This is a good move. Although I respectfully challenge @jack's notion of 'earned' reach.
Politicians tweeting algorithmically amplified outrage is not what I call 'earning reach'.
Engagement algorithms are warping our political discourse and trashing the public commons.https://twitter.com/jack/status/1189634360472829952 …
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
I mostly agree. With ads—at least the paid component of their reach was on a (mostly) level playing field. But outrageous candidates have a fundamental advantage in organic reach on these platforms. The algorithm loves their populism & demagoguery—it’s so irresistibly engaging!
3 replies 2 retweets 9 likes -
I think the dynamic Antonio mentions is the same regardless of whether its paid or organic.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
%
For ads I think a useful lens is thinking of them as paid bootloaders for organic reach.
The real goal is virality & that’s where a campaign’s “effective” CPM skyrockets—The paid aspect is a booster
to get there
It’s sad—b/c we all know what political content goes viral2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @rsg @kimmaicutler and
Generally agree but at least when something goes viral (even for the wrong reasons) there is a public awareness of the discourse. Targetted ads function v differently
0 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @antoniogm @jeffpersonified and
That’s fine—although I’d argue that hyper targeting (aside from lookalike audiences) has mostly been a red herring to date. But it will grow more dangerous as political ad tech matures. So I’m ok w/ nipping it in the bud. But lookalike targeting is scary—Automated cult building
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
I’m also ok with amending hypertargeting. The most impt thing is that candidates get a chance to respond if others are doing hyper targeted lying about them.
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.
