In an interview for a forthcoming book, Mrs. Clinton also suggested that if Donald Trump won in November “we may never have another actual election.”

Hillary Clinton criticized her fellow Democrats over what she described as a decades-in-the-making failure to protect abortion rights, saying in her first extended interview about the fall of Roe v. Wade that her party underestimated the growing strength of anti-abortion forces until many Democrats were improbably “taken by surprise” by the landmark Dobbs decision in 2022.

In wide-ranging and unusually frank comments, Mrs. Clinton said Democrats had spent decades in a state of denial that a right enshrined in American life for generations could fall — that faith in the courts and legal precedent had made politicians, voters and officials unable to see clearly how the anti-abortion movement was chipping away at abortion rights, restricting access to the procedure and transforming the Supreme Court, until it was too late.

“We didn’t take it seriously, and we didn’t understand the threat,” Mrs. Clinton said. “Most Democrats, most Americans, did not realize we are in an existential struggle for the future of this country.”

She said: “We could have done more to fight.”

Mrs. Clinton’s comments came in an interview conducted in late February for a forthcoming book, “The Fall of Roe: The Rise of a New America.”

The interview represented Mrs. Clinton’s most detailed comments on abortion rights since the Supreme Court decision that led to the procedure becoming criminalized or restricted in 21 states. She said not only that her party was complacent but also that if she had been in the Senate at the time she would have worked harder to block confirmation of Trump-appointed justices.

And in a blunt reflection about the role sexism played in her 2016 presidential campaign, she said women were the voters who abandoned her in the final days because she was not “perfect.” Overhanging the interview was the understanding that had she won the White House, Roe most likely would have remained a bedrock feature of American life. She assigned blame for the fall of Roe broadly but pointedly, and notably spared herself from the critique.

Some Democrats will most likely agree with Mrs. Clinton’s assessment. But as the party turns its focus to wielding abortion as an electoral weapon, there has been little public reckoning among Democrats over their role in failing to protect abortion rights.

Even when they held control of Congress, Democrats were unwilling to pass legislation codifying abortion rights into federal law. While frequently mentioned in passing to rally their base during election season, the issue rarely rose to the top of their legislative or policy agenda. Many Democrats, including President Biden, often refused even to utter the word.

Until Roe fell, many in the party believed the federal right to an abortion was all but inviolable, unlikely to be reversed even by a conservative Supreme Court. The sense of denial extended to the highest ranks of the party — but not, Mrs. Clinton argued, to her.

“One thing I give the right credit for is they never give up,” she said. “They are relentless. You know, they take a loss, they get back up, they regroup, they raise more money.” She added: “It’s tremendously impressive the way that they operate. And we have nothing like it on our side.”

Mrs. Clinton did not express regret for any inaction herself. Rather, she said her efforts to raise alarms during her 2016 campaign went unheeded and were dismissed as “alarmist” by voters, politicians and members of her own party. In that race, she had talked about the threats to abortion rights on the campaign trail and most memorably in the third presidential debate, vowing to protect Roe when Mr. Trump promised to appoint judges who would overturn it.

But even then, internal campaign polling and focus groups showed that the issue did not resonate strongly with key groups of voters, because they did not believe Roe was truly at risk.

Now, as the country prepares to face its third referendum on Mr. Trump, she offered a stark warning about the 2024 election. A second Trump administration would go far beyond abortion rights to target women’s health care, gay rights, civil rights — and even the core tenets of American democracy itself, she said.

“This election is existential. I mean, if we don’t make the right decision in this election in our country, we may never have another actual election. I will put that out there because I believe it,” she said. “And if we no longer have another actual election, we will be governed by a small minority of right-wing forces that are well organized and well funded and are getting exactly what they want in terms of turning the clock back on women.”

Mrs. Clinton described those forces and her former opponent as part of a “global phenomena” restricting women’s rights, pointing to a push by Xi Jinping, the Chinese leader, pressing women to focus on raising children; the violent policing of women who violate Iran’s conservative dress code; and what she described as the misogyny of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia.

“Authoritarians, whether they be political or religious based, always go after women. It’s just written in the history. And that’s what will happen in this country,” Mrs. Clinton said.

Mrs. Clinton viewed her remarks as another attempt to ring an alarm before the 2024 election.

“More people have got to wake up, because this is the beginning,” she said. “They really want us to just shut up and go home. That’s their goal. And nobody should be in any way deluded. That’s what they will force upon us if they are given the chance.”

But she also seemed to expect that many would dismiss her concerns once again. “Oh, my God, there she goes again,” she said, describing what she anticipated would be the reaction to her interview. “I mean, she’s just so, you know, so out there.”

But she added: “I know history will prove me right. And I don’t take any comfort in that because that’s not the kind of country or world I want for my grandchildren.”

Nearly eight years after her final campaign, Mrs. Clinton remains one of the most prominent women in American politics, and the only woman in the country’s history to capture the presidential nomination of a major party.

Her life encapsulates what could be seen as the Roe era in American life. She embodies the professional and personal changes that swept the lives of American women over the past half-century. Roe was decided in 1973, the same year Mrs. Clinton graduated from law school. Its fall was accelerated in 2016 by her loss to Donald J. Trump, which set in motion a transformation of the Supreme Court.

Had Mrs. Clinton won the White House in 2016, history would have turned out very differently. She would most likely have appointed two or even three justices to the Supreme Court, securing an abortion-rights legal majority that probably would have not only upheld Roe but also delivered rulings that expanded access to the procedure.

Instead, Mrs. Clinton said Democrats neglected abortion rights from the ballot box to Congress to the Supreme Court.

Along with her prediction for the future, Mrs. Clinton offered a detailed assessment of the past. For her, the meaning of the ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization was clear — and devastating.

“It says that we are not equal citizens,” she said, referring to women. “It says that we don’t have autonomy, agency and privacy to make the most personal of decisions. It says that we should be rethinking our lives and our roles in the world.”

She blasted Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who wrote the Supreme Court’s majority opinion in the case, saying his decision was “terrible,” “poorly reasoned” and “historically inaccurate.”

Mrs. Clinton accused four justices — John G. Roberts Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — of being “teed up to do the bidding” of conservative political and religious organizations and leaders — though she believed many Democrats had not realized that during those justices’ confirmation hearings.

“It is really hard to believe that people are going to lie to you under oath, that even so-called conservative justices would upend precedents to arrive at ridiculous decisions on gun rights and campaign finance and abortion,” she said. “It’s really hard to accept that.”

Yet, she also had tough words for her former colleagues. In the Senate, she said, Democratic lawmakers did not push hard enough to block the confirmation of the justices who would go on to overturn federal abortion rights. When asked in confirmation hearings if they believed Roe was settled law, the nominees noted that Roe was precedent and largely avoided stating their opinion on the decision.

Those justices “all lied in their confirmation hearings,” she said, referring to Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett, all of whom were appointed by Mr. Trump. “They just flat-out lied. And Democrats did nothing in the Senate.”

She added: “If I’d still been in the Senate, and on the Judiciary Committee, I think, you know, I hope I would have tried to do more about what were just outright prevarications.”

It is unclear how Democrats could have stopped those justices from reaching the bench given that they did not control the Senate during their confirmation hearings. When Mr. Trump took office, Republicans also had unified control of 24 state legislatures, making it all but impossible for Democrats to stop conservatives from pushing through increasingly restrictive laws.

For years, she said, Democrats failed to “invest in the kind of parallel institutions” to the conservative legal establishment. Efforts to start the American Constitution Society, she said, never quite grew as large as the better established Federalist Society, a network of conservative lawyers, officials and justices that includes members of the Supreme Court.

“I just think that most of us who support the rights of women and privacy and the right to make these difficult decisions yourself, you know, we just couldn’t believe what was happening. And as a result, they slowly, surely and very effectively got what they wanted,” she said. “Our side was complacent and kind of taking it for granted and thinking it would never go away.”

Mrs. Clinton was born in 1947, when abortion was criminalized and contraception was banned or restricted in more than two dozen states. In Arkansas, where she practiced law while her husband served as governor, she watched the rise of the religious right and the anti-abortion movement.

From the time she arrived in Washington as first lady, Mrs. Clinton fought openly for abortion rights. She famously declared that “human rights are women’s rights, and women’s rights are human rights” in a 1995 speech at the World Conference on Women in Beijing. When she became a senator, Mrs. Clinton voted against the partial-birth abortion ban, unlike more than a dozen of her fellow Democrats. As Barack Obama’s secretary of state, she made a mission of expanding women’s reproductive health across the globe.

In 2016, Planned Parenthood endorsed her candidacy, the first time the organization waded into a presidential primary. In her campaign, Mrs. Clinton promised to appoint judges who would preserve Roe, opposed efforts in Congress to pass a 20-week abortion ban and pushed for the repeal of the Hyde Amendment, which banned the federal funding of abortions.

Even her language was updated. For years, when it came to abortion, she championed her belief in a phrase popularized by her husband during his 1992 presidential campaign: “safe, legal and rare.”

In a private, previously unreported meeting recounted in the book, campaign aides told Mrs. Clinton to drop the phrase during her 2016 run. Her staff explained that increasingly progressive abortion-rights activists thought calling for the procedure to be “rare” would offer a political concession to the anti-abortion movement. And with so many new restrictions being passed in conservative-controlled states, abortion was increasingly difficult to obtain, particularly for poorer women, making “rare” the wrong focus for their message. Abortion should be “safe, legal, accessible and affordable,” they told her.

“Well, that doesn’t make any sense,” she said in response at the time. “That’s stupid.”

In the interview, Mrs. Clinton said she quickly came to embrace the shift in language. What she and other Democrats had tried to do in 1992 with “safe, legal and rare” was “send a signal that we understand Roe v. Wade has a certain theory of the case about trimesters,” she explained. But by 2016, the world had changed.

“Too many women, particularly too many young women did not understand the effort that went into creating the underlying theory of Roe v. Wade. And the young women on my campaign made a very compelling argument that making it safe and legal was really the goal,” she said. “I kind of just pocketed the framework of Roe.”

Still, Mrs. Clinton felt like many of her warnings over the issue were ignored by much of the country.

When she delivered a speech in Wisconsin in March 2016, arguing that Supreme Court justices selected by Mr. Trump could “demolish pillars of the progressive movement,” Mrs. Clinton said that “people kind of rolled their eyes at me.”

Mrs. Clinton said she saw her defeat in that election as inextricable from her gender. As she has in the past, she blamed the former F.B.I. director James Comey’s last-minute reopening of the investigation of her private email server for her immediate defeat. Mr. Comey had raised questions about her judgment and called her “extremely careless” but recommended no criminal charges.Other political strategists have faulted her message, strategy and various missteps by her campaign for her loss in 2016.

“But once he did that to me, the people, the voters who left me, were women,” she said. “They left me because they just couldn’t take a risk on me, because as a woman, I’m supposed to be perfect. They were willing to take a risk on Trump — who had a long list of, let’s call them flaws, to illustrate his imperfection — because he was a man, and they could envision a man as president and commander in chief.”

Mrs. Clinton said she was shocked by how little the reports of Mr. Trump’s sexual misconduct and assault seemed to affect the race. They did not disqualify him from the presidency, at least not among most Republicans and conservative Christians. But his promises to appoint justices that would reverse Roe helped him win, she said.

“Politically, he threw his lot in with the right on abortion and was richly rewarded,” she said.

ngl, it’s pretty funny that Rayllum was apparently compelling enough to the Teedeepee writers that they reworked their s3 plans to quickly canonize the ship, yet when it came to actually doing something with an established relationship between the main characters their first move was to break them up offscreen

CATWS and its building of stakes

Part of the reason why CATWS was so memorable in its appeal was the way it built the stakes throughout the story. Each of the major characters had something(s) at stake by the final act, and that was pivotal for the plot to sustain its tension and for the satisfaction in its final payoff.

The overarching conflict was the global, existential threat of Hydra getting their mass murder machine up in the air, and the ideological question of what the middle ground between freedom and security should be. But what made the final act so moving was the intimately personal stakes for many of our characters.

There was, obviously, the very personal stake Steve had to surmount in having to physically get through Bucky in order to protect the freedom he was advocating for. But apart from Steve, every other major character was challenged with a personal sacrifice in the final showdown. Nat was faced with having all her covers blown and her past - that she had tried so hard to hide - revealed to the world. Sam was confronted with going back into the field after losing his partner so traumatically that he changed careers. Fury was grappling with dismantling the organisation that he had devoted his life to build. And on the other side, Pierce and Rumlow had invested decades of their lives in an ideology which if successful would install them at the top of the food chain.

There was a great meta from years back talking about how well the movie established the competencies of the characters before introducing threats -- and how we were then able to quickly understand the threat because of how competent we have seen our protagonists be. Every action sequence served a purpose and built upon the previous one.

The Lumerian Star sequence was fantastic in how effectively it established the competence of not just Steve and Nat, but the entire Strike team. Rumlow and Rollins were good at their job; they're not super soldiers or super spies, sure, but they were skilled enough to keep pace with Steve and Nat.

This was an important foreword for the elevator fight, which itself was a pre-requisite for the Causeway fight. We have seen both Steve and the Strike team capable of taking down multiple pirates swiftly, so when the elevator fight started, there was a genuine sense of threat to Steve, even if he would make a quick job of disabling them. Then, after seeing Steve's skills against a very capable Strike team, it became all the more terrifying when the Winter Soldier almost nailed him to a van about 2 minutes into their fight.

On the other side, the Winter Soldier's introduction was an assemblage of horror story tropes -- of unexpected manifestations and impossible disappearances, and urban myths stretching back through half a century. The two characters used to introduce him were extremely competent from what we had seen of them. There's Fury, normally prescient and wily, scraping by a very determined assassination attempt, only to be stopped by the Winter Soldier materialising in the middle of the road...which he escaped, only to be later shot through the wall. There's Nat, normally cunning and cautious, telling Steve of how the Winter Soldier successfully ambushed her, of how his kills spanned 50 years, a logical improbability.

Not only was Steve about to meet the Winter Soldier with the weight of these legends behind him, from the vantage point of Hydra, they were sending out the Asset to meet Captain America with his historical legends behind him (oh look, another narrative parallel). All of this build-up culminated in the Causeway fight. The technical impressiveness of the stunts aside, part of why that fight worked so well was because we have had all these story beats that showed us how capable Steve and the Winter Soldier were, then we see them both genuinely struggle to overcome the other.

We can't talk about the final fight without talking about the emotional stakes, and we can't talk about the emotional stakes without discussing what Bucky means to Steve. We already had the "not without you" and the "I'm following the little guy from Brooklyn"; we've also had the "I don't want to kill anyone" turn into "I'm not going to stop until all of Hydra is dead" and the "I'm just a kid from Brooklyn" callback. This movie added the "even when I had nothing I had Bucky" and the "I knew him" and the "he will (know me)" and of course the "end of the line" exchanges.

But there were also more subtle cues -- that came from Steve's frequent rebuff of Nat's suggestions for companionship, the string of betrayals Steve had to grapple with, and Steve's lamentations of guilt and regret and uncertainty. Steve could not deny that he was lonely, but he had 101 excuses for why he could not make new connections. Steve did not know what he's looking for or why he's fighting or how long he wanted to continue, until he found out what was behind SHIELD and, specifically, what Hydra had done with Bucky.

Even removing the shipping angle, the final showdown between Steve and Bucky was unique in superhero movies, even for a friend-turned-enemy battle. It was not like the fight between Tony Stark and Obadiah Stane, or Peter Parker and Harry Osborne, or even Thor and Loki or Charles and Erik -- because there was no ideological divide between Steve and Bucky. Bucky did not and could not believe in the cause he's fighting for - he simply did not have that capacity for choice. The ideological battle was carried by the other characters - between Fury and Nat vs Pierce, between Sam vs Rumlow, and between the rest of SHIELD vs Hydra.

For Steve, his fight was much purer, dearer, and more heart-rending. The final battle held such emotional significance, not just because he's fighting his best friend, but also because his best friend was an unwilling participant in the circumstances. Bucky was Steve's physical equal, but he's also Steve's shared life experience, his tragically failed mission, his unfulfilled childhood promise, his betrayed faith in SHIELD, and the price that was paid for Hydra to grow under SHIELD's nose. This fight offered closure for all of these narrative and emotional threads.

He was also, once again, Hydra's asking price in exchange for the freedom Steve wanted for the world...and Steve so desperately wanted, this time, for that world to include Bucky.

Pope: Private property is ‘not Christian’, WEF agrees

At the turn of the month November-December, the pope made a move that was described as shocking by many. He argued that Christianity did not support the right to own a home. This led to surprised and outraged reactions, whereby several pointed out that those who are forced to rent or beg for shelter can never be free. Free West Media can here reveal that the Pope's statement is in line with the plans that the globalist elite has long discussed and also more or less clearly communicated to the public, something that most people have overlooked. Among other things, we present the World Economic Forum's 8-point vision for 2030. These world-changing plans are beginning to materialize in various ways now, including in China.

Published: January 19, 2021, 3:46 pm

Share

Tweet

Pope Francis attracted a lot of attention in Catholic circles on November 30 when he said several controversial things in a video message to judges from the Committee on Social Rights in Africa and America. However, the general public is not aware of his sensational statement, as the system media did not report on it.

The pope said, among other things, that a new “social justice” is needed and that private ownership is not something obvious in Christianity and therefore not for the Catholic Church either.

“Let us build the new social justice and admit that the Christian tradition has never recognized the right to private property as absolute and immovable,” said Francis.

Outraged reactions

Many were shocked by the statement and pointed out that the right to own private property is one of the most important human rights.

PROFESSOR KLAUS SCHWAB, 82, is a German engineer, economist and professor of business policy who is best known as the founder and chairman of the powerful globalist foundation World Economic Forum (WEF). In his book Covid-19: The Great Reset, Schwab claims that the world “will never” return to normal, despite acknowledging that the alleged coronavirus pandemic “does not pose a new existential threat.” – The pandemic represents a rare but narrow time window with opportunities to reflect (re: flect), rethink (re: imagine) and restore (re: set) our world, Schwab said at the launch of The Great Reset this summer. Photo: KTU

They pointed out that without that right you are like slaves of old, who must rely on their owners giving them a roof over their heads and food. Being always forced to earn in order to pay for the most basic need – protection against the forces of the weather – makes you both unfree and in practice completely powerless, some said on social media.

The pope’s statement was also widely discussed in Christian circles and no comments were positive. The exception was possibly the Twitter account Lichten & Bright who wrote:“Thank you for letting us know the Pope’s position on private ownership of property and means of production. We had no idea that he was an advocate of nationalizations [the state seizes] all land and business companies and against democratic elections. Thoughtful things”.

The Twitter account Catholic Victory wrote briefly that “Francis is a heretic and not a pope”.

Several people pointed out that it was reminiscent of the startling tones heard for several years from the World Economic Forum (WEF) foundation, which is best known for the annual conference in Davos, Switzerland. It brings together some of the world’s most powerful policy makers and globalists in politics and business. It was precisely the WEF that this summer, via its “ambassador” Prince Charles, launched The Great Reset, which more and more world leaders are now talking openly about being implemented.

The author of The Great Reset is Klaus Schwab, chairman of the powerful WEF, who wrote a 280-page book entitled COVID-19: The Great Reset. The book puts forward the argument that the pandemic has proven absolutely necessary to immediately introduce a completely new world order.

No private ownership 2030

To get an idea of ​​the background to the pope’s strange statement and what The Great Reset might mean, we can watch a video from the WEF entitled “8 predictions for the world 2030”.

COVID-19: THE GREAT RESET is 280 pages long and was already published on July 9, almost four months into the pandemic. Many have pointed out the improbability of writing such a comprehensive and complex book in such a short time. It tells us that the pandemic has shown the need to immediately introduce a new world order, which does not quite unexpectedly advocate a comprehensive “world government” and a merger of governments and multinational corporations to meet people’s needs. The incentive for for-profit large companies to pay out, for example, social benefits is, to say the least, vague. Instead of prioritizing profits, companies must now put “people at the center”. The book also proclaims that capitalism is obsolete and should instead be replaced by a new merger of capitalism and socialism, which is called “Stakeholder capitalism”. Critics call it communism in the form of a totalitarian global technocracy ruled by a small globalist elite using Big Tech (technology giants) and artificial intelligence (AI).

The first point there is as simple as it is remarkable. It states that “You will own nothing and you will be happy”. The point also explains that “Whatever you need, you will rent”. So no more ownership, but everything should be rented, including the clothes you wear on the body.

Can they really mean it? We visit WEF’s website for more information. There you can in a text, which paints the future they want to see in 2030, read the following:

Welcome to the year 2030. Welcome to my city – or should I say “our city”. I own nothing. I do not own a car. I do not own a house. I do not own any appliances or clothes.

The text on the WEF’s website also states that it is not only private ownership that will be abolished in the new utopia, or dystopia depending on who you ask, but there will also be no privacy. We can read there that:

Sometimes I can get annoyed by the fact that I have no real integrity. Nowhere can I go without being registered. I know that somewhere everything I do, think and dream about is recorded. I can only hope that no one will use it against me.

Many who hear it for the first time believe that it must be a conspiracy theorist’s crazy fantasies, but it is instead the richest and most powerful globalists on the planet who meet annually in Davos who present it in text and video form. System media has not reported on this and then the general public does not know these visions and agendas of these globalists.

Canadian Whistleblower has been right so far

Someone who claimed to be a Canadian MP and member of the Liberal Party of Canada (Canada’s Liberal Party led by Justin Trudeau, the country’s current Prime Minister) wrote an open letter on October 10 to warn the Canadian people that the pandemic is a smokescreen with the aim of introducing a far-reaching agenda where, among other things, people will be forced to renounce their right to private ownership. The Whistleblower did not reveal his name, but wrote that “I sit on several committee groups, but the information I provide comes from the Strategic Planning Committee, which is governed by the PMO [abbreviation for Prime Minister’s Office]”.

The anonymous MP then set out a secret roadmap established by Trudeau, which would be implemented regardless of their views or objections. He initially states that a second shutdown will be introduced in November, which will then be even tougher over Christmas and New Year. This is exactly what has happened in both North America and Europe. The whistleblower then indicates a frightening development in 2021, where, among other things, a third wave from a mutation called “COVID-21” – this time with real death rates – will be followed by an even harsher third shutdown in the first and second quarters of 2021.

Regarding the current economy and ownership, he indicates an impending “collapse of the supply chain, stock shortages, major economic instability” in the second quarter of 2021. Desperate people will then be offered the general basic income program, Universal Basic Income [UBI] in English. It can be mentioned here that Australia has already made it clear that only vaccinated citizens will be given welfare funds under a new law with the slogan “No jab, no pay”, “no syringe, nothing paid”.

In China, thousands of people in rural areas who voluntarily abandon their privately owned property and move to newly built apartments have been rewarded in various ways, while those who struggle are arrested and punished. Their houses are being demolished regardless of compliance.

POPULATION FROM THE RURAL AREA has begun in China. Here you can see Xiguozhuang, the first village in China’s eastern Shandong province, where residents saw their houses demolished at short notice. Fewer than a dozen homes remain along the village’s main road when the photo was taken in August. The Communist Party (CCP) forcibly expels farmers from their homes and farms. Liu, an affected farmer, recounts how he came home one day and discovered that local officials were preparing to demolish his house. When he called the police, they arrested him instead. Liu told the news channel NPR how about a hundred government officials surrounded his home before breaking down and arresting him, because he “resisted”. Liu’s privately owned property has now been demolished and apartment buildings await him and his neighbors. Photo: Amy Cheng / NPR

NEWLY BUILT MICRO APARTMENTS IN CHINA. Here you can see high-rise buildings with micro-apartments in Heze, in China’s eastern Shandong province, where Liu and his neighbors will be forcibly relocated when they are ready. The farmers are upset about the high rent they are being forced to have and will find it very difficult to afford. They are given the right to continue using the land, but they say that it will be impossible due to the long distance between the rental apartments they have been forced to and their land and that they do not have buildings left there that are necessary for the work. For several years, China has built many new cities, some of the largest in the world, which in most cases are still completely empty. This has been a mystery to many. Now that the CCP is starting to forcibly relocate people to the countryside and demolish their homes and farms, some are beginning to suspect that these “ghost towns” were built for Agenda 2030 and the massive expulsions from the countryside the globalists advocate (see NyT v50 / 2020).

Then the whistleblower describes in detail how the Canadians will be forced to renounce their ownership starting already this year. The anonymous Member writes:

Based on the roadmap provided, the Strategic Planning Committee was asked to design an effective way to change Canadians to meet unprecedented economic hardship. One that will change Canada and change the lives of Canadians forever. What we were told was that the federal government would offer Canadians a total debt write-off to compensate for what is essentially an economic collapse at the international level, where the federal government will offer Canadians to write off all their debts. Here’s how it works:

The federal government will offer to write off all personal debts (mortgages, loans, credit cards, etc.) where financing will be provided by the Canada [International Monetary Fund] IMF during what will be known as the World Debt Reset.

In exchange for accepting this total debt forgiveness, the individual will give up ownership of all property and assets forever. The individual will also need to agree to participate in the vaccination program for COVID-19 and COVID-21, which would allow the individual to travel and live indefinitely even during a complete shutdown (using a photo ID called Canada’s HealthPass).

With the pope’s statement, the Vatican and the Catholic Church have now officially taken the position that such possible plans do not run counter to the “Christian tradition”. Pope Francis was the one who, at the UN headquarters on September 25, 2015, the first visit ever by a pope, saw to it that all world leaders signed Agenda 2030.

All rights reserved. You have permission to quote freely from the articles provided that the source (www.freewestmedia.com) is given

Who the ATLA kids would be in a senior-year-but-we’re-quarantined high school AU

(Everyone is the same age for Continuity Purposes, pls disregard how weird that is)

Sokka: Sokka is the nerd who tries to get people to think he’s a jock but is really not doing a great job of it. He’s a genius with computers and he doesn’t get the best grades because he refuses to study, ever, but is freaking smart and got into a really good college engineering program. (Not that he’d ever admit it. It’s not his Brand.) Tries to play football because he thinks it’ll help him get girls. Sucks. Everyone but him is aware of this. Has been spending all of quarantine whining about quarantine and playing video games. Incredibly upset because he may or may not have been planning the world’s most elaborate promposal for Suki that now will not happen.

-Katara: Katara is the valedictorian type who has never had fun in her life, but that one time the gang got her to go to a party, she was an absolute Legend. Other than missing her Children (Katara is the mom friend in every universe), she’s taking quarantine okay because she has minimal social life outside of her squad, but the idea of missing out on Senior Traditions gives her a coronary. Definitely posted her valedictorian speech to YouTube after graduation got cancelled because there’s no way in HECK she’s missing an opportunity to lecture her peers about hope and perseverance or whatever.

-Aang: Aang transferred into this school in 10th grade and was promptly adopted by Katara, his lab partner in chemistry, who had to try to stop him from playing with chemicals. He’s constantly disrupting class, either to liven things up or to have a moment of Moral Indignation, and his teachers kinda hate him (a la the fire nation school episode), but nothing ever happens to him because the admin loves him. Gets 800 awards every year for his 2000 hours of community service, which he never shuts up about. Hates quarantine because he misses the gang (and the fifteen different volunteer jobs he has), but makes the best of it. As one of his volunteer gigs, he trains seeing eye dogs, and that’s how he met...

-Toph: Toph is the girl everyone is afraid of. Rich and will die mad about it; everyone is surprised by this because she has the distinct air of somoene who grew up fighting off existential threats to her very existence. Her seeing eye dog is far more popular than she is, probably because it actually likes people. When she received the dog, she inadvertently got its trainer and his entire friend group as part of the package deal, which she pretends to hate because of her Branding but actually loves. She’s on the water polo team, which seems highly improbable, but seriously, this girl will DROWN YOU. Taking quarantine quite well because she hates people but would never admit that she misses her friends.

-Suki: Suki is the captain of the girl’s volleyball team, one of the best players in the state, D1 offers all over the place, no one has any idea how Sokka got with her. He thinks he’s the jock in their relationship - yeah, no. She’s super aggressive on the court but almost universally liked because unless you give her cause to hate you, she’s just...chill. She’s upset about the lack of off season training during quarantine but at least she can work out more, which is a plus.

-Zuko: Zuko basically has a permanent seat in detention, which was almost never his fault at first but slowly became moreso over the years as he got progressively more mad at the system that kept wrongfully punishing him. Met Aang in detention, adopted by the group against his will directly thereafter (in for something with a Bunsen burner, don’t ask). Still lowkey popular despite the anger issues; he’s the captain of some sorta sports team. Doesn’t want to go to college but his uncle is making him. Loves quarantine, no people! except that it gives him more time to Pine because his love life is Complex. And he has to be around his sister. Otherwise great!

-Azula: Azula famously got into five Ivy Leage colleges but turned them all down for Stanford. She was such a good applicant that she didn’t need to bribe the admissions offices, but she did it anyway just to see if she could. How she hasn’t been expelled for harassing other children is beyond anyone. Constantly rubs her college admissions success in everyone else’s faces. Literally, college is her LIFE - she’s been plotting to make herself the perfect applicant since middle school. Has probably sabotaged people’s grades to boost her class rank. Salutatorian, and will DIE mad about being beaten by Katara. Dislikes the lack of people to cause problems for in quarantine because messing with Zuko got old Very Fast. Also dislikes that she has to be around Zuko so much in the first place.

-Mai: Mai has both the middle school emo kid vibes, and the special kind of existential despair that seems to be unique to 18-year-olds. Aspires to be April Ludgate. She can’t be taken to movies anymore because she keeps ruining movies for everyone else by poking holes in their logic. She wanted to go to Yale, and Azula will never stop rubbing it in her face that she didn’t get in. Nonetheless, she can’t stand quarantine, because there’s nothing to do.

-Ty Lee: a gymnast who misses 60% of the school year because she’s training or traveling to competitions. Cried for a week straight when quarantine starter both because she missed everyone and because she’s losing months of training time. Actually, that’s a lie. It was not a week. It was five.

How Far Down the QAnon Rabbit Hole Did Your Loved One Fall?

What to do when someone you love becomes obsessed with QAnon, part 2.

Psychology Today

Joe Pierre M.D.          August 21, 2020

“Who knows what this means, but it sounds good to me.”

—President Trump, retweeting a QAnon-related meme

This is part 2 of a series on “What to do When Someone You Love Becomes Obsessed with QAnon.”

In the first installment, "The Psychological Needs That QAnon Feeds," I discussed the psychological needs that QAnon may fulfill for its followers. Understanding those needs is a vital first step in order to understand why those who have fallen down the QAnon rabbit hole may be loathe to climb out. In this installment, I’ll set the stage to understand how the chances of rescuing our loved ones from the QAnon rabbit hole—and how to go about trying—may depend on just how far they’ve fallen.

Are Conspiracy Theorists “Crazy?”

To begin with, let’s differentiate belief in conspiracy theories like QAnon from the kind of delusional beliefs that are used to define mental illness and psychosis. Generally speaking, delusions are false and unshared beliefs that are often based on subjective “inner” experience and whose content is often “self-referential,” involving the believer. In contrast, conspiracy theories are usually shared beliefs that don’t explicitly involve the believer and are based on external evidence that one finds “out there,” such as on the internet. Unlike delusions, conspiracy theories may or may not turn out to be true. After all, they’re “theories.”

Based on this distinction, people who believe in conspiracy theories, however “crazy” they might sound, are no more delusional than those who believe in literal interpretations of religious texts like the Bible or the Quran. And so QAnon—the increasingly popular “right-wing” belief about the secret nefarious machinations of the Satan-worshipping, child-trafficking “Deep State” and President Trump’s destiny to thwart them—is a classic conspiracy theory, not a delusion. Now, if someone were to believe not only in QAnon dogma, but also in the false and unshared belief that they are Q, that would suggest a delusion. Note that it’s possible to believe in both conspiracy theories and delusions at the same time, with some overlap.

Conspiracy Theory Belief: Particle and Wave

Another way to understand whether beliefs might be considered “pathological” is to model them quantitatively as a continuous phenomenon—in other words, within a kind of scale that measures intensity or severity. For example, a cognitive model of delusional beliefs quantifies them along “dimensions” that include strength of conviction (how strongly one believes a delusion), preoccupation (how much one thinks about the delusion), extension (how much the delusion “bleeds into” or affects one's life), and distress (how much one is upset by the belief). Applying this model to non-delusional beliefs like conspiracy theories can help to understand when a belief is likely to disrupt people’s lives with a negative impact on their jobs, relationships, and mental well-being.1

Moving along a continuum of conspiracy theory belief, dimensions like conviction, preoccupation, extension, and distress would be expected to increase across it, along with mistrust in authoritative and mainstream sources of information.2 As believers go deeper and deeper down the rabbit hole, more and more time is spent “researching” conspiracy theories and immersing oneself in online discussions with other conspiracy theory believers, with less and less time spent on work, relationships, or other recreational pursuits. As this happens, believers increasingly turn their back on previous friends and family who don’t agree with their beliefs and don’t “inhabit” their new world.

Similar to how physicists understand light as both “particle” and “wave,” it can also be helpful to conceptualize belief intensity as discrete points along a continuum, like colors in the visible light “spectrum.” Conspiracy theory researcher Dr. Bradley Franks and his colleagues have proposed just such a spectrum model, with 5 “types” or stages of conspiracy theory belief.3 Their model goes something like this (with additional comments added by me):

Type/stage 1: People feel like “something isn’t right,” but keep an open mind as they seek answers to questions.

Type/stage 2: People feel as if “there’s more to reality than meets the eye,” are skeptical about official explanations, and start to seek out alternative sources of information.

Type/stage 3: Mistrust of authoritative sources of information increases to the point of definitive belief that some official narratives are untrue. As a result, people continue to seek information and engage with like-minded people from whom they gain a sense of belonging and group membership. They’re also more likely to get involved in “political action.”

Type/stage 4: At this point, nearly all official and mainstream accounts are rejected so that people turn away from the mainstream in favor of affiliation with an “enlightened” community of conspiracy theory believers. Non-believers are dismissed as “sheep” who are “asleep.”

Type/stage 5: In the final stage, authoritative and mainstream accounts are rejected to such an extent as to embrace belief in not only improbable, but frankly supernatural explanations for events (e.g. aliens, lizard people, etc.). At this stage, conspiracy theories and delusions may begin to overlap with self-referential aspects.

Dr. Franks’ proposed spectrum of conspiracy theory believers is a novel framework to help understand just how far down the rabbit hole conspiracy theory believers have gone. But for the purpose of deciding how to intervene within that continuum, it may be more useful to more simply divide conspiracy theory believers into two stages: “fence-sitters” and “true believers.”

Fence-Sitters and True Believers

The mentally healthy way to hold most of our beliefs is with “cognitive flexibility,” acknowledging that we might be wrong and remaining open to other people’s perspectives. It’s likewise a good idea to maintain a healthy level of skepticism about new information that we encounter lest we succumb to our cognitive biases and merely reinforce preexisting beliefs. This is especially true when we’re talking about theories where supporting evidence is modest or preliminary, and in the case of religious or political beliefs, where a lack of objective evidence often leads to many equivocal perspectives, such that faith becomes necessary to sustain belief.

In the early stages of conspiracy theory belief, people are “fence-sitters” who are looking for answers and haven’t yet made up their minds. Cognitive flexibility and open-mindedness may be intact, but skepticism is already closely linked with mistrust of authoritative sources of information. At this stage, conspiracy theories are appealing as expressions of, or even metaphors for, that mistrust—for the idea that both information and informants are unreliable—without necessarily having a significant degree of belief conviction. This preliminary stage explains why some people might endorse Flat Earth conspiracy theories without actually believing the Earth is flat.

Farther down the rabbit hole, conspiracy theories are embraced with greater belief conviction and become entwined with a new group affiliation and personal identity (e.g. within QAnon, adherents identify as “anons,” “bakers,” and “Q-patriots”) that makes it increasingly difficult to maintain previously established social ties. As such “true believers” move away from the mainstream and in turn are estranged because of their fringe beliefs, they often feel increasingly marginalized and under threat.

In order to protect themselves and resolve cognitive dissonance, they often “double down,” ramping up belief conviction further and diving even farther into a new ideological world. Many will increasingly feel the need to take action, whether spending more time posting on social media in order to “spread the word” or at the extreme, through more drastic and potentially dangerous measures like arming themselves in order to “self-investigate” a child pornography ring at a pizza parlor.

When people’s beliefs become so enmeshed with their identities, giving them up can be viewed as an existential threat akin to death. Needless to say, that's a bad prognostic sign.

In Part 3 of this series on “What to do when someone you love becomes obsessed with QAnon,” we’ll conclude by discussing what kind of interventions might be helpful, depending on just how far down the rabbit hole of conspiracy theory belief someone has gone.

References

1. Pierre JM. Faith or delusion? At the crossroads of religion and psychosis. Journal of Psychiatric Practice 2001; 7:163-172.

2. Pierre JM. Mistrust and misinformation: a two-component, socio-epistemic model of belief in conspiracy theories. Journal of Social and Political Psychology 2020 (in press). [Available as a PsyArXic preprint at https://psyarxiv.com/xhw52]

3. Franks B, Bangerter A, Bauer MW, Hall M, Noort MC. Beyond “monologicality”? Exploring conspiracist worldviews. Frontiers in Psychology 2017; 8, 861.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/psych-unseen/202008/how-far-down-the-qanon-rabbit-hole-did-your-loved-one-fall

____________________________________________

part 1  Psychology Today

The Psychological Needs That QAnon Feeds

Joe Pierre M.D.  August 12, 2020

https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/psych-unseen/202008/the-psychological-needs-qanon-feeds

____________________________________________

part 3  Psychology Today

What to do when someone you love becomes obsessed with QAnon

4 Keys to Help Someone Climb Out of the QAnon Rabbit Hole

Joe Pierre M.D.  September 1, 2020

https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/psych-unseen/202009/4-keys-help-someone-climb-out-the-qanon-rabbit-hole

____________________________________________

Rolling Stone

It took years for the cracks to emerge for Jadeja, who slowly started to realize that Q drops were laden with logical inconsistencies. A turning point for him was a follower asking Q to get Trump to say the term “tippy top” as proof of Trump’s knowledge of the conspiracy; when Trump did say the phrase during a 2018 Easter egg roll speech, Q believers rejoiced, believing it to be confirmation that Q was real. Jadeja did some research and saw that Trump had said the phrase many times before. “That’s when I realized this was all a very slick con,” he says.

Former QAnon Followers Explain What Drew Them In — And Got Them Out

Like those leaving cults, some people who believe in conspiracy theories like QAnon and Pizzagate can break free from their beliefs

by EJ Dickson       September 23, 2020 9:00AM ET

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/ex-qanon-followers-cult-conspiracy-theory-pizzagate-1064076/

____________________________________________

West Point

The QAnon Conspiracy Theory: A Security Threat in the Making?

July 2020

https://ctc.usma.edu/the-qanon-conspiracy-theory-a-security-threat-in-the-making/

____________________________________________

Why it’s important to see QAnon as a ‘hyper-real’ religion

May 28, 2020

https://religiondispatches.org/in-the-name-of-the-father-son-and-q-why-its-important-to-see-qanon-as-a-hyper-real-religion/

____________________________________________

The Birth of QAmom

Parenting influencers have embraced sex-trafficking conspiracy theories — and it’s taking QAnon from the internet into the streets

by EJ Dickson

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/qanon-mom-conspiracy-theory-parents-sex-trafficking-qamom-1048921/

____________________________________________

CNN: Born on the dark fringes of the internet, QAnon is now infiltrating mainstream American life and politics

CNN     July 3, 2020

by Paul P. Murphy

____________________________________________

The thin line between conspiracy theories and cult worship is dissolving

An information war is being waged.

bigthink.com    May 18, 2020            

by Derek Beres

____________________________________________

The Prophecies of Q American conspiracy theories are entering a dangerous new phase.

The Atlantic   June 2020

The Women Making Conspiracy Theories Beautiful

The Atlantic    August 18, 2020

I Was a Teenage Conspiracy Theorist

The Atlantic   May 13, 2020

______________________________________

I’m dating a conspiracy theorist. But it feels like I’m the one going crazy.

Washington Post     August 16, 2020

By Trent Kay Maverick   

______________________________________

Coronavirus: How do I recognize a conspiracy theory?

DW        Deutsche Welle      May 19, 2020

______________________________________

Reddit community QAnon Casualties share stories of conspiracy cult

Herald Sun    August 11, 2020

by Jack Gramenz, news.com.au

______________________________________

Christian Groups That Resist Public-Health Guidelines Are Forgetting a Key Part of the Religion’s History

TIME     April 20, 2020

by Matthew Gabriele       

______________________________________

Childcare in the Unification Church of Oakland

Sun Myung Moon’s Sex-based Adam and Eve story is just another conspiracy theory

Heaven Will Be Nein [Jester/Yasha/Beau]

Whipped these up after @greneknyght mentioned beayashter with ship-selves, and I had an unstoppable urge to try and write something in the style of the game for my gals. Said post also originated the more campaign-aligned ship names. Got a few more ideas abt a HWBM AU for the Mighty Nein, so I may write up some other things for it at some point!

Pilot Name: Jester Lavorre Darling Pilot of: Creation Sun Type ♆ Star-Sapphire

    The Star-Sapphire is, by nature, an impossible ship. It is impossible in the way that it was designed to make the impossible become possible, an action that is impossible because to make something impossible happen means it was never impossible, but rather, only improbable. Still, even if the Star-Sapphire is only technically improbable, she feels absolutely unworldly in her presence. She’s huge, physically, but not as huge as Jester feels like from within. Carefully crafted in the depths of Poseidon's, which will never be Neptune’s, water and ammonia fogs, it’s amazing how she shines for something so obscured. She’s untouchable, or perhaps more accurately, she’s incomprehensible. She dazzles like her name-sake, even when only that long, twirling tail and those playfully curved horns are the most striking thing to be made out. She was modeled after a black hole, after all, but when she supernovaed, she gave birth to a star instead, the centerpiece of her own solar system.

     The Star-Sapphire’s a dazzling, shining star, improbable by design, and with that improbability, she’ll hold all her planets, all Jester’s friends close, and build a future for them, if she has to hold it up herself. 

Pilot Name: Yasha Nydoorin Wanted for Hijacking: Stage 2 Prototype ♃ The Orphanmaker

     The Orphanmaker was much more scarily named than other ship-selves, but she really wasn’t built to do any actual killing. Regardless though, that does not change the fact that she is terrifying, both because constructing her entirely out of the limited resources that Celestial Mechanics had access to after cutting off Earth had given her a much more intimidating appearance than others, but also in what she can actually do. She was built to orphan a section of humanity off from humanity itself, no small feat, and everyone’s too afraid of her to actually want to know how she’ll do it. Well, they do want to know what she does, like a horror movie when you want to cover your eyes but you’re too mesmerized to look away. Forged in the storms of Zeus, she generates so much electricity, so much power, so much fear, in the depths of her chassis, so strong they flow out of her tidal waves. Yasha was never considered to fly her, and yet, she’s a perfect fit. Intent’s the most important part of piloting after all, and the Orphanmaker is glad to be at the beck-and-call of Yasha’s especially.

     The Orphanmaker is so intense, she could probably be seen from Earth. That is, if she wasn’t so good at slipping away. One moment she’s there, the next she isn’t, leaving a strong impression on her opponents in between, and a feeling of an unfairness lingering in those who’d prefer her to stay.

Pilot Name: Beauregard Lionett Reluctant Flyer in: Perfected Archetype ♁ Cobalt Soul

     The Cobalt Soul was much older than the spry, energetic body bouncing about inside her. She was an original, one of the first ship-selves to face the Existential Threat, before the scientists really knew what they were doing, and before space was divided into three. She wasn’t a proof of concept, Mare Crisium came about for that, but she was the first to be honed for anything. She was made for conversation, sure, as all ship-selves are, but she was perfected for combat. Her fingers dance with signals that could send most ships into stasis, and she knows just where to place them. She’s like childhood, in training, when fighting was the only chance we got to touch each other, to say all the things we couldn’t put into words. Like these bodies can contain enough of everything we want to let the other know. 

     The Cobalt Soul is entirely manual. Even if she theoretically be upgraded, she remains untouched by biofeedback interfacing that’s standard for any third-generation pilot. Beau’s an outlier in that fact, molded and raised by space, yet, either a genius or an idiot, in that she can’t seem to pilot any other way. 

Plus: Some alternate names for the ship-selves that fall more in line with the game’s original space naming conventions Star-Sapphire - Creation Sun-Type Le Verrier (A ring of Neptune) The Orphanmaker - Stage 2 Prototype Red Spot (Jupiter’s most prominent named feature) The Cobalt Soul - Perfected Archetype Mare Imbrium (One of the maria on the moon) 

Trump Is Betting That Anger Can Still Be Power https://nyti.ms/2FiawhC

Donald Trump has so many deep seated issues (just to name a few) including anger, loneliness, truthfulness and his feelings of inadequacy that are doing damage to himself, his cult MAGA followers and this once great nation. It saddens😪me deeply but it also frightens😰🥵 me. He needs an invervention now by his family and friends but we know that won't happen so it's up to Congress to do their job.

Trump Is Betting That Anger Can Still Be Power

Trump 2020 may sound a lot like Trump 2016, but this time around the fusion of president and party is complete.

By Peter Wehner, Contributing Opinion Writer | Published June 19, 2019 | New York Times | Posted June 19, 2019 |

Donald Trump has been the most persistently unpopular first-term president in the postwar era. Much of the nation is exhausted and embarrassed by his presidency, pining for normalcy, eager to change the channel. The president’s own internal polls show Mr. Trump trailing the former vice president, Joe Biden, not only in many battleground states Mr. Trump won in 2016, but in traditional Republican strongholds like Georgia.

But as we saw Tuesday night, during a huge, raucous rally in Orlando, Fla., Trump is viewed by his supporters almost as a demigod. One excited Trump supporter who was there told me he was overwhelmed by the unwavering support for Mr. Trump, driven by a sense that Mr. Trump has been deeply wronged — by the Mueller investigation, by the media and by what he described as “anti-Trump forces.” He also told me, based on conversations he had with others at the rally, that Mr. Trump’s supporters believe his era is “spiritually driven.” What he meant by that is that person after person reported that when it comes to Mr. Trump and the presidency, “God has chosen him and is protecting him.” It is the Children of Light against the Children of Darkness.

That certainly aligns with my sense of how Trump supporters see things. It’s not just that Mr. Trump is exceedingly popular among Republicans, with his approval rating this year hovering in the high 80s and low 90s. It is that he has won their undying loyalty and affection. As a Republican friend of mine put it to me recently, Mr. Trump is the general leading the army into battle against an enemy that needs to be vanquished for the good of the nation. When facing an existential threat, there is no room for public dissent. In Mr. Trump’s Republican Party, you are expected to treat him with reverence, submission and obeisance, or you will be treated as a traitor to king and cause. Just ask Jeff Flake, Bob Corker, Mark Sanford and Justin Amash.

It was unthinkable when Donald Trump rode down the escalator at Trump Tower four years ago to announce his improbable run for the presidency, but his imprint on the Republican Party is at least as large as that of Ronald Reagan’s at a comparable point in his presidency. The Republican Party has been transformed by Mr. Trump.

That’s true in some areas more than others. In the realm of policy, Mr. Trump has pursued a fairly traditional Republican agenda on judicial appointments, abortion, tax cuts, deregulation and military spending. What makes Mr. Trump transformative is the areas in which he is redefining the right.

Let’s review. Until Mr. Trump, the Republican Party was committed, at least philosophically, to free trade. It is now led by a man who is instinctively protectionist and refers to himself as “Tariff Man.” The pre-Trump Republican Party championed limited government and entitlement reform; today it shows no interest in either. It was once unthinkable that a Republican president would target private companies in order to settle personal scores. For Mr. Trump, this is routine.

Republicans flayed President Barack Obama for implementing the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program despite lacking the constitutional and legal authority to do so. Yet Republicans in Congress overwhelmingly supported Mr. Trump’s emergency declaration to fund border wall construction despite its being a clear violation of the separation of powers.

Past Republican presidents were deeply committed to American global leadership, the Atlantic alliance, good relations with allies like Canada and publicly calling out brutal regimes like North Korea. No more. Today the Republican Party is led by a man who levels attacks on Canada even as he admits he “fell in love” after exchanging “beautiful letters” with the leader of North Korea, Kim Jong-un. Mr. Kim, it used to go without saying, rules what is arguably the most repressive government on earth; this is the man to whom Mr. Trump makes enormous concessions while getting almost nothing in return. And let’s not forget, however remote it might seem now, that the idea that a Republican president would side with the leader of Russia rather than his own intelligence agencies was once unimaginable. Under Mr. Trump, it happened. Mr. Trump has also turned a party that for decades was pro-immigration and friendly with Mexico — and in the case of Reagan, in favor of amnesty for undocumented workers and against putting up even a fence on the southern border — into one that is increasingly antagonistic toward immigrants and relentlessly hostile to Mexico, the current thaw notwithstanding.

Mr. Trump has flipped the Republican Party from outward looking to inward looking, from the champion of an open society into the cheerleader of a closed one, from optimism to pessimism. (It’s a long road to travel to get from “Morning in America” to “American carnage.”) A party that once claimed to abhor “identity politics” now relies on them as its closing argument in elections.

But as significant as these changes have been, the Trump transformation of the Republican Party has been even more decisive and far-reaching in other realms.

Republicans once fashioned themselves as members of the party of ethics, morality and law-and-order; today they fiercely defend a president who is essentially an unindicted co-conspirator for authorizing hush money payments to a porn star, who is a promiscuous liar, a man whom Robert Mueller could not clear of obstruction of justice and who just last week indicated he would eagerly listen to a foreign power that offered damaging information on his opponent during the upcoming president race. He even criticized the F.B.I. director he chose for saying that the agency would want to know about any foreign election meddling.

The most withering line of the year, so far, came from one of the Democratic candidates, Pete Buttigieg, who referred to Vice President Mike Pence, an outspoken evangelical Christian, as a “cheerleader for the porn star presidency.” Many of those who during the Bill Clinton presidency insisted character and personal integrity were essential qualities in political leaders have in the Trump era decided such matters are utterly unimportant. By their refusal to confront those flaws and failures in Mr. Trump, they are complicit in the debasement of American culture and politics. Many of Mr. Trump’s most vocal and prominent evangelical supporters, because of their rank hypocrisy, are doing more to damage Christian witness than the so-called New Atheists ever could.

Beyond that, in their ferocious defense of the president, Trump supporters are signaling that decency is a form of weakness, that cruelty is a welcome and highly effective political weapon and that the low road is the preferred road. At one point, Republicans were willing to tolerate Mr. Trump’s brutish tactics and reprehensible character as the price of party loyalty; today many of them seem to relish it. They see the dehumanization of others as a form of entertainment.

All of this has come at a crushing price, including driving away young people in huge numbers. The Trump ascendancy has made far too many Republicans increasingly contemptuous of serious intellectual and policy argument, indifferent to empirical truth and disdainful of governing. They prefer to turn politics into an ongoing freak show. But the greater price is the indelible stain all this places on the integrity of a party many of us once believed in, served in and took pride in.

Mr. Trump’s takeover of the Republican Party is complete. Healing and renewal can’t begin until the party rejects the malignancy of Trumpism and embraces the belief that politics is not only a necessary activity but a noble calling, an imperfect but essential way to advance justice. That day may yet come. Right now it feels light years away.

The FCC will move to kill net neutrality over Thanksgiving and it thinks that we'll all be too busy eating and shopping to notice

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai (previously) is planning to make good on his promise to kill net neutrality this weekend, under cover of the holidays, ushering in an era in which the largest telcoms corporations can extract bribes from the largest internet corporations to shut small, innovative and competitive internet services from connecting to you.

Under this regime, a company like Fox News or Google could pay a bribe to a company like Comcast, and in exchange, Comcast would make sure that its subscribers would get slower connections to their rivals. This is billed as "free enterprise."

Net Neutrality was won in America thanks to an improbable uprising of everyday people who finally figured out that this boring, wonky policy issue would directly affect their futures, and the way they work, learn, raise their children, stay in touch with their families, start businesses, participate in the public sphere, stay healthy and elect their leaders. Millions of Americans called, wrote, marched and donated and won over the largest, best-funded corporations in America, beating them and forcing the Obama-era FCC to protect the free, fair, open internet.

Ironically, Trump owes his victory to the neutral internet, where insurgent racists and conspiracy theorists were able to gather and network in support of Trumpism without having to outbid mainstream political rivals. Across Trumpist forums, the brighter among his supporters are aghast that a Trump appointee is about to destroy the factors that made their communities possible.

Ajit Pai is planning to introduce his anti-neutrality fast-track vote over the holiday weekend in the hopes that we'll be too busy eating or shopping to notice.

He's wrong.

Thanksgiving is when students go home for the holidays to fix their internet connections and clean the malware out of their computers. Those students -- awake to the Trumpist threat to their futures -- will spend this weekend explaining to their parents why they need to participate in the fight for a neutral net.

Thankgiving is when workers stay home from the office, participating in online forums and social media, where they will have raucous conversations about this existential threat -- because a free, fair and open internet isn't more important than climate change or gender discrimination or racism or inequality, but a free, fair and open internet is how we're going to win all those fights.

Sneaking in major policy changes over the holiday weekend is a bad look. People are better at understanding procedural irregularities than they are at understanding substance. It's hard to understand what "net neutrality" means -- but it's easy to understand that Ajit Pai isn't killing it in secret because he wants to make sure you're pleasantly surprised on Monday.

The "failure to observe regular order" is the hallmark of looters and crooks, and it foiled the GOP's attempt to murder Obamacare and is about to kill their tax plan. Pai's arrogance and incompetence are the epitome of the Randian delusion of supermanhood, the belief that no one can figure out what you're up to because you are such a job-creating, 11-dimensional-chess-playing Galt.

https://boingboing.net/2017/11/21/failure-to-observe-regular-ord.html

Islamabad: 8  Octtober 2019: While only two nuclear weapons have been used in war so far – at Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II – and nuclear stockpiles are down from their the peak they reached in the Cold War, it is a mistake to think that nuclear war is impossible. In fact, it might not be improbable.

The Cuban Missile crisis was very close to turning nuclear. If we assume one such event every 69 years and a one in three chance that it might go all the way to being nuclear war, the chance of such a catastrophe increases to about one in 200 per year. Worse still, the Cuban Missile crisis was only the most well-known case.

The history of Soviet-US nuclear deterrence is full of close calls and dangerous mistakes. The actual probability has changed depending on international tensions, but it seems implausible that the chances would be much lower than one in 1000 per year. A full-scale nuclear war between major powers would kill hundreds of millions of people directly or through the near aftermath – an unimaginable disaster. But that is not enough to make it an existential risk.

Bioengineered pandemic

Natural pandemics have killed more people than wars. However, natural pandemics are unlikely to be existential threats: there are usually some people resistant to the pathogen, and the offspring of survivors would be more resistant. Evolution also does not favor parasites that wipe out their hosts, which is why syphilis went from a virulent killer to a chronic disease as it spread in Europe.

Unfortunately we can now make diseases nastier. One of the more famous examples is how the introduction of an extra gene in mousepox – the mouse version of smallpox – made it far more lethal and able to infect vaccinated individuals. Recent work on bird flu has demonstrated that the contagiousness of a disease can be deliberately boosted.

Right now the risk of somebody deliberately releasing something devastating is low. But as biotechnology gets better and cheaper, more groups will be able to make diseases worse.

Most work on bioweapons have been done by governments looking for something controllable, because wiping out humanity is not militarily useful. But there are always some people who might want to do things because they can. Others have higher purposes. For instance, the Aum Shinrikyo cult tried to hasten the apocalypse using bioweapons beside their more successful nerve gas attack. Some people think the Earth would be better off without humans, and so on.

The number of fatalities from bioweapon and epidemic outbreaks attacks looks like it has a power-law distribution – most attacks have few victims, but a few kill many. Given current numbers the risk of a global pandemic from bioterrorism seems very small. But this is just bioterrorism: governments have killed far more people than terrorists with bioweapons (up to 400,000 may have died from the WWII Japanese biowar program). And as technology gets more powerful in the future nastier pathogens become easier to design.

Superintelligence

Intelligence is very powerful. A tiny increment in problem-solving ability and group coordination is why we left the other apes in the dust. Now their continued existence depends on human decisions, not what they do. Being smart is a real advantage for people and organisations, so there is much effort in figuring out ways of improving our individual and collective intelligence: from cognition-enhancing drugs to artificial-intelligence software.

The problem is that intelligent entities are good at achieving their goals, but if the goals are badly set they can use their power to cleverly achieve disastrous ends. There is no reason to think that intelligence itself will make something behave nice and morally. In fact, it is possible to prove that certain types of superintelligent systems would not obey moral rules even if they were true.

Even more worrying is that in trying to explain things to an artificial intelligence we run into profound practical and philosophical problems. Human values are diffuse, complex things that we are not good at expressing, and even if we could do that we might not understand all the implications of what we wish for.

Software-based intelligence may very quickly go from below human to frighteningly powerful. The reason is that it may scale in different ways from biological intelligence: it can run faster on faster computers, parts can be distributed on more computers, different versions tested and updated on the fly, new algorithms incorporated that give a jump in performance.It has been proposed that an “intelligence explosion” is possible when software becomes good enough at making better software. Should such a jump occur there would be a large difference in potential power between the smart system (or the people telling it what to do) and the rest of the world. This has clear potential for disaster if the goals are badly set.

The unusual thing about superintelligence is that we do not know if rapid and powerful intelligence explosions are possible: maybe our current civilisation as a whole is improving itself at the fastest possible rate. But there are good reasons to think that some technologies may speed things up far faster than current societies can handle. Similarly we do not have a good grip on just how dangerous different forms of superintelligence would be, or what mitigation strategies would actually work. It is very hard to reason about future technology we do not yet have, or intelligences greater than ourselves. Of the risks on this list, this is the one most likely to either be massive or just a mirage.

This is a surprisingly under-researched area. Even in the 50s and 60s when people were extremely confident that superintelligence could be achieved “within a generation”, they did not look much into safety issues. Maybe they did not take their predictions seriously, but more likely is that they just saw it as a remote future problem.

Nanotechnology

Nanotechnology is the control over matter with atomic or molecular precision. That is in itself not dangerous – instead, it would be very good news for most applications. The problem is that, like biotechnology, increasing power also increases the potential for abuses that are hard to defend against. The big problem is not the infamous “grey goo” of self-replicating nanomachines eating everything. That would require clever design for this very purpose. It is tough to make a machine replicate: biology is much better at it, by default. Maybe some maniac would eventually succeed, but there are plenty of more low-hanging fruits on the destructive technology tree.

The most obvious risk is that atomically precise manufacturing looks ideal for rapid, cheap manufacturing of things like weapons. In a world where any government could “print” large amounts of autonomous or semi-autonomous weapons (including facilities to make even more) arms races could become very fast – and hence unstable, since doing a first strike before the enemy gets a too large advantage might be tempting.

Weapons can also be small, precision things: a “smart poison” that acts like a nerve gas but seeks out victims, or ubiquitous “gnatbot” surveillance systems for keeping populations obedient seems entirely possible. Also, there might be ways of getting nuclear proliferation and climate engineering into the hands of anybody who wants it.

We cannot judge the likelihood of existential risk from future nanotechnology, but it looks like it could be potentially disruptive just because it can give us whatever we wish for.

Unknown unknownsThe most unsettling possibility is that there is something out there that is very deadly, and we have no clue about it.The silence in the sky might be evidence for this. Is the absence of aliens due to that life or intelligence is extremely rare, or that intelligent life tends to get wiped out? If there is a future Great Filter, it must have been noticed by other civilisations too, and even that didn’t help.

Whatever the threat is, it would have to be something that is nearly unavoidable even when you know it is there, no matter who and what you are. We do not know about any such threats (none of the others on this list work like this), but they might exist.Note that just because something is unknown it doesn’t mean we cannot reason about it. In a remarkable paper Max Tegmark and Nick Bostrom show that a certain set of risks must be less than one chance in a billion per year, based on the relative age of Earth.You might wonder why climate change or meteor impacts have been left off this list.

Climate change, no matter how scary, is unlikely to make the entire planet uninhabitable (but it could compound other threats if our defences to it break down). Meteors could certainly wipe us out, but we would have to be very unlucky. The average mammalian species survives for about a million years. Hence, the background natural extinction rate is roughly one in a million per year. This is much lower than the nuclear-war risk, which after 70 years is still the biggest threat to our continued existence. The availability heuristic makes us overestimate risks that are often in the media, and discount unprecedented risks. If we want to be around in a million years we need to correct that.

In 1976, a professor of economic history at the University of California, Berkeley published an essay outlining the fundamental laws of a force he perceived as humanity’s greatest existential threat: Stupidity.

Stupid people, Carlo M. Cipolla explained, share several identifying traits: they are abundant, they are irrational, and they cause problems for others without apparent benefit to themselves, thereby lowering society’s total well-being. There are no defenses against stupidity, argued the Italian-born professor, who died in 2000. The only way a society can avoid being crushed by the burden of its idiots is if the non-stupid work even harder to offset the losses of their stupid brethren.

Let’s take a look at Cipolla’s five basic laws of human stupidity:

Law 1: Always and inevitably everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation.

No matter how many idiots you suspect yourself surrounded by, Cipolla wrote, you are invariably lowballing the total. This problem is compounded by biased assumptions that certain people are intelligent based on superficial factors like their job, education level, or other traits we believe to be exclusive of stupidity. They aren’t. Which takes us to:

Law 2: The probability that a certain person be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person.

Cipolla posits stupidity is a variable that remains constant across all populations. Every category one can imagine—gender, race, nationality, education level, income—possesses a fixed percentage of stupid people. There are stupid college professors. There are stupid people at Davos and at the UN General Assembly. There are stupid people in every nation on earth. How numerous are the stupid amongst us? It’s impossible to say. And any guess would almost certainly violate the first law, anyway.

Law 3. A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses.

Cipolla called this one the Golden Law of stupidity. A stupid person, according to the economist, is one who causes problems for others without any clear benefit to himself.

The uncle unable to stop himself from posting fake news articles to Facebook? Stupid. The customer service representative who keeps you on the phone for an hour, hangs up on you twice, and somehow still manages to screw up your account? Stupid.

This law also introduces three other phenotypes that Cipolla says co-exist alongside stupidity. First there is the intelligent person, whose actions benefit both himself and others. Then there is the bandit, who benefits himself at others’ expense. And lastly there is the helpless person, whose actions enrich others at his own expense. Cipolla imagined the four types along a graph, like this:

The non-stupid are a flawed and inconsistent bunch. Sometimes we act intelligently, sometimes we are selfish bandits, sometimes we act helplessly and are taken advantage of by others, and sometimes we’re a bit of both. The stupid, in comparison, are paragons of consistency, acting at all times with unyielding idiocy.

However, consistent stupidity is the only consistent thing about the stupid. This is what makes stupid people so dangerous. Cipolla explains:

Essentially stupid people are dangerous and damaging because reasonable people find it difficult to imagine and understand unreasonable behavior. An intelligent person may understand the logic of a bandit. The bandit’s actions follow a pattern of rationality: nasty rationality, if you like, but still rationality. The bandit wants a plus on his account. Since he is not intelligent enough to devise ways of obtaining the plus as well as providing you with a plus, he will produce his plus by causing a minus to appear on your account. All this is bad, but it is rational and if you are rational you can predict it. You can foresee a bandit’s actions, his nasty maneuvres and ugly aspirations and often can build up your defenses.

With a stupid person all this is absolutely impossible as explained by the Third Basic Law. A stupid creature will harass you for no reason, for no advantage, without any plan or scheme and at the most improbable times and places. You have no rational way of telling if and when and how and why the stupid creature attacks. When confronted with a stupid individual you are completely at his mercy.

All of which leads us to:

Law 4: Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals. In particular non-stupid people constantly forget that at all times and places and under any circumstances to deal and/or associate with stupid people always turns out to be a costly mistake.

We underestimate the stupid, and we do so at our own peril. This brings us to the fifth and final law:

Law 5: A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person.

And its corollary:

A stupid person is more dangerous than a bandit.

We can do nothing about the stupid. The difference between societies that collapse under the weight of their stupid citizens and those who transcend them are the makeup of the non-stupid. Those progressing in spite of their stupid possess a high proportion of people acting intelligently, those who counterbalance the stupid’s losses by bringing about gains for themselves and their fellows.

Declining societies have the same percentage of stupid people as successful ones. But they also have high percentages of helpless people and, Cipolla writes, “an alarming proliferation of the bandits with overtones of stupidity.”

“Such change in the composition of the non-stupid population inevitably strengthens the destructive power of the [stupid] fraction and makes decline a certainty,” Cipolla concludes. “And the country goes to Hell.”

The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything

Posted by willcritchlow

Digital marketing is measurable.

It’s probably the single most common claim everyone hears about digital, and I can’t count the number of times I’ve seen conference speakers talk about it (heck, I’ve even done it myself).

I mean, look at those offline dinosaurs, the argument goes. They all know that half their spend is wasted — they just don’t know which half.

Maybe the joke’s on us digital marketers though, who garnered only 41% of global ad spend even in 2017 after years of strong growth.

Unfortunately, while we were geeking out about attribution models and cross-device tracking, we were accidentally triggering a common human cognitive bias that kept us anchored on small amounts, leaving buckets of money on the table and fundamentally reducing our impact and access to the C-suite.

And what’s worse is that we have convinced ourselves that it’s a critical part of what makes digital marketing great. The simplest way to see this is to realize that, for most of us, I very much doubt that if you removed all our measurement ability we’d reduce our digital marketing investment to nothing.

In truth, of course, we’re nowhere close to measuring all the benefits of most of the things we do. We certainly track the last clicks, and we’re not bad at tracking any clicks on the path to conversion on the same device, but we generally suck at capturing:

Anything that happens on a different device

Brand awareness impacts that lead to much later improvements in conversion rate, average order value, or lifetime value

Benefits of visibility or impressions that aren’t clicked

Brand affinity generally

The cognitive bias that leads us astray

All of this means that the returns we report on tend to be just the most direct returns. This should be fine — it’s just a floor on the true value (“this activity has generated at least this much value for the brand”) — but the “anchoring” cognitive bias means that it messes with our minds and our clients’ minds. Anchoring is the process whereby we fixate on the first number we hear and subsequently estimate unknowns closer to the anchoring number than we should. Famous experiments have shown that even showing people a totally random number can drag their subsequent estimates up or down.

So even if the true value of our activity was 10x the measured value, we’d be stuck on estimating the true value as very close to the single concrete, exact number we heard along the way.

This tends to result in the measured value being seen as a ceiling on the true value. Other biases like the availability heuristic (which results in us overstating the likelihood of things that are easy to remember) tend to mean that we tend to want to factor in obvious ways that the direct value measurement could be overstating things, and leave to one side all the unmeasured extra value.

The mistake became a really big one because fortunately/unfortunately, the measured return in digital has often been enough to justify at least a reasonable level of the activity. If it hadn’t been (think the vanishingly small number of people who see a billboard and immediately buy a car within the next week when they weren’t otherwise going to do so) we’d have been forced to talk more about the other benefits. But we weren’t. So we lazily talked about the measured value, and about the measurability as a benefit and a differentiator.

The threats of relying on exact measurement

Not only do we leave a whole load of credit (read: cash) on the table, but it also leads to threats to measurability being seen as existential threats to digital marketing activity as a whole. We know that there are growing threats to measuring accurately, including regulatory, technological, and user-behavior shifts:

GDPR and other privacy regulations are limiting what we are allowed to do (and, as platforms catch up, what we can do)

Privacy features are being included in more products, added on by savvy consumers, or simply being set to be on by default more often, with even the biggest company in the world touting privacy as a core differentiator

Users continue to increase the extent to which they research and buy across multiple devices

Compared to early in Google’s rise, the lack of keyword-level analytics data and the rise of (not provided) means that we have far less visibility into the details than we used to when the narrative of measurability was being written

Now, imagine that the combination of these trends meant that you lost 100% of your analytics and data. Would it mean that your leads stopped? Would you immediately turn your website off? Stop marketing?

I suggest that the answer to all of that is “no.” There’s a ton of value to digital marketing beyond the ability to track specific interactions.

We’re obviously not going to see our measurable insights disappear to zero, but for all the reasons I outlined above, it’s worth thinking about all the ways that our activities add value, how that value manifests, and some ways of proving it exists even if you can’t measure it.

How should we talk about value?

There are two pieces to the brand value puzzle:

Figuring out the value of increasing brand awareness or affinity

Understanding how our digital activities are changing said awareness or affinity

There’s obviously a lot of research into brand valuations generally, and while it’s outside the scope of this piece to think about total brand value, it’s worth noting that some methodologies place as much as 75% of the enterprise value of even some large companies in the value of their brands:

Image source

My colleague Tom Capper has written about a variety of ways to measure changes in brand awareness, which attacks a good chunk of the second challenge. But challenge #1 remains: how do we figure out what it’s worth to carry out some marketing activity that changes brand awareness or affinity?

In a recent post, I discussed different ways of building marketing models and one of the methodologies I described might be useful for this – namely so-called “top-down” modelling which I defined as being about percentages and trends (as opposed to raw numbers and units of production).

The top-down approach

I’ve come up with two possible ways of modelling brand value in a transactional sense:

1. The Sherlock approach

“When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.“ – Sherlock Holmes

The outline would be to take the total new revenue acquired in a period. Subtract from this any elements that can be attributed to specific acquisition channels; whatever remains must be brand. If this is in any way stable or predictable over multiple periods, you can use it as a baseline value from which to apply the methodologies outlined above for measuring changes in brand awareness and affinity.

2. Aggressive attribution

If you run normal first-touch attribution reports, the limitations of measurement (clearing cookies, multiple devices etc) mean that you will show first-touch revenue that seems somewhat implausible (e.g. email; email surely can’t be a first-touch source — how did they get on your email list in the first place?):

Click for a larger version

In this screenshot we see that although first-touch dramatically reduces the influence of direct, for instance, it still accounts for more than 15% of new revenue.

The aggressive attribution model takes total revenue and splits it between the acquisition channels (unbranded search, paid social, referral). A first pass on this would simply split it in the relative proportion to the size of each of those channels, effectively normalizing them, though you could build more sophisticated models.

Note that there is no way of perfectly identifying branded/unbranded organic search since (not provided) and so you’ll have to use a proxy like homepage search vs. non-homepage search.

But fundamentally, the argument here would be that any revenue coming from a “first touch” of:

Branded search

Direct

Organic social

Email

…was actually acquired previously via one of the acquisition channels and so we attempt to attribute it to those channels.

Even this under-represents brand value

Both of those methodologies are pretty aggressive — but they might still under-represent brand value. Here are two additional mechanics where brand drives organic search volume in ways I haven’t figured out how to measure yet:

Trusting Amazon to rank

I like reading on the Kindle. If I hear of a book I’d like to read, I’ll often Google the name of the book on its own and trust that Amazon will rank first or second so I can get to the Kindle page to buy it. This is effectively a branded search for Amazon (and if it doesn’t rank, I’ll likely follow up with a [book name amazon] search or head on over to Amazon to search there directly).

But because all I’ve appeared to do is search [book name] on Google and then click through to Amazon, there is nothing to differentiate this from an unbranded search.

Spotting brands you trust in the SERPs

I imagine we all have anecdotal experience of doing this: you do a search and you spot a website you know and trust (or where you have an account) ranking somewhere other than #1 and click on it regardless of position.

One time that I can specifically recall noticing this tendency growing in myself was when I started doing tons more baby-related searches after my first child was born. Up until that point, I had effectively zero brand affinity with anyone in the space, but I quickly grew to rate the content put out by babycentre (babycenter in the US) and I found myself often clicking on their result in position 3 or 4 even when I hadn’t set out to look for them, e.g. in results like this one:

It was fascinating to me to observe this behavior in myself because I had no real interaction with babycentre outside of search, and yet, by consistently ranking well across tons of long-tail queries and providing consistently good content and user experience I came to know and trust them and click on them even when they were outranked. I find this to be a great example because it is entirely self-contained within organic search. They built a brand effect through organic search and reaped the reward in increased organic search.

I have essentially no ideas on how to measure either of these effects. If you have any bright ideas, do let me know in the comments.

Budgets will come under pressure

My belief is that total digital budgets will continue to grow (especially as TV continues to fragment), but I also believe that individual budgets are going to come under scrutiny and pressure making this kind of thinking increasingly important.

We know that there is going to be pressure on referral traffic from Facebook following the recent news feed announcements, but there is also pressure on trust in Google:

Before the recent news feed changes, slightly misleading stories had implied that Google had lost the top spot as the largest referrer of traffic (whereas in fact this was only briefly true in media)

The growth of the mobile-first card view and richer and richer SERPs has led to declines in outbound CTR in some areas

The increasingly black-box nature of Google’s algorithm and an increasing use of ML make the algorithm increasingly impenetrable and mean that we are having to do more testing on individual sites to understand what works

While I believe that the opportunity is large and still growing (see, for example, this slide showing Google growing as a referrer of traffic even as CTR has declined in some areas), it’s clear that the narrative is going to lead to more challenging conversations and budgets under increased scrutiny.

Can you justify your SEO investment?

What do you say when your CMO asks what you’re getting for your SEO investment?

What do you say when she asks whether the organic search opportunity is tapped out?

I’ll probably explore the answers to both these questions more in another post, but suffice it to say that I do a lot of thinking about these kinds of questions.

The first is why we have built our split-testing platform to make organic SEO investments measurable, quantifiable and accountable.

The second is why I think it’s super important to remember the big picture while the media is running around with hair on fire. Media companies saw Facebook overtake Google as a traffic channel (and then are likely seeing that reverse right now), but most of the web has Google as the largest and growing source of traffic and value.

The reality (from clickstream data) is that it’s really easy to forget how long the long-tail is and how sparse search features and ads are on the extreme long-tail:

Only 3–4% of all searches result in a click on an ad, for example. Google’s incredible (and still growing) business is based on a small subset of commercial searches

Google’s share of all outbound referral traffic across the web is growing (and Facebook’s is shrinking as they increasingly wall off their garden)

The opportunity is for smart brands to capitalize on a growing opportunity while their competitors sink time and money into a social space that is increasingly all about Facebook, and increasingly pay-to-play.

What do you think? Are you having these hard conversations with leadership? How are you measuring your digital brand’s value?

Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don’t have time to hunt down but want to read!

Competing Visions of the Future Society

by Don Hall

The parable of the blind men and the elephant is one that consistently resonates with me.

The quick hits version is simply this:

Five blind men encounter an elephant. Each touches a part of the animal but, due to the limited exposure to each element, misidentifies what they are interpreting. The guy who touches the ear thinks they have stopped at a palm tree. The guy who grabs the trunk thinks it’s a python. And so on. Until the five confer with one another, they can’t know the bigger picture.

We are blind men and the pandemic is the elephant.

Individually we encounter:

A massive hit to our preparedness for mass extinction events

Globally, we’re all just flailing around and while COVID-19 is not a plague destined to eradicate 50% of the world’s population, this experience demonstrates that we are wholly incapable of surviving one of those 100,000 year old viruses being unleashed from the melting permafrost.

Our tribal divisions are increasingly a threat to our survival.

A country so divided by race, gender, religious extremes, and a strident refusal for compromise has created a culture war out of everything we deal with. When the very simple task of social distancing and wearing masks to contain the disease is a political hill to quite literally die upon, we’re in trouble.

The American version of Capitalism is corrupted so thoroughly by greed and power acquisition, it now exists as an existential risk with reward for so few as to eat itself alive.

Bernie tried to get the message across. Most didn’t listen or care. Instead of addressing the harsh economic disparity of the status quo, collectively we decided to focus on cults of personality and cultural tribalism. With the simple reality of a pandemic shutting down so much of our economic viability so quickly, the cracks of our system are widening.

As the balance of society is thrown off its axis, the time for revolution seems ripe.

The revolution at play is not about income inequality or the rights of women. It’s not even really about police brutality. On two fronts, the revolutionaries are fighting for equity and supremacy for black Americans and the transgendered. As the economy tanks and the anxiety of finding some sense of normalcy within the pandemic sits at the forefront, the creature that is the status quo is weakened so it seems like time for a killing blow.

Looking at the elephant from all of these angles gives a macro view of possibility. Potential for serious and widespread change.

The question at hand isn’t whether or not change will occur. It is inevitable. There is too much will for substantial changes in our system to be ignored and that will to change is how all true shifts in paradigm come to fruition. The question to be explored is what will that change look like?

Our choices seem to be limited more due to the the diverse nature of our American constituency and size than any ideological desires.

CHOICE #1: FULL ON WHITE SUPREMIST DICTATORSHIP

If improbably Donald Trump and the GOP-run Senate manage to cheat their way into a victory in November (because, at this point, the Trumpster Fire has already been impeached for blackmailing a foreign country to assist in his re-election campaign so assuming he won’t cheat is almost diabolically naive) the table will have been set and we’re all dining on the scraps of white supremist authoritarianism.

The white identity politicking of these old white dudes with intent upon stoking fear of black people, young people, and socialists is so stridently horrifying it is no wonder Americans are at each others’ throats over this current regime. If he wins again and maintains that creature of a Senate, he’s gonna get his Wall, he’s gonna get his deportations, and he’ll likely get his war.

Perhaps I’m less trusting of our institutions than I should be but with the courts packed as they are now with arch-conservative judges, the SCOTUS almost completely conservative, and the very Republican charge to “Save the Economy at the Expense of Old People, Black People, Brown People, and Everyone Else in the Service Industry” I’m not as confident in our chances should these greedy monsters prevail.

We can do so much better than embrace this retrograde America where white men ruled and everyone else was beaten into submission.

CHOICE #2: FULL ON SOCIAL JUSTICE DICTATORSHIP

As the Racial Marxists continue their rampage through our cultural institutions, calling out minor mistakes as firing offenses, the onslaught of censorship of speech and thought, the cult-like insistence that all white people are racist, putting these hucksters and secular religious zealots in charge will be a full on rebuke to all the advances of the Enlightenment as well as any good created via the Liberal Democratic experiment of the United States.

Perhaps that’s a bit extreme but so is a co-founder of #BLM writing the following:

Maybe I’m over-reacting but when diversity training indicates that objectivity, individualism, and intellectualization are markers of white supremacy, I’m thinking we are waltzing into the demise of rational society.

The goal for both the Extreme Right and the Extreme left are almost identical. The power to push their agenda, to punish those who disagree with that agenda, and to fundamentally sabotage the ideals of Liberal Democracy. 

I have to admire the Left, though. The Right went after Obama and Hillary Clinton. The Left decided to go after all white people. At least they think big in their scorched earth strategy.

CHOICE #3: A True Liberal Democracy

The third possibility is to go back, not to the mores of the Constitutional Days of pre-Civil War, but to the ideals written in those documents. Equality (not equity). Checks and Balances that still mean something. Rationality and the goal of the common good rather than the good of the few (the few being defined as the wealthy in the first model and the marginalized in the second).

If one takes a strong look at all the data collected it becomes apparent that the liberal democracy begun 244 years ago has made genuine strides into that utopian ideal. America is a far better place for all people than it was two centuries, one century, fifty years, or even ten years ago. Progress is slow and looking beyond the ear or trunk of the elephant is essential to truly gauge it accurately.

In essence, liberal democracy is working. It may not be working as fast as the current crop of activists would like it to but it is working and can continue to work.

The goals of equality are winning. Yes, we took a backwards turn with Reagan and then Gingrich using their slowly diminishing power to sow the seeds of polarization among the citizens but we can move forward again. The right wing zealots decided to make the culture war between the elite whites and the rural whites. Today the elite whites are waging campaigns to twist themselves into sycophants to the teachings of Derrick Bell, Ibram X. Kendrick, and improbably Robin DiAngelo. The rural whites adhere strictly in reaction to this by cleaving to the fetid breast of Trump.

The rest of us, the vast majority of the country, do not subscribe to either camp but are nonetheless heavily influenced by them via the digital megaphones they wield so well.

From a new online community, Persuasion:

There is much to lament about the changes that have taken place in some of the country's most important institutions over the past years. But there is also much to criticize in what these institutions looked like at their supposed best. Our goal is not to return to a golden age that has, sadly, never existed; it is to build societies that live up to the noble and ambitious values of freedom and justice better than any society of the past.

That’s our job. To build our society to be better.

Better looks like this elephant:

Accessible and excellent healthcare for all citizens.

Accessible and excellent education for all citizens.

Equality under the law with no regard to wealth or race.

Effective and just reparations for the crimes of the past (specifically addressing the ugly discrimination done against American blacks).

Due process and accountability for those in authority positions.

Accessible and excellent financial safety nets for our least able.

A return to ethics, justice, and grace.

In the competing visions of the future society, the centrists have the best and most noble ideals regarding how we proceed. The elephant of pandemic has given us the possibility.

All we have to do is have the will to resist demagoguery and the false ideas of moral purity and commit to the path set for us when the country was founded.

TSA lifts liquid bans, telcos lift data caps (permalink)

Your ISP is likely to lift its data-caps in the next day or two. AT&T and Comcast already did.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/v74qzb/atandt-suspends-broadband-usage-caps-during-coronavirus-crisis

And TSA has decided that 12 ounces of any liquid labelled "hand sanitizer" is safe for aviation, irrespective of what's in the bottle.

https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/13/21179120/tsa-hand-sanitizer-liquid-size-airport-screening-coronavirus-covid-19

What do these two facts have in common? Obviously, it's that the official narrative for things that impose enormous financial costs on Americans, and dramatically lower their quality of lives, were based on lies. These lies have been obvious from the start. The liquid ban, for example, is based on a plot that never worked (making binary explosives in airport bathroom sinks from liquids) and seems unlikely to ever have worked, according to organic chemists.

Keeping your "piranha bath" near 0' C for a protracted period in the bathroom toilet is some varsity-level terrorism, and the penalty for failure is that you maim or blind yourself with acid spatter.

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/08/on_the_implausi.html

And even if you stipulate that the risk is real, it's been obvious for 14 years that multiple 3oz bottles of Bad Liquid could be recombined beyond the checkpoint to do whatever it is liquids do at 3.0001oz.The liquid ban isn't just an inconvenience. It's not even just a burden on travelers who've collectively spent billions to re-purchase drinks and toiletries. It's a huge health burden to people with disabilities who rely on constant access to liquids.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0m12mLXgO1A

And as we knew all along, the liquid ban was a nonsense, an authoritarian response to a cack-handed, improbable terror plot. It embodies the "security syllogism":

Something must be done. There, I've done something.

Think of all those checkpoints where all confiscated liquids were dumped into a giant barrel and mingled together: if liquids posed an existential threat to planes, they'd dispose of them like they were C4, not filtered water. No one believed in the liquid threat, ever. TSA can relax the restrictions and allow 12oz of anything labeled as hand-san through the checkpoints. There was no reason to confiscate liquids in the first place. But don't expect them to admit this. The implicit message of the change is "Pandemics make liquids safe."

Now onto data-caps. Like the liquid ban, data-caps have imposed a tremendous cost on Americans. In addition to the hundreds of millions in monopoly rents extracted from the nation by telcos through overage charges, these caps also shut many out of the digital world. They represent a regressive tax on information, one that falls worst upon the most underserved in the nation: people in poor and rural places, for whom online access is a gateway to civic and political life, family connection, employment and education.

We were told that we had to tolerate these caps because of the "tragedy of the commons," a fraudulent idea from economics that says that shared resources are destroyed through selfish overuse, based on no data or evidence.

https://thebaffler.com/latest/first-as-tragedy-then-as-fascism-amend

(By contrast, actual commons are a super-efficient way of managing resources)

https://www.onthecommons.org/magazine/elinor-ostroms-8-principles-managing-commmons

Telcos insisted that if they didn't throttle and gouge us, their networks would become unusable – but really, what they meant is that if they didn't throttle and gouge us, the windfall to their shareholders would decline.

What's more likely: that pandemics make network management tools so efficient that data-caps become obsolete, or that they were a shuck and a ripoff from day one, enabled by a hyper-concentrated industry of monopolists with cozy relationships with corrupt regulators?

So yeah, maybe this is the moment that kills Security Theater and data-caps.

https://techcrunch.com/2020/03/12/coronavirus-could-force-isps-to-abandon-data-caps-forever/

(Image: Rhys Gibson)

via https://mostlysignssomeportents.tumblr.com/post/612577423339503616/pluralistic-14-mar-2020-free-audio-of-masque-of

October 18, 2019 at 06:00AM

In Sailing True North: Lessons of Character from Ten Admirals I examine the lives of ten admirals whose careers stretch across 2,500 years of history and try to illuminate the most essential qualities of character so that each of us can chart a course toward becoming the best we can possibly be within our own lives.

In this post-modern era that we are witnessing the slow death of character. Driven by a popular culture globally that has turned increasingly away from classic values – honesty, commitment, resilience, accountability, moderation – to a world that moves at breakneck speed and refuses to slow down and consider what is right and just. One abiding characteristic of most of the ten admirals in my book is that they were thoughtful, intellectually grounded individuals. Perhaps the long periods at sea that almost all of them experienced have something to do with that. These admirals teach us that finding sufficient time to think and reflect is a crucial part of building character.

It is said that character is what you do when you think no one is looking – but in today’s world, someone is always looking. We have lost the ability to hone our character in private, and our lives are “on display” seemingly from the moment we are born. We “over share” publicly and under reflect privately on what our individual voyages mean.

I set out to tell a different set of stories than those that we see repeated again and again on cable news. Because I am a sailor myself, I turned to ten illustrious, interesting, and highly varied naval leaders. Each of them led across decades and in different centuries and locales; their stories are different, and their characters were shaped in dramatically varied circumstances. Therefore, the lessons to be drawn of their character – are richly distributed. And not all are entirely heroic.

Character is not leadership. It is about internal effect and the ability to influence one’s self. John Wooden, the famous UCLA basketball coach and a fine leader, summed it up well: “Be more concerned with your character than your reputation, because your character is what you really are, while your reputation is merely what others think you are.”

Sailors often have a unique opportunity to chart a course toward a good character. The sea is an unforgiving environment which daily poses hard challenges that depend on deep reserves of character to overcome. Sailing is hard and dangerous work, and the sea itself poses a constant threat, to say nothing of additional man-made dangers from pirates, enemy aircraft, or lurking submarines. It is also a contemplative world, where any sailor can walk out on a rolling deck at night and stare at the distant point where the sky meets the sea and recognize that we are merely the smallest part of a huge and diverse universe that stretches forever unto the mind of God, and which will last far beyond the age of human beings. This combination of attributes – the constant physical and moral challenge in daily life and the endless vision of eternity dangling before our eyes – creates a deepening of character in the best of sailors. And my thesis is that by learning about the lives of these ten admirals, each of us – sailor or not – can improve and deepen our own characters.

We begin our voyage over 2,500 years ago with the Admiral Themistocles, an ancient Greek facing an existential threat to his city-state, Athens; and conclude our long sail across history in the late 20th century with a woman admiral, Grace Hopper, who helps bring the Navy into the cyber age. Along the way, I look at resilience and briefly meet two living and recently retired Admirals, Michelle Howard and Bill McRaven. All are different sailors, but the inner voyage of character that each sailed offers lessons we can study and apply As with all ten of these admirals, the basic rocks and shoals of their voyages are roughly similar: the need for truth, justice, empathy, creativity, humility, humor, resilience and balance; these are contrasted with avoiding arrogance; anger, pettiness; cruelty; desire; betrayal; jealousy; and hatred. None of these Admirals were perfect – indeed, far from it in several cases. But we can sometimes learn as much from failures of character as we can from triumphs, and the nature of any human is not how they do when the choices are easy, and the metaphorical sun is shining, but rather what they do when the options are morally ambiguous, and the seas are rough.

As an exercise, I went through my old logbooks recently and totaled up all the days I spent on the deep ocean, out of sight of land. The total is over nine and a half years, day-for-day. Plenty of time spent out there in busy pursuits from gunnery to missile shoots, to simply standing the long watches steaming across the trackless oceans. But there was also a lot of time to read, reflect, and record internally my thoughts on what makes a life of character worth living. Leadership was an omnipresent demand for a young officer growing up in an ancient profession, rising from a very green ensign to, quite improbably, becoming a four- star admiral. Every day was an exercise in leading others. But the challenges I wrestled with most frequently were inside, as I sought to set my own compass to true north, seeking to live up to the standards I set for myself. I failed not infrequently. But voyage of character is long indeed, and in my case, still underway – although not often at sea these days, something I miss more than I like to admit.

In a sense, we each have three lives: a public one, defined clearly by the open statements we make from conversations at work to our posts on social media; a private one, the face that we share only with our very closest family and a few chosen friends; and a deeply personal one, known only to ourselves, where we struggle – often desperately – to make the right choices.

One should never forget that the scale by which you will measure your life is one you make yourself, forging it a bit at a time throughout the years of your life. Here in that truly personal zone, measured on the scale we construct ourselves, are the sea buoys of the channel that we should follow if our voyage is to end at the port of inner satisfaction. And as with any voyage at sea, there are dangers ahead – obstacles imposed by the world and those we create ourselves. And we cannot simply avoid the hard choices by not embarking on the voyage. Oliver Wendell Holmes correctly said “to reach a port we must sail, sometimes with the wind, and sometimes against it. But we must not drift or lie at anchor.” My hope is that my book, with its small flotilla of sea stories, can provide some navigational advice, a few well-marked buoys, and even a sturdy lighthouse or two for all who are sailing on the sea of character.

Excerpted with permission from Sailing True North, published this week by Penguin Press.

The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything

The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything

Posted by willcritchlow

Digital marketing is measurable.

It’s probably the single most common claim everyone hears about digital, and I can’t count the number of times I’ve seen conference speakers talk about it (heck, I’ve even done it myself).

I mean, look at those offline dinosaurs, the argument goes. They all know that half their spend is wasted — they just don’t know which half.

Maybe the joke’s on us digital marketers though, who garnered only 41% of global ad spend even in 2017 after years of strong growth.

Unfortunately, while we were geeking out about attribution models and cross-device tracking, we were accidentally triggering a common human cognitive bias that kept us anchored on small amounts, leaving buckets of money on the table and fundamentally reducing our impact and access to the C-suite.

And what’s worse is that we have convinced ourselves that it’s a critical part of what makes digital marketing great. The simplest way to see this is to realize that, for most of us, I very much doubt that if you removed all our measurement ability we’d reduce our digital marketing investment to nothing.

In truth, of course, we’re nowhere close to measuring all the benefits of most of the things we do. We certainly track the last clicks, and we’re not bad at tracking any clicks on the path to conversion on the same device, but we generally suck at capturing:

Anything that happens on a different device

Brand awareness impacts that lead to much later improvements in conversion rate, average order value, or lifetime value

Benefits of visibility or impressions that aren’t clicked

Brand affinity generally

The cognitive bias that leads us astray

All of this means that the returns we report on tend to be just the most direct returns. This should be fine — it’s just a floor on the true value (“this activity has generated at least this much value for the brand”) — but the “anchoring” cognitive bias means that it messes with our minds and our clients’ minds. Anchoring is the process whereby we fixate on the first number we hear and subsequently estimate unknowns closer to the anchoring number than we should. Famous experiments have shown that even showing people a totally random number can drag their subsequent estimates up or down.

So even if the true value of our activity was 10x the measured value, we’d be stuck on estimating the true value as very close to the single concrete, exact number we heard along the way.

This tends to result in the measured value being seen as a ceiling on the true value. Other biases like the availability heuristic (which results in us overstating the likelihood of things that are easy to remember) tend to mean that we tend to want to factor in obvious ways that the direct value measurement could be overstating things, and leave to one side all the unmeasured extra value.

The mistake became a really big one because fortunately/unfortunately, the measured return in digital has often been enough to justify at least a reasonable level of the activity. If it hadn’t been (think the vanishingly small number of people who see a billboard and immediately buy a car within the next week when they weren’t otherwise going to do so) we’d have been forced to talk more about the other benefits. But we weren’t. So we lazily talked about the measured value, and about the measurability as a benefit and a differentiator.

The threats of relying on exact measurement

Not only do we leave a whole load of credit (read: cash) on the table, but it also leads to threats to measurability being seen as existential threats to digital marketing activity as a whole. We know that there are growing threats to measuring accurately, including regulatory, technological, and user-behavior shifts:

GDPR and other privacy regulations are limiting what we are allowed to do (and, as platforms catch up, what we can do)

Privacy features are being included in more products, added on by savvy consumers, or simply being set to be on by default more often, with even the biggest company in the world touting privacy as a core differentiator

Users continue to increase the extent to which they research and buy across multiple devices

Compared to early in Google’s rise, the lack of keyword-level analytics data and the rise of (not provided) means that we have far less visibility into the details than we used to when the narrative of measurability was being written

Now, imagine that the combination of these trends meant that you lost 100% of your analytics and data. Would it mean that your leads stopped? Would you immediately turn your website off? Stop marketing?

I suggest that the answer to all of that is “no.” There's a ton of value to digital marketing beyond the ability to track specific interactions.

We’re obviously not going to see our measurable insights disappear to zero, but for all the reasons I outlined above, it’s worth thinking about all the ways that our activities add value, how that value manifests, and some ways of proving it exists even if you can’t measure it.

How should we talk about value?

There are two pieces to the brand value puzzle:

Figuring out the value of increasing brand awareness or affinity

Understanding how our digital activities are changing said awareness or affinity

There's obviously a lot of research into brand valuations generally, and while it’s outside the scope of this piece to think about total brand value, it’s worth noting that some methodologies place as much as 75% of the enterprise value of even some large companies in the value of their brands:

Image source

My colleague Tom Capper has written about a variety of ways to measure changes in brand awareness, which attacks a good chunk of the second challenge. But challenge #1 remains: how do we figure out what it’s worth to carry out some marketing activity that changes brand awareness or affinity?

In a recent post, I discussed different ways of building marketing models and one of the methodologies I described might be useful for this - namely so-called “top-down” modelling which I defined as being about percentages and trends (as opposed to raw numbers and units of production).

The top-down approach

I’ve come up with two possible ways of modelling brand value in a transactional sense:

1. The Sherlock approach

“When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." - Sherlock Holmes

The outline would be to take the total new revenue acquired in a period. Subtract from this any elements that can be attributed to specific acquisition channels; whatever remains must be brand. If this is in any way stable or predictable over multiple periods, you can use it as a baseline value from which to apply the methodologies outlined above for measuring changes in brand awareness and affinity.

2. Aggressive attribution

If you run normal first-touch attribution reports, the limitations of measurement (clearing cookies, multiple devices etc) mean that you will show first-touch revenue that seems somewhat implausible (e.g. email; email surely can’t be a first-touch source — how did they get on your email list in the first place?):

Click for a larger version

In this screenshot we see that although first-touch dramatically reduces the influence of direct, for instance, it still accounts for more than 15% of new revenue.

The aggressive attribution model takes total revenue and splits it between the acquisition channels (unbranded search, paid social, referral). A first pass on this would simply split it in the relative proportion to the size of each of those channels, effectively normalizing them, though you could build more sophisticated models.

Note that there is no way of perfectly identifying branded/unbranded organic search since (not provided) and so you’ll have to use a proxy like homepage search vs. non-homepage search.

But fundamentally, the argument here would be that any revenue coming from a “first touch” of:

Branded search

Direct

Organic social

Email

...was actually acquired previously via one of the acquisition channels and so we attempt to attribute it to those channels.

Even this under-represents brand value

Both of those methodologies are pretty aggressive — but they might still under-represent brand value. Here are two additional mechanics where brand drives organic search volume in ways I haven’t figured out how to measure yet:

Trusting Amazon to rank

I like reading on the Kindle. If I hear of a book I’d like to read, I’ll often Google the name of the book on its own and trust that Amazon will rank first or second so I can get to the Kindle page to buy it. This is effectively a branded search for Amazon (and if it doesn’t rank, I’ll likely follow up with a [book name amazon] search or head on over to Amazon to search there directly).

But because all I’ve appeared to do is search [book name] on Google and then click through to Amazon, there is nothing to differentiate this from an unbranded search.

Spotting brands you trust in the SERPs

I imagine we all have anecdotal experience of doing this: you do a search and you spot a website you know and trust (or where you have an account) ranking somewhere other than #1 and click on it regardless of position.

One time that I can specifically recall noticing this tendency growing in myself was when I started doing tons more baby-related searches after my first child was born. Up until that point, I had effectively zero brand affinity with anyone in the space, but I quickly grew to rate the content put out by babycentre (babycenter in the US) and I found myself often clicking on their result in position 3 or 4 even when I hadn’t set out to look for them, e.g. in results like this one:

It was fascinating to me to observe this behavior in myself because I had no real interaction with babycentre outside of search, and yet, by consistently ranking well across tons of long-tail queries and providing consistently good content and user experience I came to know and trust them and click on them even when they were outranked. I find this to be a great example because it is entirely self-contained within organic search. They built a brand effect through organic search and reaped the reward in increased organic search.

I have essentially no ideas on how to measure either of these effects. If you have any bright ideas, do let me know in the comments.

Budgets will come under pressure

My belief is that total digital budgets will continue to grow (especially as TV continues to fragment), but I also believe that individual budgets are going to come under scrutiny and pressure making this kind of thinking increasingly important.

We know that there is going to be pressure on referral traffic from Facebook following the recent news feed announcements, but there is also pressure on trust in Google:

Before the recent news feed changes, slightly misleading stories had implied that Google had lost the top spot as the largest referrer of traffic (whereas in fact this was only briefly true in media)

The growth of the mobile-first card view and richer and richer SERPs has led to declines in outbound CTR in some areas

The increasingly black-box nature of Google’s algorithm and an increasing use of ML make the algorithm increasingly impenetrable and mean that we are having to do more testing on individual sites to understand what works

While I believe that the opportunity is large and still growing (see, for example, this slide showing Google growing as a referrer of traffic even as CTR has declined in some areas), it’s clear that the narrative is going to lead to more challenging conversations and budgets under increased scrutiny.

Can you justify your SEO investment?

What do you say when your CMO asks what you’re getting for your SEO investment?

What do you say when she asks whether the organic search opportunity is tapped out?

I’ll probably explore the answers to both these questions more in another post, but suffice it to say that I do a lot of thinking about these kinds of questions.

The first is why we have built our split-testing platform to make organic SEO investments measurable, quantifiable and accountable.

The second is why I think it’s super important to remember the big picture while the media is running around with hair on fire. Media companies saw Facebook overtake Google as a traffic channel (and then are likely seeing that reverse right now), but most of the web has Google as the largest and growing source of traffic and value.

The reality (from clickstream data) is that it's really easy to forget how long the long-tail is and how sparse search features and ads are on the extreme long-tail:

Only 3–4% of all searches result in a click on an ad, for example. Google's incredible (and still growing) business is based on a small subset of commercial searches

Google's share of all outbound referral traffic across the web is growing (and Facebook's is shrinking as they increasingly wall off their garden)

The opportunity is for smart brands to capitalize on a growing opportunity while their competitors sink time and money into a social space that is increasingly all about Facebook, and increasingly pay-to-play.

What do you think? Are you having these hard conversations with leadership? How are you measuring your digital brand’s value?

Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don't have time to hunt down but want to read!

xem them tai http://ift.tt/2o9GYfe The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything http://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything https://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: https://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything https://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: https://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything https://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: https://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything https://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: https://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything https://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: https://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything https://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: https://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything https://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: https://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything https://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: https://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything https://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: https://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything https://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: https://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything https://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: https://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything https://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: https://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything https://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: https://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything https://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: https://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything https://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: https://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything https://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: https://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything https://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: https://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything https://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: https://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything https://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: https://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything https://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: https://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything https://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: https://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything https://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: https://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything https://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: https://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything https://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: https://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything https://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: https://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything https://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: https://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything https://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: https://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything https://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: https://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything https://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: https://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything https://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: https://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything https://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: https://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything https://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: https://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything https://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: https://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything https://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: https://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything https://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: https://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything https://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: https://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything https://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: https://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything https://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: https://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything https://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: https://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything https://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: https://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything https://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: https://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything https://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: https://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything https://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: https://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything https://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: https://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything https://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: https://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything https://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: https://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything https://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: https://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm v��� địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything https://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: https://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything https://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: https://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything https://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: https://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything https://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: https://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything https://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ xem thêm tại: https://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ The Biggest Mistake Digital Marketers Ever Made: Claiming to Measure Everything https://ift.tt/2ohk5UJ Bạn có thể xem thêm địa chỉ mua tai nghe không dây tại đây https://ift.tt/2mb4VST