No lockdown sceptic I am aware argued against precautionary measures for the categorically vulnerable.
Bad faith smears, such as this article, omits so much context, order of events and perspective, in order to turn Lockdown into a partisan issue.
Context like claims about 500K deaths, and 67 million people under house arrest for a year.
No lockdown sceptic I am aware argued against precautionary measures for the categorically vulnerable.
https://t.co/J0ZBFKxfG4
I\u2019ve called for a complete halt to PCR mass testing. Even if it was trustworthy, it serves no helpful purpose. We do NOT have EXCESS DEATHS. That\u2019s as it is in England & U.K. wide. People terrorised into staying home to die. Non-COVID excess deaths. Self-inflicted, due lockdown. https://t.co/M82gTgGpBm pic.twitter.com/c3CIfM7CZH
— Yardley Yeadon (@MichaelYeadon3) January 10, 2021
That is the reality of government policy.
That's every bit a failure as Lawson's claims against Lockdown sceptics.
"Counterfactual" not required, Dom.
In the November article, he states that Bowman is "far from an illiberal interventionist".
But illiberal interventionism is exactly what Bowman is for. If he was ever against it, he folded under the pressure.
I would like to know what she actually said back in May.
It's fair to say that Gupta's claim is more nuanced than Lawson allows.
And it's a statement in an informal interview, not in a paper offered to peers in the field, like the prediction of 500K deaths was.
https://t.co/sV7Sh7315u
“I think there’s a chance we might have done better by doing nothing at all, or at least by doing something different, which would have been to pay attention to protecting the vulnerable..."
Lawson omits all that.
More from For later read
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.
