Why this effect? Not because @GretaThunberg ate less meat or encouraged her family not to fly: if that's all she'd done, we'd never know her name. No, it's because she did one simple but incredibly powerful thing we can all emulate: she raised her voice to advocate for change.
"The @GretaThunberg Effect" is now an empirically demonstrated, peer-reviewed phenomenon:
— Geoffrey Supran (@GeoffreySupran) January 26, 2021
"We find that those who are more familiar with Greta Thunberg have higher intentions of taking collective actions to reduce global warming."
Open access: https://t.co/TFRyvBaNn1 pic.twitter.com/apqZdFgqfW
She raised her voice AND acted in line with the principles she advocates for. Living the change and speaking about it boosts climate communication. #ClimateCommuniActionhttps://t.co/V5askLNlKi
— Manuel Grebenjak (@ManuelGrebe) January 26, 2021
1/ https://t.co/e1MDOIiXZe
2/ https://t.co/YXr5Uq3WWN
Contrary to what many think, I don't spend my time talking to dismissives and my only helpful tip is this: don't bother, unless (a) you enjoy arguing and never getting anywhere or (b) there are other people listening who need to know there are solid answers to their objections. pic.twitter.com/KxJMdHf3NX
— Prof. Katharine Hayhoe (@KHayhoe) March 4, 2020
More from For later read
The DIVERSITY INFORMATION section in yr job application mentions 'legal equality duties'. You then ask "What is your gender identity?" with options
Female
Male
Non-binary
Not-listed
Other
1/13
'Gender identity' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.
https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u
2/13
Sex is the protected characteristic and the only two possible options for sex are 'Female' and 'Male' as defined in the Act and consistent with biology - 'non-binary' and 'other' are not valid options.
https://t.co/CEJ0gkr6nF
'Gender identity' is not a synonym for sex.
3/13
You then ask "Does your gender identity match your sex registered at birth?"
4/13
Again, 'gender identity' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.
https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u
5/13
A thread...
Back in Aug 2016, I started creating content to share my experiences as an entrepreneur.
Over 3 years I had put out 1,200+ hours of content - posting every week without
August 2016.
— Ankur Warikoo (@warikoo) October 2, 2020
It has been 3 months since LinkedIn had launched its video feature.
And I had been waiting for it to be activated on my profile.
A thread...
Little did I know that something I started almost 4 years back would give my life an entirely new direction.
At the end of 2019, my biggest platform was LinkedIn with ~700K followers.
In Jan 2020, I decided to build a team that would help me with the content.
I ran a month long recruitment drive to hire a team of interns.
It comprised 4 detailed rounds - starting with my loved 20 questions, then an assignment, then a WhatsApp video round and finally F2F.
Through 1,200+ applications, I finally selected 6 profiles, starting March.
I am a firm believer in @peterthiel's one task, one person philosophy
So the team was structured such that everyone was responsible for ONLY one task
1. Content ideas
2. Videography
3. Video editing
4. LinkedIn (+TikTok) distribution
5. FB+IG distribution
6. YouTube distribution
@KevinCoates correct me if I'm wrong, but basic point seems to be that banning targeted ads will lower platform profits, but will mostly be beneficial for consumers.
Some counterpoints 👇
That targeted ads allow for "free" products for consumers is a common talking point and we're going to see more of it in the coming months.: https://t.co/Xty3My3f0u (1/14)
— Kevin Coates (@KevinCoates) February 16, 2021
1) This assumes that consumers prefer contextual ads to targeted ones.
This does not seem self-evident to me
Great post by @Sherman1890 got me thinking about the future of targeted ads.
— Dirk Auer (@AuerDirk) February 12, 2021
More and more tools (privacy labels, ad blockers, GDPR) enable consumers to opt-out from targeted ads - can limit the data platforms receive or block ads altogether.
The end of targeted ads? \U0001f9f5\U0001f447 https://t.co/MA6A3BrUWq
Research also finds that firms choose between ad. targeting vs. obtrusiveness 👇
If true, the right question is not whether consumers prefer contextual ads to targeted ones. But whether they prefer *more* contextual ads vs *fewer* targeted
2) True, many inframarginal platforms might simply shift to contextual ads.
But some might already be almost indifferent between direct & indirect monetization.
Hard to imagine that *none* of them will respond to reduced ad revenue with actual fees.
3) Policy debate seems to be moving from:
"Consumers are insufficiently informed to decide how they share their data."
To
"No one in their right mind would agree to highly targeted ads (e.g., those that mix data from multiple sources)."
IMO the latter statement is incorrect.
\U0001f91e ONLINE RAFFLE is available from @bodega for the upcoming "UNLV" Nike Dunk Low Retro. Open until 5 PM ET on 2/16.
— Kicks Deals (@KicksDeals) February 15, 2021
\u27a1\ufe0f\u27a1\ufe0f https://t.co/JxJlyPuJVo pic.twitter.com/zenWOCDg4L
like seriously why not make a ton more of them if they're gonna be so sought-after? they land at outlets? so? nike still makes money off that.
the only reason to keep making them so limited is that they KNOW all that matters is the profit on the flip and if they were readily available FEWER people would want them, not more
the whole system is super broken, but it's just gonna go the way it goes, because at this point it all caters to the secondary market. the only reason Nike can sell Jordan 1s for $200 is because the people buying them can flip them for $500
adjusted for inflation, a $65 AJ1 in 1985 is like $160—and modern-day AJ1s are made from cheaper materials in factories staffed by cheaper workers. they don't HAVE to be $200 retail. but the secondary market nuked the whole concept of what sneakers are "worth"