Regular reminder that as much as we often talk in the language of lofty principles when discussing content moderation, "brand safety" is a real behind the scenes driver and advertisers' understanding of "free speech" is unlikely to be the same as yours...https://twitter.com/daphnehk/status/1398318473193811971 …
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @evelyndouek
This thesis makes no sense. Remember when a lot of advertisers very publicly boycotted Facebook and their revenue was up 48% the next quarter?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Pinboard
you think platforms aren’t at all responsive to brand safety concerns and advertisers??
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @evelyndouek
That is correct, and I think people who argue otherwise should present evidence.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Pinboard
evelyn douek Retweeted evelyn douek
well, there's platforms working with the GARM process for a start, and then, you know,https://twitter.com/evelyndouek/status/1354110938723586048 …
evelyn douek added,
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @evelyndouek
By evidence I mean something different than "what the platforms say"
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Pinboard
the duopoly is obviously too powerful and so anyone's leverage is limited, but i think it's pretty nuts to say that brand safety doesn't guide what platforms do at all, or at least that the thesis it might does not "make no sense" but thanks
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
If you're saying a pre-emptive model where platforms practice self-restraint because of the anticipated reactions of advertisers, then that's hard to disagree with (partly because it's hard to disprove). I do think the idea that advertisers exert any positive control lacks proof
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.