Readit NewsExcept companies will go for the cheapest possible solution that “counts” for carbon credits, which is probably entirely fraudulent.
Good or bad or neutral, FB's targeting specifically works amazingly well and better than anything else for many buyers. Especially for direct response ads.
If you can't make money selling your product from digital ads, you're not saving dollars you're losing revenue. This is true especially for 'internet only' upstart products, for example everyone who gets stuck in for instance a $60 athletic short ad loop as an example!! Sometimes you hear examples here about a new product or kickstarter who pre-this type of digital would probably not be able to launch or it would be much harder.
Brand advertising is different and targeting can definitely argue doesn't matter as much.
But these changes has already changed how we spend money, and we're tiny in the grand scheme.
The other point that always gets thrown out: It's also incredibly simple to measure effectiveness or lift.
Staying with FB as an example, if you are selling a product it can be as simple as using a unique link for your FB ads. ROI = Purchases with that link / FB spend. FB also has a large set of conversion tracking JS and offline like loading your retail conversions to the platform to match.
But given the new rules FB is now 'modeling' ROAS and it has decreased accuracy for us from something like previously capturing 80-95% of conversions to sometimes less than half. This makes a big difference in auto-optimizing on their end and thus our ROAS.
And again sure, it gets complicated and definitely more snake oil to buy some 3rd party ad tech which claims to model across all your channels online and off. A lot of times that's gamed or just a bunch of BS.
But another way to measure is say you're a larger brand buying TV, digital, OOH etc the works. You can simply control by making only one single change segregated to a control and treatment geo/group before and after, measure delta.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-funded_crowd...
Just off the top of my head: - 2001 raid on Armando Diaz. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_Raid_on_Armando_Diaz
"The detainees were given few or no blankets, kept awake by guards, given little or no food and denied their statutory right to make phone calls and see a lawyer. They could hear crying and screaming from other cells. Police doctors at the facility also participated in the torture, using ritual humiliation, threats of rape and deprivation of water, food, sleep and medical care."
None of the responsible parties served any time.
- Way too many to count cold blooded murders of people in custody. The Aldrovandi, Cucchi and Magherini cases are emblematic as they at least got covered by the media.
- Violence against minorities, for example: https://www.statewatch.org/media/documents/news/2009/mar/Eve...
- Illegal detentions, for example: https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2019-07-28/califo...
- General lack of accountability and transparency.
- Widespread abuse of power by intimidation.
- Flat out lies, helped by crap media. I'll bet you $1,000 that on Dec 25, 2021, the news will report a variant of the following story: an elderly person called the police because they were lonely and wanted a friend to share a glass of spumante with.
That's 20 years ago, if there is widespread abuse, you'd have something in mind more recent.
Surely the important distinction is not the text itself but which character a reader empathises with — the monster or the victim.
(Personally I don’t understand why violent horror as a genre exists, and literally cannot empathise with people who enjoy it. Nonetheless I recognise that enjoyment of horror does not make one a monster).
What's wrong with it as entertainment?
To expand on this: the mapping between images and other cues to a precise meaning is often actually pretty poor. To correctly navigate using images you often have to have prior knowledge, with the exception of the most downright obvious images or visual cues possible. On the other hand, text can have essentially arbitrary precision (although past a certain point it becomes difficult to parse) - and is thus actually often superior for first-use (or infrequent use) scenarios. The ideal is to have the best communication possible, and while I'm not sure as to the extent that Uber reaches that goal, text being unreadable and the app being unnavigable because you changed the language is, in my view, more on you than on the app developers.
Let's say you're in Europe and and have a card in dollars:
[] 1000€
[] 1000€ (1€/1.2$ -> 1200$)
Deleted Comment
One of my problems with taxes is that it's essentially a free, automatically-replenishing pool of money for stupid politicians/government officials to spend recklessly (often prioritizing short-term wins that give them the most political clout) without the "pressure" a typical business in a competitive environment faces to use their money in the most efficient manner possible.
For example the UK's enforcement arm, the ICO, recently found that the adtech industry was in violation of the GDPR, then did nothing:
https://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/the-ico-must-fix-the-ad...
As far as I know, I can't personally sue these companies for this, and if the ICO does nothing then what's the law is meaningless.
The follow up from the Open Rights Group is here:
https://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/parliament-must-hold-th...
If you care about privacy in the UK, please donate to ORG, I started a direct debit years ago and have always been impressed with their work and focus:
Couldn't you sue ICO then?
Because it's _less_ "baked-in". Germany just recognized their part in a genocide, China has yet to acknowledge the Tiananmen massacre.