3 ms·

I’m not seeing where it’s evidenced that this is what’s actually happening. Twitter’s lawyers can put whatever rationale they want in their suit, but it’s not e

I’m not seeing where it’s evidenced that this is what’s actually happening. Twitter’s lawyers can put whatever rationale they want in their suit, but it’s not even remotely clear to me that company $FOO only stopped advertising on Twitter because they conferred with competitor $BAR. If anything, the fact that the lawsuit is against CAGM indicates the opposite: $FOO observed a general disinvestment in advertising on Twitter, and deduced through normal market research that their ad spend wasn’t worth it. Maybe discovery will reveal collusion here, but it relies on an unlikely premise: companies with significant ad spend have entire teams dedicated to PR, and it would be astonishing if they couldn’t provide independent internal research demonstrating the risk Twitter posed to their brand as a sufficient reason to stop paying for ads.

Jensson 2y ago
> companies with significant ad spend have entire teams dedicated to PR, and it would be astonishing if they couldn’t provide independent internal research demonstrating the risk Twitter posed to their brand as a sufficient reason to stop paying for ads. Do you really believe that hundreds of social science teams would reach the same conclusion at the same time independently of each other, like these hundreds of advertisers did? Social science isn't that exact, there would be big brands not leaving if they acted independently, or at least they wouldn't all leave at the same time.
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  We aren’t talking peer reviewed scientific journals here. “Shit is bad on Twitter” is a conclusion many people may independently reach at similar times if the change is rapid. Like how natural selection and calculus were discovered by multiple people at roughly the same time. They weren’t in cahoots.
- woodruffw 2y ago
  No; I believe that these companies have advertising teams that monitor the value of their investments, and that these teams are excruciatingly attuned to potential brand risks. You don’t need imperfect social science to understand that the majority of your consumers don’t like it when your ads appear next to content that looks like it could have come from Der Sturmer.
  - ryandrake 2y ago
    Yea, it doesn't take a crack social science team or shadowy conspiracy to figure out that most brands do not want to be associated with the alt-right and everything in the alt-right's orbit. It is totally plausible that thousands of companies would come to the same conclusion without conspiring together.

Jensson 2y ago

> companies with significant ad spend have entire teams dedicated to PR, and it would be astonishing if they couldn’t provide independent internal research demonstrating the risk Twitter posed to their brand as a sufficient reason to stop paying for ads. Do you really believe that hundreds of social science teams would reach the same conclusion at the same time independently of each other, like these hundreds of advertisers did? Social science isn't that exact, there would be big brands not leaving if they acted independently, or at least they wouldn't all leave at the same time.

ceejayoz 2y ago
We aren’t talking peer reviewed scientific journals here. “Shit is bad on Twitter” is a conclusion many people may independently reach at similar times if the change is rapid. Like how natural selection and calculus were discovered by multiple people at roughly the same time. They weren’t in cahoots.
woodruffw 2y ago
No; I believe that these companies have advertising teams that monitor the value of their investments, and that these teams are excruciatingly attuned to potential brand risks. You don’t need imperfect social science to understand that the majority of your consumers don’t like it when your ads appear next to content that looks like it could have come from Der Sturmer.
- ryandrake 2y ago
  Yea, it doesn't take a crack social science team or shadowy conspiracy to figure out that most brands do not want to be associated with the alt-right and everything in the alt-right's orbit. It is totally plausible that thousands of companies would come to the same conclusion without conspiring together.