What was his rationale there? Meth is already vaporized, just using a different method. I don’t know about opiates,
To be fair, I think he was referring mostly to opiates, where the benefits are clearer.
I wonder how much ads from recognisable, reputable companies lends credibility or legitimacy to marginal news sites. I suspect many people rely on exactly these kinds of spurious cues in assessing whether what they are reading can be trusted.
You make an excellent point.
they may look stupid but the entire story is now 100% fixed on map locations, village names and not the actual events, you know the actual story/allegations – the spin has spun the story into the realm the public will now zone out of, if they’ve not already… which doesn’t help with maintaining pressure on a very hesitant to do anything English to launch an inquiry
Yeah – and the usual suspects online are loudly declaring they were right all along and the authors’ error in locating the villages about 2km away from where they actually are proves the whole thing is bogus.
Actually, it does the opposite: it places the villages exactly where the NZDF says it attacked.
Toby Manhire’s update for The Spinoff has it all up to date, with a statement from the Afghan villagers via their NZ lawyers. The village NZDF says it targeted doesn’t exist. The villages targeted were those named in the book.
And because Congressional Republicans seem to have a lust for doing stupid, evil things, this:
Internet service providers will soon be allowed to sell your browsing history, financial and health data, and other personal information to third-parties according to a bill passed by the House of Representatives Tuesday afternoon ...
The Obama-era rules that the new law will nullify mandated that internet service providers ask for opt-in consent from users before selling sensitive information to advertisers, a revenue stream that ISPs have long wanted to tap.
“If the bill is signed into law, companies like Cox, Comcast, Time Warner, AT&T, and Verizon will have free rein to hijack your searches, sell your data, and hammer you with unwanted advertisements,” Electronic Frontier Foundation legislative counsel Ernesto Falcon wrote in a blog post.
Craig Aaron, president and CEO of the Free Press Action Fund, said in a statement that House Republicans “voted to take away the privacy rights of hundreds of millions of Americans just so a few giant companies could pad their already considerable profits.”
More from Mashable:
Like all of Google's ads, YouTube ads are placed through automated exchanges that sort them, based on what's known about a given user's demographic.
Advertisers can choose to exclude their promotions from appearing on certain topics or categories of video, as a way of further controlling where their ads are seen.
The company also announced more tools this week that'll allow them to blacklist specific channels or categories of video.
Here's the problem: No matter what settings a brand picks, Google claims it never places ads on videos "with hate speech, gory, or offensive content."
Naturally, given the billions of videos on the site, it's nearly impossible to enforce this to a tee.
But there seems to be some gaping holes.
For instance, on a channel where the notoriously awful hate group Westboro Baptist Church posts strange, homophobic pop song parodies, an ad for Google's own computer science student program popped up on a video called, "Fat Bottomed Whores."
The song is a reimagining of Queen's "Fat Bottomed Girls" that includes the lyrics: "Oh, will God destroy the whore tonight? Oh, when will we see that fiery sight?"
how much of what ads a person is subject to is the site not the user – i.e. do ads follow a user (IP address I guess)?
Not IP address, thank god. It's done with cookies – and tracking cookies in particular. Facebook even tracks your non-Facebook traffic, because it knows information about you that it can sell.
I know if I look at a item in a online store I am then advertised strongly to for that product & store across multiple sites – what I’m asking is were the juicy and jetstar ads on the USA supreme site there because of placement or your visit?
Because of my visit. I'm a New Zealander they want to reach, doesn't matter where. Except where it might matter because it's Nazis.
I’d imagine Jucy and Jetstar buy up lots of cheap space targeted at anyone from NZ – it’s probably not more subtle than that.
That’s exactly how it works. They set a budget and some parameters and the black box finds them their audience as cheaply and effectively as possible.
It’s a cheap method of advertising, not least because of the low work factor for the advertiser – they don’t need to make a business decision as to where they want to place ads or engage with the individual site owners.
Yes, certainly. And they get a report saying how many 30+ men in Auckland they reached or whatever. Those two brands are probably less concerned about reputational impact than others might be.
Chris Keall has pointed out to me that Xero has blacklisted Breibart News, so its ads won't appear there.
From their comms person:
“The sites blacklisted tend to be global sites but there will be local sites,” Ms Mercer says.
Which ones? She won’t say.
“We don't have relationships with the sites themselves. These are through Google Ad Exchanges which work with hundreds of thousands of sites.
“We regularly review sites that come up on our radar and that do not reflect our values. We don't tend to make these site exclusions public because they tend to change over time.”
The vandals are sacking Rome.
It seems that way.