Has any ad tech company ever had any consequences for any of their major public fkups? Even where it's a major failure of their core product? They just keep chugging along not doing anything properly, don't they?
Like, if I'm a brand, what do I even do as a reaction to stop this from happening again?
People are definitely lying but no one in specific is lying is a pretty constant theme unfortunately. digiday.com/media/latest-t…
Just add more technology and hope it somehow keeps the other technology accountable while loading down the ad with heavy code and giving more money to middlemen instead wooo
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Capitalism-based health care is the worst. I hate that it's only gotten worse and worse as time goes on, with more and more of the work of health care being put on to the individual and systems that you literally pay for becoming less and less helpful or useful.
For a lot of reasons I hate all ways to find doctors are gradually devolving to Yelp, which not only puts the work on you to find a good doctor but also inevitably undercuts your confidence in any doc you find b/c the wisdom of the crowds is a terrible gateway into medical care.
I do not blame ProPublica for this and am glad for this reporting, but everything has been magnified since I read this - propublica.org/article/top-do… & now search certifications I see in doc offices and the minute I see a bullshit "top doc" plaque I seriously doubt my provider choice
After adding internet: turnstiles go into random lockdown
Hmmmmm...
I'm going to blame Javascript for this one.
This is your periodic reminder to keep using your Metro Card. Unlike with using a credit card or app, when you use a Metro Card no turnstile knows if you're a dog...
Well they know you're definitely not a dog, because dogs don't pay for the subway, but they don't know much else.
Count me among those who consider this "a false distinction." I think there's a flaw in this argument. Eric does a brief steel man that he steps past, but I think has weight: Engagement is required to create scale. Scale is required to make FB successful...
I think this is a good post and his other good posts link to good arguments, so it's worth doing the same thing he did, and trying to understand his argument first:
1. FB doesn't do surveillance marketing t/f surveillance marketing is a myth.
Ok. So let's set aside the first part of the claim and hit the 2nd part. Is only Facebook doing the behavior that is commonly associated with surveillance marketing? ...
I have never ever wanted my browser to send me notifications from a website. Not even once.
Now that GPC is out there I sort of want to apply the same logic to other stuff... here's a browser signal that says NEVER ask me if I want notifications. Here's a browser signal that says I accept your cookie policy. Here's a browser signal that says no to your newsletter signup
I don't understand how there could be a human who would want a browser notification from a website I visited just once, but here, you can keep the functionality if you respect the rest of us saying we don't want it from the moment the HTTP request goes through.
Anyone who paid an ounce of attention in the last decade knows customers don't like their their contact lists being used to build out targeting data this way, but Clubhouse did it anyway b/c their's only one mode in SV: turning user data into investment.
I am having a hard time taking the 'can you report on surveillance effectively without using the surveillance data' debate seriously because you literally can't do anything without being caught up in surveillance, which is the point.
I think this is a place where "the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house" is a nice sentiment, but when there are no other tools, it's better to use the tools against themselves than to do nothing.