How often does a company's ad need to be placed next to a pro-nazi post for it to count, in your opinion?
If that company didn't want it to happen even once, can't that be their right?
Let's spin this around. Let's say that some really conservative company had their ad placed next to, let's say, a pro-trans or pro-pedophilia post. And they pulled their ad because of that. Would you argue that it didn't happen enough to matter, or it was taken out of context?
Let's say that some really conservative company had their ad placed next to, let's say, a pro-trans or pro-pedophilia post.
Who would care? The harm is that the ad is probably misplaced and we spent money to show an ad to someone who is probably not going to engage with it.
And they pulled their ad because of that.
That's not similar to this situation. You're forgetting the third party interference.
Would you argue that it didn't happen enough to matter, or it was taken out of context?
I'd argue that it doesn't matter. The brand isn't harmed by being selected to show in an ad slot next to content the user specifically searched for. You obviously don't understand how programmatic ads work, which is what Media Matters is relying on.
The ad gets selected because of your profile. Male, 25-34, lives in midwest. You match the criteria for NFL ads. When you do things on X, ad slots appear, and they get filled. If you search for "JewsDid911" then you get the content you want, plus some ad slots, which in this case got filled by the NFL because it matched the user criteria.
The NFL got what they wanted, targeting users. The user got what it wanted, the content they searched for. Media Matters disingenuously screenshots this scenario and then lies to you about what is actually happening implying that is an intentional outcome on by X.
More than likely.. the NFL, as an advertiser, has access to content restriction controls on their side. The only case you could make here is that X is intentionally ignoring those content controls in order to boost the number of ads served and revenue generated. That's a huge claim and not at all borne out by Media Maters "work".
How often does a company's ad need to be placed next to a pro-nazi post for it to count, in your opinion?
If that company didn't want it to happen even once, can't that be their right?
Let's spin this around. Let's say that some really conservative company had their ad placed next to, let's say, a pro-trans or pro-pedophilia post. And they pulled their ad because of that. Would you argue that it didn't happen enough to matter, or it was taken out of context?
Who would care? The harm is that the ad is probably misplaced and we spent money to show an ad to someone who is probably not going to engage with it.
That's not similar to this situation. You're forgetting the third party interference.
I'd argue that it doesn't matter. The brand isn't harmed by being selected to show in an ad slot next to content the user specifically searched for. You obviously don't understand how programmatic ads work, which is what Media Matters is relying on.
The ad gets selected because of your profile. Male, 25-34, lives in midwest. You match the criteria for NFL ads. When you do things on X, ad slots appear, and they get filled. If you search for "JewsDid911" then you get the content you want, plus some ad slots, which in this case got filled by the NFL because it matched the user criteria.
The NFL got what they wanted, targeting users. The user got what it wanted, the content they searched for. Media Matters disingenuously screenshots this scenario and then lies to you about what is actually happening implying that is an intentional outcome on by X.
More than likely.. the NFL, as an advertiser, has access to content restriction controls on their side. The only case you could make here is that X is intentionally ignoring those content controls in order to boost the number of ads served and revenue generated. That's a huge claim and not at all borne out by Media Maters "work".