3 ms·
It's not really the point. Twitter made representations about "brand safety" that ads for these brands had a low chance of appearing next to neo-nazi content. I
by clouddrover 3y ago
It's not really the point. Twitter made representations about "brand safety" that ads for these brands had a low chance of appearing next to neo-nazi content. It turns out it's easy to make it happen.
In any case, she's also admitting that IBM, Comcast, Oracle, Apple, etc. are paying for ads that not a single authentic user has seen. That doesn't make Twitter look good either. How many other useless ads are they paying for?
- readthenotes1 3y ago"she's also admitting that IBM, Comcast, Oracle, Apple, etc. are paying for ads that not a single authentic user has seen." No, she's saying what she said: "saw IBM’s, Comcast’s, or Oracle’s ads next to the content in Media Matters’ article. Only 2 users saw Apple’s ad next to the content, at least one of which was Media Matters. "
- clouddrover 3y agoYou pay for ad impressions. Twitter calls it "Reach": https://business.twitter.com/en/help/campaign-setup/create-a-reach-campaign.html https://business.twitter.com/en/help/campaign-setup/create-a...
- bagels 3y agoThat isn't what was said at all. The statement was that these ads don't appear next to "the content in Media Matters’ article", which might just mean that the content in the article was not that popular, or that other advertisers were displayed next to that content.
- clouddrover 3y agoIf you have to guess what it "might" mean then nothing has been said. Her claim is Media Matters "manipulated" Twitter. The reality is they just used it, found neo-nazi content, and saw ads next to that content. Why would any brand want to advertise on Twitter when that outcome is so easy to achieve?