#286/ May 15, 2022
DRAMA BOY SAYS TWITTER DEAL "ON HOLD"
A few weeks ago I wrote that I gave the Musk-Twitter romance less than a 50/50 shot at consummation. On Friday, Musk tweeted that the deal was "on hold."
Here's the gag...Twitter reported that less than 5% of its active accounts are false or spam. Musk knows that's total bullshit.
He knows because, as reported here last week, Tesla has benefited big time from Twitter bots. According to University of Maryland researchers, of 1.4 million tweets between 2010 and 2020 from the 400 top accounts using Tesla’s stock ticker ($TSLA) , 23% seem to have come from bots.
Everything on the web is at least 20% fraud, bots, spam or some other flavor of bullshit (except, maybe, certain blogweasel newsletters.) I'd bet huge sums of money that the number of bullshit accounts on Twitter is closer to 25% than 5%.
Twitter has been reporting this 5% horseshit for almost 10 years. But now Musk is suddenly demanding to see the manager. He wants proof that bogus Twitter accounts are fewer than 5%. He knows the answer, but this gives him excellent leverage and it gives us a nice look at his potential exit strategy. If he decides to pull out he has an excuse. If decides to stay in he has a nice negotiating position. The Muskrat ain't dumb.
Meanwhile, according to The Wall Street Journal, Musk's lawyers made him follow his "on hold" tweet with another tweet saying he was still "committed" to the deal. That's lawyer guidance for "hey, drama-boy, you just stepped on your dick."
Twitter's current CEO, trying desperately to cling to the wreckage, fired a few big shots this week and instituted a hiring freeze.
All this while the feds are investigating why Musk was 10 days late in disclosing that he had bought a significant stake in Twitter.
One thing you can be sure of -- this deal will be good for months of sleazy maneuvering, manufactured drama, and hearty laughs..
Billionaire Bullshit/Episode 3: Meta Burning a Billion a Month
And speaking of billionaire asshats, Mark Zuckerberg's obsession with all things metaverse is costing his company big time.
For months now Zbag has lost interest in fixing the enormous problems at Facebook and, like a 6-year old, has focused all his attention on his new toy. But Meta turns out to be a very expensive plaything.
According to Reuters, in the first six months of 2022, Meta's hardware division, Reality Labs, has cost the company $6.2 billion. As a result, Meta has frozen hiring, is cancelling some projects, and has engendered fear in employees that layoffs are looming.
How do you spend $6 billion in 6 months? Believe me, I've tried and it ain't easy. In less virtuous times this would have been a wife joke.
Meanwhile, according to Ad Age..."One of Meta's top executives is cautioning brands not to get too excited about the metaverse just yet, even as the social media giant moves aggressively into virtual worlds.." Say it isn't so. I'm SO excited about virtual worlds because, ya know, the real world isn't fucked-up enough.
"The metaverse is still years away" said Nada Stirratt, Meta’s VP Americas ..."I would be very, very careful if somebody puts all their money in the metaverse, and then doesn’t understand why they weren’t able to sell more cars."
Putting all their money in the metaverse? Even car companies can't be that stupid.
How Russia Is Winning the Twitter War
In the not-so-entertaning Twitter category is this article from The Economist entitled "Russia Is Swaying Twitter Users Outside the West to Its Side." Putin may be getting his ass handed to him in Ukraine, but he's doing pretty damn well in the Twitterverse.
According to The Economist, "An army of suspicious accounts began churning out pro-Russian content in March...An analysis of recent Twitter posts suggests that Russia’s online information operations may be focused outside the West—and already bearing fruit."
Please send this article to any knuckleheads you know who think publishers don't have editorial responsibility and that freedom of speech equals freedom of reach.
Does Tracking-Based Targeting Work Better?
The entire ecosystem of online advertising is based on the assumption that surveillance-based targeting is more efficient for advertisers than traditional targeting methods.
After 25 years of tracking-based privacy abuse, I have never seen comprehensive research that actually confirms this assumption. I have seen research that skirts around it or studies bits and pieces. But nothing comprehensive.
Blogweasel calculations indicate that adtech-based targeting adds at least 100% to the cost of an online ad. In order for it to be more efficient it has to be more than twice as effective. I'm slightly skeptical.
An article in AppleInsider this week reported that, "Apple has revealed to advertisers that App Store search ads served in a non-targeted fashion are just as effective as those relying on targeting via first-party data."
Apple says that conversion rates are identical for ads served using first-party data and those that just rely on search terms entered by customers.
Of course, this is not a comprehensive study and is highly specific to search. But it helps confirm my belief that the whole disreputable practice of tracking and surveillance is unnecessary, and that the claimed superior efficiency of tracking-based targeting is a con.
Maybe Regulators Are Waking Up
A flurry of stories this week gave me a glimmer of hope that governments and regulators are finally getting serious about protecting citizens rights from the dreadful adtech industry.
First, the Governor of Connecticut signed a bill allowing residents to opt out of tracking-based advertising. Other states have similar laws, but no one bothers to enforce them. Importantly, the new law specifically requires companies to honor browser based opt-out requests such as Global Privacy Control.
Next, the clowns at the ANA opposed this law which only proves what a good idea it is. The ANA wants a federal law which overrides all the state laws. They want this because they know they can count on the nitwits in DC to pass the kind of toothless bullshit that will allow them to continue their dangerous abuse of the public.
Third, the European Commission has committed to unequivocally enforcing a section of the new DMA regulation in Europe whose loose wording was considered a potential get-out-of-jail-free card for big tech.
Maybe we're finally getting somewhere.
Accidental Research
I posted a piece this week called "The Alarming Results of Accidental Research." It's about how a chance occurrence exposed the adtech industry for the clown show that it is. You can find it here.
Post of the Week
That's right, baby. I change worldviews. What the hell have you done lately?
