• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, the online home of TRIBE MAGAZINE. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register. Join us!

Hate as an Online Revenue Model

Bernnie Federko

TRIBE Member
It's like that bit where a few ppl start a line up for nothing, and other people just follow suit and start lining up with them without knowing why. Sometimes the groupthink mentality is bad for the herd.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

Bernnie Federko

TRIBE Member
Cross post..

Netflix doc covers the Cambridge Analytica crew who got Lyin' Ted Cruz close to the nomination, then Trump over Clinton, and then did Brexit... #thegreathack

Seen "The Great Hack" on Netflix yet?

 
Cross post..

Netflix doc covers the Cambridge Analytica crew who got Lyin' Ted Cruz close to the nomination, then Trump over Clinton, and then did Brexit... #thegreathack

Seen "The Great Hack" on Netflix yet?


Not yet, but I have it added to my watch list.

I shudder to think how much a Ted Cruz presidency would contrast with the current one.
 

Bernnie Federko

TRIBE Member
How online ad targeting weaponizes political misinformation
Ad targeting is how Facebook, Google and other online giants won the internet. It's also key to understanding why these companies are being held responsible for warping elections and undermining democracy, managing editor Scott Rosenberg writes in the opening installment of our "What Matters 2020" series.
  • Critics and tech companies are increasingly considering whether limiting targeting of political ads might be one way out of the misinformation maze.
  • Giant platforms would still allow campaigns and candidates to purchase political ads — but the companies would stop (either voluntarily or by law) selling messages aimed only at narrow segments of the electorate.
How ad targeting works: Facebook and Google have somewhat different systems for targeting ads, but both allow advertisers to bid on narrowly defined demographic groups or keywords.
  • For instance, you can tell Facebook to show your message only to Southern men who don't have a college degree and earn less than $75,000 — or ask for married suburban moms in three ZIP Codes outside Indianapolis who own SUVs and play tennis.
  • In the political ad world, these tools allow candidates and groups to exploit those populations' anxieties and resentments, efficiently.
The link between ad targeting and misinformation ... Tech platforms stand accused of multiple sins, including:
  • Improperly collecting users' data to build massive databases of profiles.
  • Allowing politicians and their campaigns to spread lies.
  • Creating partisan "echo chambers" and "filter bubbles" that segment reality by ideology.
Facebook and Google didn't invent these phenomena — they existed pre-internet. But by tying them together, ad targeting can kick misinformation into overdrive:
  • Data collection and profile building is what makes ad targeting possible. It's also what keeps getting tech platforms in trouble with users and governments.
  • Campaigns have always shaded the truth and even lobbed false accusations. But in a broadcast world, it was easy for opponents and neutral third parties to witness and call out such behavior.
  • In the world of micro-targeted ads, it's almost impossible — despite transparency efforts like Facebook's ad library.
  • Misleading ads fuel frenzies in the closed-loop worlds of partisan echo chambers long before platforms can step in to bar them.
Banning all political ads vs. banning targeting: Many critics have urged social media platforms to bar political advertising altogether — a move both Google and Facebook have resisted, even as their smaller but politically high-profile competitor Twitter said it would embrace it.
  • Facebook argues that such a ban would harm outsider candidates and causes.
  • Twitter's ban is significant, but its ad market share and targeting capabilities are minuscule compared to Facebook's and Google's.
The idea of a targeting ban has gained momentum recently, with figures like Bill Gates and FEC chair Ellen Weintraub endorsing it.
  • Defenders of the status quo argue that online targeting isn't fundamentally different from longtime campaign practices like ZIP Code targeting of postal flyers, and they maintain that it's a free-speech issue.
 

Bernnie Federko

TRIBE Member
Political ads have become a flashpoint ahead of the 2020 election, in part because new technologies make it nearly impossible to apply a universal definition of them to all advertising channels, media trends expert Sara Fischer writes.

  • Why it matters: Without a commonly accepted definition of a political ad, efforts to regulate them fail. Experts worry that without smart regulation of political ads, free speech — a tenet of democracy — can be gamed.
By the numbers: More pressure on people and companies to take a public position on politics and issues means that more political ads are being bought now than ever before.

  • About $10 billion is expected to be spent on all political and issue ads in the 2020 campaign cycle, according to CMAG, the political research arm of the advertising research company Kantar.
Between the lines: Political ads have become a hot topic now that most campaigns are buying lots of ads online instead of on TV and radio. Campaign finance laws haven't been modernized to address how political advertising should be regulated online.

  • The FEC set up guidelines for political ads in the 1970s that were easy to adhere to in print, radio and broadcast. But those rules haven't been updated by the commission to address the digital era.
  • Some states have their own campaign finance laws that draw clearer distinctions. In Washington state, for example, Facebook and Google have struggled to enforce political ad bans that they've established in response to strict campaign finance laws.
Enforcement is all over the map:

  • There have been disputes over whether a political ad should be fact-checked or even allowed to run if it disputes a commonly understood fact or makes misleading claims. In 2015, a Turkish-backed group took out an ad in the Wall Street Journal that denied the existence of the Armenian Genocide. The Washington Post opted not to run the ad.
  • Doctored imagery, like an ad with a Pinocchio nose superimposed onto a candidate, is an easier call.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

Bernnie Federko

TRIBE Member
Facebook's anything-goes political ad policy had a key internal promoter: Peter Thiel, a board member and one of Silicon Valley's most prominent supporters of President Trump, writes Axios' Scott Rosenberg.

  • Facebook critics have argued that the policy, which exempts candidates' ads and speeches from the site's fact-checking policies, skews pro-Trump.
Why it matters: The link, first reported by the Wall Street Journal (subscription), highlights Thiel's role as the key intermediary between Facebook HQ and the White House.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders
Top