This is a what I’d call a funny tale about how you never know how things are going to circle back:
(Long thread warning, but I think it's worth it)
1/?
For my own safety I eventually ran away from her to live with my dad. I left behind my dog (who was also 12), and my three cats (Rocky 8, Jewel 10, and Scamper 12 years old). 3/?
My dad, being an electrician, would come home from work after particularly hard days and jokingly say, "Just don't work in electrical Bernie." 4/?
5/?
On our first interaction, he very slowly approached my desk and started a conversation.
7/?
"Okay Bill" I reply.
"Tell me, if you went fishing, got drunk, woke up in the morning without any memories and your ass hurt, would you tell anyone?"
"No Bill, I don't think I-"
"GREAT! Want to go fishing?!" He blurted excitedly. 8/?
To paraphrase the person on the phone informed me he was my brother, and that our mother died.
For lack of a better way to put it, this was a (half) brother I didn't know I had. 11/?
I made arrangements not only for taking time off work to grieve and process this event, but also to use some summer vacation in a month's time when my new older siblings came down to spend time with them. 13/?
14/?
For instance, my first interaction with my brother was when picking him up at the airport. 15/?
At the exact same time my brother and I said:
"The top goes up" and "Hold it upright".
If I'm honest, I'm not even sure which of us said which.
16/?
Cat food? 18/?
19/?
At the back of one of these photo albums was an obituary for one "Elmer Vance".
23/?
In the "survived by" section, it listed Arthur as Elmer's son. This was my great grandfather, my mother's grandfather.
24/?
Huh. 25/?
The front door opens, and in walks Mr. Bill Adams. He hobbles along slowly, taking at least one full minute to walk to my desk where most do it in 10-15 seconds.
"Bill," I start.
26/?
Perplexed, he looks at me, "Yes..."
"Was her father's name Elmer?"
"Yes. What's going on?" He inquires.
Ignoring his question, I continue: "Did she have a brother named Arthur?"
27/?
More from For later read
And yet authoritarians often broadcast silly, unpersuasive propaganda.
Political scientist Haifeng Huang writes that the purpose of propaganda is not to brainwash people, but to instill fear in them /2
"propaganda is often not used for indoctrination, but rather to signal the government\u2019s strength in being able to afford significant resources and impose on its citizens...not meant to 'brainwash', but rather to forewarn the society about how strong it is" https://t.co/mFAurhEHeO pic.twitter.com/WXKKJaPqWQ
— Rob Henderson (@robkhenderson) June 18, 2020
When people are bombarded with propaganda everywhere they look, they are reminded of the strength of the regime.
The vast amount of resources authoritarians spend to display their message in every corner of the public square is a costly demonstration of their power /3
In fact, the overt silliness of authoritarian propaganda is part of the point. Propaganda is designed to be silly so that people can instantly recognize it when they see it
Authoritarians do not use propaganda for brainwashing, "but to demonstrate their strength in social control...propaganda may need to be dull and unpersuasive, to make sure citizens know it is propaganda when they see it and hence get the implicit message" https://t.co/PqRpxjaIPL pic.twitter.com/1y67d2RCjB
— Rob Henderson (@robkhenderson) June 19, 2020
Propaganda is intended to instill fear in people, not brainwash them.
The message is: You might not believe in pro-regime values or attitudes. But we will make sure you are too frightened to do anything about it.
@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.