” until it saw a confluence of the two.
- throw310822 3y ago
  Funny, exactly what I wrote one minute ago as a pure speculation > I wonder, for example, if they spend a lot of time browsing nazi content, and then Apple content, and then reload the page until the two appear next to each other?
skygazer 3y ago
X/Twitter say that media matters followed both “nazis” (or whatever) and also major brands, and their feed did indeed show major brand ads next to nazi tweets. Apparently no real people subscribe to both nazis and major brands, they say, though, so “no harm no foul.” (This neglects the fact that Musk publicly gives props to antisemitic memes while repeatedly saying, naw, don’t you believe your lying eyes — tweets that everyone saw, and the advertising pauses accelerated after he last did that, undermining his narrative.)
cowsandmilk 3y ago
Her statement is crafted in a way where I feel it is meaningless. She refers to “the content in the MediaMatters article”. The statistic could literally be about how many people saw the ads next to the actual tweets in the article. This is problematic because advertisers care about being next to any hateful content. She makes no claims about how many people saw ads next to Nazi content or racist content or homophobic content. Neither does the lawsuit. My bet is that she’s unable to make a more general statement because it would make X look bad. They clearly are able to mine the data, just not make truly exonerating statements from it.

rpmisms 3y ago

Maybe the best analogy would be speed running a video game and then suing the developer because you didn't get the "estimated playtime" listed on the box. You're abusing the product, it will not perform to spec.

anon23432343 3y ago
So your spec sucks... If you have the requirements that in no case your ads should be shown with content that you don't like but it happens at least twice. You have a buggy mess of an unfinished software. Oh wait that the game industry right now...
- rpmisms 3y ago
  Social media is a really poor spec, to be fair.
meheleventyone 3y ago
Just to correct the analogy, it’d be the person speed running describing what they did in an article and the developer suing them.

throw310822 3y ago

Rather, the question is "how unlucky you must be if the offending content made just two views, and one of the two was on the organisation that spends its time checking content on social media platforms"? Unless Media Matters has ways to make infinitely more probable to provoke the occurrence. Which, I guess, is what happens. I wonder, for example, if they spend a lot of time browsing nazi content, and then Apple content, and then reload the page until the two appear next to each other?

defrost 3y ago
Which would never occur in RealLife™ as no Tru Apple fanboi would follow The Daily Stormer ?
- throw310822 3y ago
  But it would mean that the nazi apple fanboy is seeing exactly what they want to see. The problem lies with the user, not with the platform.
  - hlieberman 3y ago
    That doesn't matter -- the issue here isn't that "innocent" people might see Apple advertisements, or nazi posts. The issue here is that Apple doesn't want their ads _next to_ nazi posts, no matter what the user is interested in. That's why they pulled the ads, not because they were worried that their targeting might offend one of the nazis.
    - throw310822 3y ago
      For me, it is like saying that Apple doesn't want me to open a tab of my browser on their homepage and another on nazi content while using a Macbook. It might be a problem if someone takes a screenshot and circulates it under the caption "Apple allows nazi content to appear on their laptops and alongside their homepage" but it's a fake problem- Apple has really nothing to do with it. My feeling is that the issue has been shifted from the legitimate worry that "ads might appear alongside content that offends the viewer" to the made up one "ads might appear alongside content that offends us but that absolutely no one will see except those who are fine with it".
  - ZeroGravitas 3y ago
    One of the problems is the user. Another problem is that Apple is effectively paying people to say extremist things via Twitter ad revenue shares. And, apparently in order to enhance this funding, nazi followers just need to follow a few big brands alongside their extremist content. A third problem is that makes Apple look bad and damages their brand.

Mandelmus 3y ago

> Neither Paxton nor X argues that Media Matters was falsely claiming to see ads on pro-Nazi content. In fact, the suit confirms that the screenshots the organization posted are real. But it alleges the organization “manipulated” the service to make X serve the offending ads. “Media Matters has manipulated the algorithms governing the user experience on X to bypass safeguards and create images of X’s largest advertisers’ paid posts adjacent to racist, incendiary content, leaving the false impression that these pairings are anything but what they actually are: manufactured, inorganic, and extraordinarily rare.” The alleged manipulation involved creating an account that exclusively followed a combination of major brands and extremist content, then “endlessly scrolling and refreshing its unrepresentative, hand-selected feed” until it saw a confluence of the two.

throw310822 3y ago
Funny, exactly what I wrote one minute ago as a pure speculation > I wonder, for example, if they spend a lot of time browsing nazi content, and then Apple content, and then reload the page until the two appear next to each other?

skygazer 3y ago

X/Twitter say that media matters followed both “nazis” (or whatever) and also major brands, and their feed did indeed show major brand ads next to nazi tweets. Apparently no real people subscribe to both nazis and major brands, they say, though, so “no harm no foul.” (This neglects the fact that Musk publicly gives props to antisemitic memes while repeatedly saying, naw, don’t you believe your lying eyes — tweets that everyone saw, and the advertising pauses accelerated after he last did that, undermining his narrative.)

cowsandmilk 3y ago

Her statement is crafted in a way where I feel it is meaningless. She refers to “the content in the MediaMatters article”. The statistic could literally be about how many people saw the ads next to the actual tweets in the article. This is problematic because advertisers care about being next to any hateful content. She makes no claims about how many people saw ads next to Nazi content or racist content or homophobic content. Neither does the lawsuit. My bet is that she’s unable to make a more general statement because it would make X look bad. They clearly are able to mine the data, just not make truly exonerating statements from it.