This might be called: The Little Elegy-Manifesto for the Last Friday of Everything (which we thought was only one more calendar Friday but turned out to be the last of something)
More from For later read
A name has caught the radar of agencies investigating #GretaToolkit- FRIEDRICH PIETER. Delhi Police expressed shock over the appearance of Pieter's name as "Who to Follow" in g-doc as he is under cops' scanner since 2006 for his Anti-India activities. Some shocking details..
1/9
Pieter is close associate (read hired by) Bhajan Singh Bhindar, founder of OFMI (Org for Minorities of India) that considers itself an anti-Gandhi 'crusader' & is Pro-Khalistan. They also campaigned to free Bhullar (convicted Khalistani terr0r!st) & lobby against Modi in US.
2/9
Bhinder has alleged connection with ISI & had records of owning inter-state drugs cartel & DVD piracy for terr0r funding. They also took control Fremont Gurudwara, US back in 2003 for millions of donation. Details of this 'Info-War' by @DisinfoLab
https://t.co/oIDFSoaDX2
3/9
Back to Pieter. Take a glance at his work. His TL is filled with anti-BJP/RSS/Modi propaganda. From his speeches to articles, everything have few keywords in common- RSS/Fascism/gen0c!de/k!ll!ing/Kashmir/Hindutva, as if running a non-stop unrest in India is his bread & butter
4/9
He picks every topic with an extreme narrative that potentially hurts integrity of nation, be it Kashmir,CAA,1984 & with his recent projects- Farmer protest & campaigning heavily against Sri Kulkarni. Despite all, Kulkarni appointed as Chief of Ext Affairs at Biden admin.
5/9
1/9
Pieter is close associate (read hired by) Bhajan Singh Bhindar, founder of OFMI (Org for Minorities of India) that considers itself an anti-Gandhi 'crusader' & is Pro-Khalistan. They also campaigned to free Bhullar (convicted Khalistani terr0r!st) & lobby against Modi in US.
2/9
Bhinder has alleged connection with ISI & had records of owning inter-state drugs cartel & DVD piracy for terr0r funding. They also took control Fremont Gurudwara, US back in 2003 for millions of donation. Details of this 'Info-War' by @DisinfoLab
https://t.co/oIDFSoaDX2
3/9
Back to Pieter. Take a glance at his work. His TL is filled with anti-BJP/RSS/Modi propaganda. From his speeches to articles, everything have few keywords in common- RSS/Fascism/gen0c!de/k!ll!ing/Kashmir/Hindutva, as if running a non-stop unrest in India is his bread & butter
4/9
He picks every topic with an extreme narrative that potentially hurts integrity of nation, be it Kashmir,CAA,1984 & with his recent projects- Farmer protest & campaigning heavily against Sri Kulkarni. Despite all, Kulkarni appointed as Chief of Ext Affairs at Biden admin.
5/9
This response to my tweet is a common objection to targeted advertising.
@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 👇
1) This assumes that consumers prefer contextual ads to targeted ones.
This does not seem self-evident to me
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.
@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.