I'm gonna be honest at this point I think like 80 percent of what's being released about Rise of Red is specifically tailored to look bad, because everyone jumping on it with "oh my god it looks so bad!!!!" is basically doing the movie advertisement and exposure better than anything Disney could actually muster up

I understand how I may sound wrong as two left shoes, but please hear me out.

While, I'm supporting Halle as Ariel (I mean, she's practically Ariel, and sge loekey manifested it back when Chloe x Hslle released their first mix tape), I can't help the feeling that part of her casting was outrage marketing. In a recent post you mentioned Disney wanted to cast a black mermaid regardless, and I love that for us. However, I feel if they were genuine, they would've given her a black family (and even a black prince, no shade to Jonah). It had the potential to be a black mermaid fantasy and they fumbled the bag, in my opinion.

Anyway, my point in saying all of this is that I kind of don't like the idea of outrage marketing, especially when it's danger to black and other POC actors. In hoping that's not the case because Halle doesn't deserve that, but I wouldn't put it passed Disney.

Again, I could be wrong, but I often think about this.

I can understand that and those where my thoughts at first too even though I was excited. However, once I learned who the director was, as well as his explanations and his firm stance in Halle being Ariel, I was willing to give it more of a chance that Disney had in fact wanted to go this route and that it wasn’t supposed to be some sort of bait or weird marketing scheme. However, again lol, we will know exactly what this was once promotions start and the movie comes out. If I don’t see both white and Black Ariel at Disney parks then Imma know that something was up and that’s on Disney. If they aren’t more inclusive with their merch and just Ariel overall even after the movie comes out…we will definitely know.

As for Ariel having a Black family and love interest, I would’ve loved that. That also goes back to the director though. He insists on blind casting. He also was the director for the Cinderella with Brandy and Whitney. Having mixed families is sort of his thing. From what we know, Ariel’s mom is most definitely Black and I’m pretty sure Noma is the queen aka Eric’s mom. I also think I heard somewhere that they might not kill off Ariel’s mom in this version. I don’t know if we’ll see her or not but I’m interested to see what they do surrounding that part of the story.

Thursday 29th April, Research Report: Lycanthropy and the hays code

Notable points * lycanthropy seems  to be synonymous with homosexuality- parallels between Teen Wolf and Buffy The Vampire Slayer's respective coming out scenes. * The Queer-ness of the character Remus Lupin from the Harry Potter books and film series. Many fans head cannon and write slash fics about Remus and Sirius' romance and relationship, reading the characters as queer. The ship, named 'Wolf Star' is quite popular and well known within the fandom. Many fans feel there is enough evidence to build this relationship on; Remus and Sirius' ghosts stood next to each other in the resurrection stone, mirroring Harry's parents,  a canonically married couple. They also bought Harry a joint present for his birthday and know the intricacies of each others personalities. Dumbledore also infamously told Sirius to 'lie low at Lupins.' But the problem here, as the article points out, is that Rowling doesn't acknowledge Lupin as queer, despite the homoerotic cues in the writings,  and instead gives him a female love interest and admits that Lupins Lycantrhopy is a metaphor for AIDS/HIV. She has further dismissed any alternative readings of the character, disappointing fans' hopes of there being a shred of representation in a queer monster who is actually queer. This sort of behaviour from authors and creators is what turns Queer-coding into the more harmful and frustrating Queer-baiting. A large majority of queer representation comes from connotations and interpretations. the clues are there and queer audiences do pick them up. However this grey area allows allows straight culture to use queerness for pleasure and profit in mass culture without admitting to it. Modern examples of this are CW's Supernatural and BBC's Sherlock. I can't personally speak for Supernatural but having watched Sherlock with the advantage of a queer eye, I can say with confidence that it is a prime example of queer-baiting. there is clear homoerotic subtext between Sherlock and John and even Sherlock and Moriarty. I Personally think it's entirely romantic as I head cannon Sherlock to be Asexual or at least on that spectrum but the point is, it is not just wishful thinking or pushing of a narrative. It's manipulation. Queer-baiting takes advantage of an already vulnerable group of people by preying on their desire for representation in the media.

In modern media werewolf's are often portrayed as having chiselled bodies and looming over each other. The 1985 Teen Wolf received a television reboot and it's fair to say it got reasonably more progressive.  It seemed interested in queering the werewolf narrative and in a sly moment of gender-bending the traditional Little Red Riding Hood narrative, protagonist Scott receives the Bite from a male werewolf while wearing a Little Red Hoodie (‘Wolf Moon’). Additionally, the show features LGBTQ characters while Scott’s human best friend Stiles visits a gay bar and makes friends with a group of drag queens in startling contrast to the gay panic of the 1985 film’s version of Stiles. By midway through the show’s second season, the slash pairing that had proved dominant in the fandom was Stiles and wannabe-Alpha Derek Hale. The two characters, who operate in the narrative as belligerent and begrudging allies, rapidly became a slash phenomenon, due, in part, to the chemistry and comic timing between actors Tyler Hoechlin and Dylan O’Brien. The narrative is further subverted when Derek is raped by an adult  human woman.

The pair 'Sterek' gained so much traction that it caught the attention of MTV and the cast and crew behind the show. So much so that they released a video of Hoechlin and O'Brien cuddling on a boat, asking fans to vote for Teen Wolf for this  years Choice Summer TV Show at the Teen Choice Awards. This  was big as it acknowledged fans and slash flics and the pairing itself as a possibility and many queer voices who watched the show felt heard and validated. However this didn't last long. MTV released a video on the official Teen Wolf Facebook, this time featuring O’Brien asking fans to vote for Teen Wolf in a TV Guide Poll. O’Brien joked that if fans did not vote, then the show would kill off its sole remaining gay character and one of the few remaining non-white characters on the show, Danny. The Teen Wolf Facebook released the video with the following caption: ‘Keep #TeenWolf in first place! Heed Dylan and Linden’s advice or we might have to. #KillDanny’ (Teen Wolf). The show’s social media team then attempted to make the #KillDanny tag go viral on Facebook and twitter, but fans, understandably, were not amused, primarily using the tag for outraged tweets to MTV (Baker-Whitelaw).Such blatant disregard for fans’ concerns about queer representation on the show alienated a large number of fans, especially when coupled with Jeff Davis’ more frequently dismissive and condescending comments about the Sterek pairing where he had been enthusiastic and even encouraging of the ship. As seasons wore on without any indication that Sterek would indeed become canon, it became clear that MTV and Jeff Davis had been queer-baiting Sterek fans as a marketing technique and that the unique interplay that fans had enjoyed with Davis, which offered a new kind of truly interactive fandom had, in fact, been something of an illusion. ' serial killer Hannibal Lecter and his love interest Will Graham in Hannibal, and reanimated gay corpses Kieren, Simon, and Rick in In the Flesh. Notably, both series have received an overwhelmingly positive response from fans and critics who have applauded the series for taking their queer monsters beyond mere coding and into explicit text. The warm reception of Hannibal and In the Flesh’s handling of queer representation by fans, and the continuing frustration with Teen Wolf’s queer-baiting and the appropriative nature of Remus Lupin’s narrative in Harry Potter, belie a desire not only for better queer representation, but also for more complex re-articulations of queer monstrosity' the symbolic and narrative trappings of monsters are often used as metaphors for queerness without actually acknowledging the positive behind that queer identity or even confirming the queer identity at all. Another positive example is the miniseries Good Omens. Based on the book of the same name, written by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman. Pretty much the whole fandom believe That the two leads, Crowley and Aziraphale are in a romantic relationship. They've known each other for centuries and perhaps what was the main fuel to this ships fire was the episode 3 cold open. Even fans who have only read the book seem to support these two as a couple and what's perhaps even more amazing is Gaiman’s response on twitter. "I wrote it as a love story. They acted it as a love story. You saw it as a love story. How much more proof do you need?" and "I wouldn't exclude the ideas that they are ace, or aromantic, or trans. They are an angel and a demon, not as make humans, per the book. Occult/Ethereal beings don't have sexes, something we tried to reflect in the casting. Whatever Crowley and Aziraphale are, it's a love story." It's beautiful because not only does it confirm that they are in love but it also leaves room for interpretations of what kind of relationship they have together.

https://dialogues.rutgers.edu/images/Journals_PDF/2017-18-dialogues-web_e6db3.pdf#page=164

In the year 1922, when cinema was gaining traction and popularity, The Motion Picture Producers and Distributors Association (MPPDA) hired a devout Presbyterian, Will H. Hays as its head. Eight years later, in 1930, the MPPDA ratified the Motion Picture Production Code. Also known as the Hays Code, these guidelines were set up as “a list of rules that studios could follow to avoid the censors’ wrath” one specific line read “sexual perversion or any inference to it is forbidden” This era in censorship set the stage for a culture in which the stereotypical behaviour of homosexuals, or any behaviour deviating from the traditional gender roles, is seen as dangerous, evil, and even fatal. By representing coded homosexual characters as depressed, perverse, and succumbing to punishing ends, it shifted social subconscious beliefs of LGBT individuals in real life to those represented on screen. Media often teaches us how to feel about others and ourselves – e.g., it promotes specific body types and clothing styles. In the same way, by promoting gendered behaviour and banning homosexuality, it spread a message that homosexuality was not fit to be viewed openly. Although themes of homosexuality were banned they were definitely alluded to and that continues today.

“She needs to back off of you.” i lied this for gio and eden the energy

Beckett’s little fists were leaving indents in the pasta dough that he was so poorly rolling out, and Gio was mystified – not for the first time – by how much a small human made half of him could soften him at the edges. 

He hadn’t even told Beckett that’d he’d ruined the pasta ten minutes ago anyway when he’d accidentally spilled about a half a cup of flaky sea salt into it. It didn’t matter so much, because it was late and Nancy was gonna be by to pick up their son before dinner’d be served anyway, so Beckett wouldn’t have to know that his dad was going to throw out the salty little ravioli he was putting all of his very tiny, very significant might into anyway. 

“Good job, kiddo.”  Gio said, and Beckett gave him a gummy smile back. He’d lost both of his front teeth within two weeks of each other, which made him look so fucking stupid that Giovanni’s heart clenched every time he looked at his gumby little kid. 

“It’s soft.” Beckett said sagely, presumably referring to the pasta dough which he was now bouncing his fingers into rhythmically. 

“Oh. We have a genius on our hands.” Beckett, of course, didn’t understand social nuances, so he only smiled wider. Giovanni brushed back the heavy black tufts of his son’s hair to give him a kiss on his forehead, and had one of those paranoid grown up looking after a child thoughts that maybe having Beckett stand up on a chair like this wasn’t terribly fucking safe. He shifted from his leaning position against the counter to take a slightly more active stance at Beckett’s side, and it was that very moment that the doorbell sounded, which had to mean – 

“Drew.” That was Eden from the table, who Gio was going to praise for her psychic abilities until he saw that actually she was on her phone instead of reading a script like he’d thought she’d been this whole time. “Does she know you don’t have to ring the bell for the key to work?” 

Gio snorted, because Drew’s politeness would never let her enter their home unannounced, despite the fact Giovanni had insisted to her on multiple occasions that – 

“You can just come in, you know.” 

At the sound of Drew’s footsteps coming from the foyer, Beckett seemed finally to click that the person arriving was in fact his most beloved mommy. Springing into motion, his little hand grabbed hold of Gio’s forearm and he jumped from the chair, nearly stumbling when he landed which only reaffirmed the chair paranoia. Giovanni bent to straighten him up again, and then turned to watch Beckett run into Nancy’s arms, which filled Gio as it always did with an overwhelming fondness. 

Giovanni had always appreciated Drew – you know, minus those couples years that were kind of a fucking drag – but especially lately, now that being a new father again was front of his mind. Eden was going on five months pregnant now, which was just as much a source of joy as it was of panic. Sure, he’d taken care of Beckett for reasonable periods of time, but never an infant, and never for-fucking-ever. And he’d been to what felt like sixty birthing classes already, had a book on what to expect when you’re expecting all but thrown at his head by Wolfgang that he’d made some headway in and – and it didn’t seem to fucking end, and then Gio would remember that Drew had done it by herself.

Well. By herself, featuring Ji Yeong. Who Gio was sure had put together a calming pregnancy playlist and crocheted a tiny little baby Beckett and tiny little mother Drew and put balloons in the birthing room or whatever. But she’d gone into it knowing she was going to raise a baby alone, without any kind of experience with one of her own. 

While Drew and Beckett greeted each other with tales of their day (Beckett was talking about the duck he’d met, Drew about the market she’d gone to), Gio did a lap around the dining area to collect up the little tornado his son had left behind. A squeaky book here, soft toy there, and his precious blanket. He shoved the first two into Beckett’s backpack, but kept the blanket out to hand to him when he approached them again. Taking a breath, like she was only just now noticing anything but Beckett, Nancy gave him a flustered smile and said, “Hello.” 

“Hello.” He said back, faux serious, because Nancy could be so fucking formal and he’d never grown out of pointing that out. Still, there was no point in elongating the joke because Beckett didn’t get it and Eden wasn’t listening and Drew had already let out a little breath of a laugh, so Gio gave her a one armed hug instead, pressing a quick kiss to her cheek. Beckett imitated the soft smack of it, which Giovanni laughed at. He knew it probably was more auditory fascination than vicious mock, but a guy could dream.

“Sorry I’m late. Really.  I just got so caught up –” 

“We were waiting by the door.” 

Drew gave him a flat look that was just as much exasperation as it was acceptance, because she knew him well enough to know that was Giovanni’s version of saying it was okay. When he only looked back, she eventually cracked a little smile. “I’ll make it up to you, anyway.” 

“Calm down. I actually like the kid.” He said this as he manoeuvred Beckett’s mini-sized bag onto Drew’s shoulder, because Beckett was already resting his little head on his mother’s chest and looking between them in the bleary-eyed, half-lidded way of a toddler who was about to sleep the whole way home. 

“I know that.” Nancy said softly, unnecessarily, but she was always one to say something just in case. She was thorough like that. Sensitive like that. 

After Gio had walked them out to the car – tucking Beckett’s blanket into his car seat and taking a moment to tell Drew that their kid was kind of fucking cute even when he was sucking his thumb – he came back inside to unceremoniously toss Beckett’s mess of dough into the organics bin.

“He has no future in the culinary arts.” 

The silence, Giovanni had to admit, was defeaning. He looked up from the counter to see that Eden was just looking at him, chin perched on her intertwined hands, all of the airs of a person waiting. 

Because for Eden he always would, Giovanni took the bait. “Everything okay?”

Able to move now that she’d been acknowledged, Eden let out a sigh, closing her eyes as she moved a strand of her hair delicately out of her face. Giovanni pushed off of the kitchen island to make his way to her, and it was when he took the seat beside her, leaning on his elbow so that his face was almost in front of hers to witness her better that she said, quite casually, “She needs to back off of you.” 

That certainly was a strand of words that his wife had just put together. But Gio tilted his head to the side, half smiling in disbelief. “What?” 

“It’s just disrespectful. In my house. On my new porcelain tile.” 

Giovanni laughed, delighted as he always was when Eden was jealous, but this time it might have been a little bit because of how absurd it was. Actually, it was always absurd, which was why Gio loved it so much. The notion that Eden could ever think he’d look at someone else when he was damn near a eunuch in the hours that she wasn’t with him with how much he noticed other women. The idea that she could ever think he wouldn’t die fucking obsessed with her. Hysterical. Generally, Giovanni would parse this to Eden with a sprinkle of and fuck that bitch for fun, but now he just shook his head, free hand going to rest on Eden’s leg.

“Sweetheart. She wasn’t coming onto me.” 

“Like she didn’t linger into that cheek kiss.” 

Giovanni threw his head back, laughing. “Oh my god.” 

“You think this is funny?”

“Yes!” He said, and then, because that was the wrong thing to say anyway so why not keep it up, “We’re friendly. She’s the mother of my child.” 

“Like I’m going to be!” Eden said, looking beautiful and outraged as she scooted her chair out a little, just enough for her pregnant belly to show.

“Yeah. Mother of my child, my wife, love of my life – do you see the difference?”

“Does she?” 

God, it was ridiculous, and Giovanni loved her. He cupped a hand adoringly under her jaw, looking into her eyes when he said, “She knows. Everybody knows.” 

Eden’s expression softened almost imperceptibly, but she smothered it quickly, instead looking up at the ceiling coyly. “Knows what?” 

A smile stretched across his face, because Giovanni loved to indulge her. “That I love you. That I worship you. That there’s nobody else for me. That you’re the most beautiful thing I’ve ever seen. Want more?” 

She finally deigned to grace him with her gaze, smiling in a way that told Giovanni he’d said the right things. “More.” 

“That you’re enchanting. That you light up a room just by breathing in it. That I spent my whole life before I met you not knowing I could ever be this happy, and –” 

And he was cut off, because now Eden was kissing him, and he was kissing her back. 

Gio knew he’d be finishing those sentences later, because he knew what his wife needed, and he knew he’d spend the rest of his life happy to give it to her.

7 Home-Related White Elephant Presents That’ll Make You the Life of the Party

Ah, the annual white elephant gift exchange—the one opportunity to shop for an outrageous gift, with no pressure to impress.

You might also know it as Yankee Swap or Dirty Santa (and the rules vary, depending on who’s setting them), but either way, this gift exchange—meant to be a light-hearted way to buy a ridiculous thing and then trade for another ridiculous thing—has been known to cause a few sore feelings.

So to avoid any kind of drama, you might be tempted to just play it straight and easy at your white elephant party—for instance, offering up that novelty holiday coffee mug your boss gave you last year. But this year, we implore you to step up your game and let your office mates or family duke it out over your gift. Why not bring something that’s utterly ridiculous—that also has some utility around the home?

We ventured deep into the bowels of online retail sites to unearth some of the most memorable home-related presents. We promise these will make an impression at your next white elephant gathering.

1. Some butts (about it)

This gift tells people you’re a real party animal.

World Market

Have you ever wanted to “add some attitude to your fridge”? It seems unlikely, but just in case, World Market sells a set of cat butt magnets that are … exactly as advertised. If you’re a dog person, you can pick up the canine version to bring to your next gift exchange. If you want to represent a wide variety of mammal derrières, round out the collection with a set of safari animal butt magnets. Combine all three for a truly opulent white elephant offering that won’t make you look like an ass.

What to buy:

Cat butt magnets, set of 6, World Market, $12.99

Dog butt magnets, set of 6, World Market, $12.99

Safari animal butt magnets, set of 6, World Market, $12.99

———

2. A Champagne saber

In this case, the sword is mightier.

Amazon

Generally speaking, weapons and alcohol don’t mix well—unless you’re talking about a Champagne saber. Did you know that sparkling wine aficionados use literal swords to bust open their bottles of bubbly? (It’s called sabrage, y’all.) If that sounds dangerous, that’s because it most certainly is. But you never become the life of the party by playing it safe.

What to buy: Champagne saber with rosewood handle, Amazon, $40

———

3. This potty putter

Talk about an early tee time.

Amazon

Ever find yourself longing to be on the back nine at the most inconvenient of times? Thinking, “My urge to go No. 2 is really interfering with my hole-in-one-game?” No? Well we have to believe those people exist out there, otherwise this gem of a bathroom accessory wouldn’t exist. If you have a golf enthusiast in your midst (or heck, even if you don’t), pick up this little number. (Snazzy golf visor not included.)

What to buy: Potty putter toilet time golf game, Amazon, $12

———

4. Dad-joke bait

Go on, find you a stud.

Amazon

I’m still ashamed of the time I laughed out loud when a former boyfriend held a stud finder to his face and shouted, “Ah, got one!” But listen: A stud finder is handy, inexpensive, and totally unexpected at the white elephant gift exchange. (It could also make for an entirely earnest stocking stuffer—what homeowner doesn’t need to locate a stud in the wall from time to time?) So head to the hardware store, pick up a stud finder, and lean into the corny dad jokes.

What to buy: Stud finder wall scanner, Amazon, $35

———

5. This wild (horse) toilet seat

Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth.

Amazon

You didn’t really think we’d have a list without at least two toilet-related items, did you? We’re not horsing around; we’re pretty sure someone you know can appreciate a novelty horse toilet seat, like this one featuring five majestic beasts galloping together through shallow water.

Just imagine the glee on your uncle’s face when he receives this lavatory masterpiece during the white elephant exchange. An Amazon reviewer warns that the seat is “nice looking, but the hardware is ridiculous”—but isn’t that the whole point, if you’re in the market for this kind of thing? Go the extra mile and buy the matching soap dispenser. Nothing shows you care more than cohesive bathroom accessories, right?

What to buy: Horse toilet seat, Amazon, $41

———

6. A bloody-fine cutting board

What’s in the sauce?!

Amazon

Cutting boards are always in high demand, at least in my kitchen. But one thing my kitchen lacks is a sense of unnerving horror. Cue this cutting board: It’s a blood-red novelty item that comes complete with a vertical, dripping side piece to hang off the countertop, mimicking a pool of blood. Were you cutting tomatoes, or slicing something more sinister? Nobody will know. Pick one up to add a pint of darkness to your gift exchange.

What to buy: Blood spatter cutting board, Oddity Mall, $14.99

———

7. A statement-making bathroom accessory

Jingle bells, indeed.

Etsy

God bless the internet and its endless offering of novelty bath mats, toilet paper holders, and shower curtains.

Do you want your gift recipient to be greeted by Nic Cage’s face before stepping into the shower every morning? There’s a mat for that. How about a toilet paper holder that’s an unsettling mashup between Lucille Ball and a plastic troll doll? We got you. Or, in the spirit of the holidays, pick up this shower curtain that’s both seasonal and sexy.

If none of those strikes your fancy, rest assured that your dream gift exists somewhere in the dark corners of Etsy.

What to buy: Sexy Santa Claus shower curtain, Etsy, $54

The post 7 Home-Related White Elephant Presents That’ll Make You the Life of the Party appeared first on Real Estate News & Insights | realtor.com®.

How Trump Conquered FacebookWithout Russian Ads

It’s not every day that a former work colleague gets retweeted by the president of the United States.

Last Friday, Rob Goldman, a vice president inside Facebook’s Ads team, rather ill-advisedly published a series of tweets that seemed to confirm the Trump administration’s allegations regarding the recent indictments of 13 Russian nationals by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. To wit, the tweets said that the online advertising campaign led by the shadowy Internet Research Agency was meant to divide the American people, not influence the 2016 election.

Antonio García Martínez (@antoniogm) is an Ideas contributor for WIRED. Before turning to writing, he dropped out of a doctoral program in physics to work on Goldman Sachs’ credit trading desk, then joined the Silicon Valley startup world, where he founded his own startup (acquired by Twitter in 2011) and finally joined Facebook’s early monetization team, where he headed the company's targeting efforts. His 2016 memoir, Chaos Monkeys, was a New York Times best seller and NPR Best Book of the Year, and his writing has appeared in Vanity Fair, The Guardian, and The Washington Post. He splits his time between a sailboat on the San Francisco Bay and a yurt in Washington’s San Juan Islands.

You’re probably skeptical of Rob’s claim, and I don’t blame you. The world looks very different to people outside the belly of Facebook’s monetization beast. But when you’re on the inside, like Rob is and like I was, and you have access to the revenue dashboards detailing every ring of the cash register, your worldview tends to follow what advertising data can and cannot tell you.

From this worldview, it's still not clear how much influence the IRA had with its Facebook ads (which, as others have pointed out, is just one small part of the huge propaganda campaign that Mueller is currently investigating). But no matter how you look at them, Russia’s Facebook ads were almost certainly less consequential than the Trump campaign’s mastery of two critical parts of the Facebook advertising infrastructure: The ads auction, and a benign-sounding but actually Orwellian product called Custom Audiences (and its diabolical little brother, Lookalike Audiences). Both of which sound incredibly dull, until you realize that the fate of our 242-year-old experiment in democracy once depended on them, and surely will again.

Like many things at Facebook, the ads auction is a version of something Google built first. As on Google, Facebook has a piece of ad real estate that it’s auctioning off, and potential advertisers submit a piece of ad creative, a targeting spec for their ideal user, and a bid for what they’re willing to pay to obtain a desired response (such as a click, a like, or a comment). Rather than simply reward that ad position to the highest bidder, though, Facebook uses a complex model that considers both the dollar value of each bid as well as how good a piece of clickbait (or view-bait, or comment-bait) the corresponding ad is. If Facebook’s model thinks your ad is 10 times more likely to engage a user than another company’s ad, then your effective bid at auction is considered 10 times higher than a company willing to pay the same dollar amount.

A canny marketer with really engaging (or outraging) content can goose their effective purchasing power at the ads auction, piggybacking on Facebook’s estimation of their clickbaitiness to win many more auctions (for the same or less money) than an unengaging competitor. That’s why, if you’ve noticed a News Feed ad that’s pulling out all the stops (via provocative stock photography or other gimcrackery) to get you to click on it, it’s partly because the advertiser is aiming to pump up their engagement levels and increase their exposure, all without paying any more money.

During the run-up to the election, the Trump and Clinton campaigns bid ruthlessly for the same online real estate in front of the same swing-state voters. But because Trump used provocative content to stoke social media buzz, and he was better able to drive likes, comments, and shares than Clinton, his bids received a boost from Facebook’s click model, effectively winning him more media for less money. In essence, Clinton was paying Manhattan prices for the square footage on your smartphone’s screen, while Trump was paying Detroit prices. Facebook users in swing states who felt Trump had taken over their news feeds may not have been hallucinating.

(Speaking of Manhattan vs. Detroit prices, there are some (very nonmetaphorical) differences in media costs across the country that also impacted Trump’s ability to reach voters. Broadly, advertising costs in rural, out-of-the-way areas are considerably less than in hotly contested, dense urban areas. As each campaign tried to mobilize its base, largely rural Trump voters were probably cheaper to reach than Clinton’s urban voters. Consider Germantown, Pa. (a Philly suburb Clinton won by a landslide) vs. Belmont County, Ohio (a rural county Trump comfortably won). Actual media costs are closely guarded secrets, but Facebook’s own advertiser tools can give us some ballpark estimates. For zip code 43950 (covering the county seat of St. Clairsville, Ohio), Facebook estimates an advertiser can show an ad to about 83 people per dollar. For zip code 19144 in the Philly suburbs, that number sinks to 50 people an ad for every dollar of ad spend. Averaged over lots of time and space, the impacts on media budgets can be sizable. Anyway …)

The Like button is our new ballot box, and democracy has been transformed into an algorithmic popularity contest.

The above auction analysis is even more true for News Feed, which is only based on engagement, with every user mired in a self-reinforcing loop of engagement, followed by optimized content, followed by more revealing engagement, then more content, ad infinitum. The candidate who can trigger that feedback loop ultimately wins. The Like button is our new ballot box, and democracy has been transformed into an algorithmic popularity contest.

But how to trigger the loop? For that, we need the machinery of targeting. (Full disclosure: I was the original product manager for Custom Audiences, and along with a team of other product managers and engineers, I launched the first versions of Facebook precision targeting in the summer of 2012, in those heady and desperate days of the IPO and sudden investor expectation.)

Despite folklore about “selling your data,” most Facebook advertisers couldn’t care less about your Likes, your drunk college photos, or your gossipy chats with a boyfriend. What advertisers want to do is find the person who left a product unpurchased in an online shopping cart, just used a loyalty card to buy diapers at Safeway, or registered as a Republican voter in Stark County, Ohio (a swing county in a swing state).

Custom Audiences lets them do that. It’s the tunnel beneath the data wall that allows the outside world into Facebook’s well-protected garden, and it’s like that by design.

Browsed for shoes and then saw them on Facebook? You’re in a Custom Audience.

Registered for an email newsletter or used your email as login somewhere? You’re in a Custom Audience.

Ordered something to a postal address known to merchants and marketers? You’re definitely in a Custom Audience.

Here’s how it works in practice:

A campaign manager takes a list of emails or other personal data for people they think will be susceptible to a certain type of messaging (e.g. people in Florida who donated money to Trump For America). They upload that spreadsheet to Facebook via the Ads Manager tool, and Facebook scours its user data, looks for users who match the uploaded spreadsheet, and turns the matches into an “Audience,” which is really just a set of Facebook users.

Facebook can also populate an audience by reading a user’s cookies—those digital fragments gathered through a user’s wanderings around the web. Half the bizarre conspiracy theories around Facebook targeting boil down to you leaving a data trail somewhere inside our consumer economy that was then uploaded via Custom Audiences. In the language of database people, there’s now a “join” between the Facebook user ID (that’s you) and this outside third-party who knows what you bought, browsed, or who you voted for (probably). That join is permanent, irrevocable, and will follow you to every screen where you’ve used Facebook.

The above is pretty rudimentary data plumbing. But only when you’ve built a Custom Audience can you build Lookalike Audiences— the most unknown, poorly understood, and yet powerful weapon in the Facebook ads arsenal.

With a mere mouse click from our hypothetical campaign manager, Facebook now searches the friends of everyone in the Custom Audience, trying to find everyone who (wait for it) “looks like” you. Using a witches’ brew of mutual engagement—probably including some mix of shared page Likes, interacting with similar News Feed or Ads content, a score used to measure your social proximity to friends—the Custom Audience is expanded to a bigger set of like-minded people. Lookalikes.

(Another way to picture it: Your social network resembles a nutrient-rich petri dish, just sitting out in the open. Custom Audiences helps mercenary marketers find that dish, and lets them plant the bacterium of a Facebook post inside it. From there, your own interaction with the meme, which is echoed in News Feed, spreads it to your immediate vicinity. Lookalike Audiences finishes the job by pushing it to the edges of your social petri dish, to everyone whose tastes and behaviors resemble yours. The net result is a network overrun by an infectious meme, dutifully placed there by an advertiser, and spread by the ads and News Feed machinery.)

We’ve all contributed to this political balkanization by self-sorting (or being sorted by Facebook) into online tribes that get morphed into filter bubbles, which are then studiously colonized by commercial memes planted and spread there by a combination of Custom and Lookalike Audiences. One of the ways the Trump campaign leveraged Lookalike Audiences was through its voter suppression campaigns among likely Clinton voters. They seeded the Audiences assembly line with content about Clinton that was engaging but dispiriting. This is one of the ways that Trump won the election, by the very tools that were originally built to help companies like Bed Bath & Beyond sell you towels.

Unsurprisingly, the Russians also apparently made use of Custom Audiences in their ads campaign. The unwary clicker on a Russian ad who then visited their propaganda site suddenly could find yet more planted content in their Feed, which could generate downstream engagement in Feed, and thus the great Facebook wheel turned. The scale of their spend was puny, however, a measly $100,000, which pales in comparison to the millions Trump spent on online advertising.

The above isn’t mere informed speculation, the Trump campaign admitted to its wide use of both Custom and Lookalike audiences. There seems to be little public coverage of whether the Clinton campaign used Facebook Ads extensively, but there’s no reason to think her campaign did not exploit the same tools.

“I always wonder why people in politics act like this stuff is so mystical,” Brad Parscale, the leader of the Trump data effort, told reporters in late 2016. “It’s the same shit we use in commercial, just has fancier names.”

He’s absolutely right. None of this is even novel: It’s merely best practice for any smart Facebook advertiser. Custom Audiences was launched almost six (!) years ago, marketed publicly at the time, and only now is becoming a mainstream talking point. The ads auction has been studied by marketers and academics for even longer. The only surprise is how surprising it can still seem to many.

If we’re going to reorient our society around Internet echo chambers, with Facebook and Twitter serving as our new Athenian agora, then we as citizens should understand how that forum gets paid for. Rarely will the owners of that now-privatized space deign to explain how they’re keeping the lights on. Plotting Russians make for a good story, and external enemies frequently serve an internal purpose, but the trail of blame often leads much closer to home. It’s right there, topped by a big, blue bar on our smartphone screens, and could very well be how you arrived at what you’re reading right now.

Update (February 27, 2018): In an unusual move, Andrew 'Boz' Bosworth, former VP of Facebook Ads, posted average CPMs for both the Clinton and Trump campaigns this afternoon. The figures are national averages over time, and while they fluctuate wildly, they mostly show the Trump campaign paying more on a CPM basis than Clinton. While interesting, and the transparency of Facebook is admirable, the data only refute the rather strong statement that Trump always and everywhere paid less. By and large, these data do not confirm or deny the hypotheses contained in this piece.

The data that Facebook needs to show us are average CPMs broken down by targeting type, action type (e.g., clicks or likes), and geography. The first two would help distinguish direct-response campaigns, which typically are precision targeted and high CPM, from more brand-style ad campaigns that are broadly targeted and low CPM. Combining the data from both styles of campaign—which broadly define the two types that advertisers undertake—can be very deceptive, and the two campaign types need to be judged separately.

Furthermore, a breakdown by geography would help determine whether another assertion made in this piece is correct: That Trump paid less to mobilize his base than Hillary. Obviously, combining data nationwide makes this very hard to figure out.

Reportedly, Facebook has asked the campaigns to be more forthcoming with data. As it's in both those campaigns' interests at this point, one can only hope they do so. As we used to say at Facebook: "Data wins arguments."

Facebook's Advertising Machine

Rob Goldman, VP of ads at Facebook, published a tweetstorm on Friday appearing to confirm the Trump administration’s allegations around the ongoing Muller investigation … and he did so without clearing his contributions with his employer.

No, Facebook isn't eavesdropping on you through your phone to better target you with ads. It doesn't have to.

To fix its toxic ad problem, Facebook will have to undergo a massive cultural shift.

Photograph by WIRED/Getty Images

Related Video

Security

How to Lock Down Your Facebook Security and Privacy Settings

The only way to be truly secure on Facebook is to delete your account. But that's crazy talk! Here's how to lock down your privacy and security and bonus, keep targeted ads at bay.

Read more: https://www.wired.com/story/how-trump-conquered-facebookwithout-russian-ads/

from Viral News HQ http://ift.tt/2IEor1p via Viral News HQ

Rumored Thrill on top of fast followers for instagram

For your earlier many several years, Fb continues to be conducting what quantities to an A/B examination on human Culture, employing two different social networking apps. The 1st app in Facebook’s examination features a maximalist design: It will allow users to publish prolonged status updates, with inbound links to information articles or blog posts, photos, films plus more. The app is built as an enormous megaphone, by having an emphasis on public sharing and an algorithmic feed able to sending posts rocketing worldwide in seconds. The next application in the exam is much more minimalist, designed for personal sharing rather then viral broadcasting. Customers of the application, many of whom have private accounts with modest followings, can submit photographs or movies, but external back links never function and there's no re-share button, rendering it more durable for people to amplify each other’s posts. The final results of this check have been stark. The 1st application, Fb, became a tremendous and unmanageable behemoth that swallowed the media industry, was exploited by hostile foreign actors, empowered autocrats, created the conditions for a world fake information epidemic and ultimately grew to become a giant headache for its creators. The next application, Instagram, has fared a lot better. It hasn’t been overrun with bogus information, it hasn’t been exploited to a similar diploma, and most users appear happy with it — especially younger users, who vastly favor it to Facebook. Mark Zuckerberg has pledged to invest 2018 cleansing up Facebook, and making sure that “our companies aren’t just pleasurable to make use of, but in addition very good for individuals’s well-becoming.” He’s also pledged to cope with the scourge of faux information on Facebook, and do a greater task of trying to keep bad actors at bay. Fantastic for him. But there might be an easier resolve listed here. Why doesn’t he make his beleaguered blue app additional like Instagram, the Facebook-owned app that isn’t destabilizing Culture? Very last week, Fb unveiled its hottest make an effort to rein in its flagship solution. In an effort to control Phony information, it introduced It might be permitting Facebook people to rank news outlets by trustworthiness, and contemplate Individuals scores when selecting which information tales to Screen in customers’ feeds. But this kind of insignificant algorithmic knob-fiddling is probably not enough. As an alternative, Facebook should really think about using what it’s acquired with Instagram, which it acquired in 2012, to embark over a intestine renovation. If I have been Mr. Zuckerberg, Here are a few Instagram classes I’d be considering. Lesson No. one: Emphasize visuals. De-emphasize textual content. Initially, and most definitely, Instagram is a visual medium. Images and video clips are the principle event, and text, although existing, is usually confined to captions and responses. Therefore, Instagram feels additional intimate than Fb, where pics and movies normally sit together with prolonged diatribes, restaurant Examine-ins and mundane status updates. Investigation has revealed that, occasionally, Visible platforms might be good for us. 1 analyze, printed by researchers on the College of Oregon in 2016, identified that the use of picture-primarily based platforms like Instagram and Snapchat was connected to decrease amounts of loneliness amid consumers, and higher levels of happiness and gratification, when textual content-primarily based platforms experienced no correlation with enhanced mental well being. A heavily visual platform also will make a relatively lousy conduit for breaking information As well as in-the-second commentary, which could describe why Instagram frequently feels less exhausting than other social networking sites. (Furthermore, it points out why last thirty day period, right before I went on vacation, I deleted every single social media marketing application from my cellphone besides Instagram — the one application I dependable to not spoil my beachside quiet.) Lesson No. 2: Rethink the share button. One of Instagram’s most underrated virtues is the fact that it's got imposed structural limits on virality — the flexibility of the given post to distribute further than its intended viewers. Contrary to Twitter and Facebook, on Instagram there is no native sharing function, this means that the attain of most Instagram posts is capped at the number of individuals who Keep to the user’s account. (There are methods to “regram” somebody else’s Photograph utilizing a 3rd-party app, However they’re clunky, and comparatively few people rely on them. Instagram also a short while ago started demonstrating end users posts from men and women they don’t observe, a Facebook-motivated improve that I’d argue is often a blunder.) A local share button has actually been greatly valuable for Fb’s and Twitter’s expansion. It has also authorized upstart media companies like BuzzFeed and Upworthy to make massive audiences by specializing in extremely shareable stories. But simplicity of sharing has also allowed the loudest and many psychological voices to get rewarded with clicks — and a spotlight. It’s this incentive framework which includes allowed partisans and profiteers to hijack Facebook’s algorithms and unfold divisive messages and false information to an incredible number of individuals. The straightforward virality of Facebook also seems to have manufactured unique buyers additional hesitant about opening up. That makes sense — it’s simpler to share a selfie if you are aware of it received’t accidentally obtain its way in to the feeds of 1,000,000 strangers. Lesson No. 3: Ban links. Instagram’s biggest structural benefit, though, could be a results of its conclusion to go mainly hyperlink-free. Backlinks in Instagram captions and remarks aren’t clickable, and Although some users have found workarounds, the overwhelming majority of Instagram posts aren’t intended to mail users to outdoors Internet websites. (The exceptions are adverts, which may include clickable inbound links and are, not coincidentally, probably the most troubled Component of Instagram’s System.) The walled-backyard garden mother nature of Instagram has disappointed publishers, who would like to send followers out to their Sites, in which the publishers can receive advertising and marketing revenue and “Manage the reader working experience.” (It’s truly pretty much the money.) But Instagram has properly refused to provide in, Maybe acknowledging that allowing for hyperlinks could possibly flip the platform into a screeching bazaar, with publishers and pages all carrying out circus acts for clicks. Eliminating backlinks from Fb would wreak havoc around the electronic media sector, which has crafted an financial design all around referral targeted visitors from Fb. It might also risk alienating some users, who enjoy advertising and marketing and talking about stories from other portions of the net. But it could also address a number of the System’s most vexing difficulties. And finally, It might be superior for the earth. In the end, malicious actors don’t publish fabricated news, wildly exaggerated headlines or partisan outrage-bait on Facebook only for enjoyment. They do it, in several situations, as it’s successful. Choose absent negative actors’ incentives and so they’ll go in other places. Banning most inbound links doesn’t seem to have damage Instagram as a company. It experienced much more than 800 million month to month active people as of September, and it received one million new advertisers very last yr. Facebook doesn’t split out Instagram’s earnings, but some analysts be expecting the app could in the future create approximately $ten billion in once-a-year revenue. That’s nevertheless nowhere in the vicinity of Fb, which earned $ten billion in earnings last quarter by itself, nonetheless it’s a significant number, and it shows that insularity isn’t normally a bad issue. Lesson No. 4: Terrible actors are unavoidable, but their influence might be contained. Instagram is way from a perfect social community, and copying it wouldn’t resolve all of Facebook’s problems right away. Among other concerns, some exploration has revealed that utilization of Instagram can breed insecurity and bullying, and exacerbate system picture difficulties, especially between young Females. Instagram also hosts its very own sketchy microeconomy — just witness the scourge of Insta-stars endorsing doubtful health products, or maybe the uptick in fly-by-night buyer models that market place them selves employing Instagram advertisements. And Russian propagandists did use Instagram to try to influence American voters before the 2016 presidential election, with posts that reached as quite a few as twenty million consumers. (Considerably a lot less than the believed 126 million folks who were achieved by Russian posts on Facebook, but get followers on instagram fast a hefty variety nonetheless.) But even these flaws are preferable to the structural complications which have plagued Facebook. Supplied the selection between a version of Fb that manufactured some of its people experience hideous and unpopular, and one particular that could be accustomed to undermine democracies and promote misinformation worldwide, I realize which one particular I’d select. A couple of billion Fb consumers may possibly agree.

Facts All but easy way to get followers on instagram Exposed

With the earlier a number of a long time, Fb has been conducting what quantities to an A/B take a look at on human Modern society, employing two various social networking apps. The first app in Fb’s exam features a maximalist style and design: It lets buyers to publish prolonged standing updates, with hyperlinks to news article content, photos, video clips and much more. The app is developed as a giant megaphone, using an emphasis on public sharing and an algorithmic feed capable of sending posts rocketing around the globe in seconds. The second application inside the exam is much more minimalist, created for intimate sharing instead of viral broadcasting. People of the application, lots of whom have private accounts with modest followings, can write-up photos or video clips, but external inbound links tend not to work and there's Additional reading no re-share button, making it more durable for customers to amplify each other’s posts. The results of the check have been stark. The first application, Fb, turned into a tremendous and unmanageable behemoth that swallowed the media sector, was exploited by hostile international actors, empowered autocrats, developed the disorders for a worldwide faux information epidemic and in the end grew to become a giant headache for its creators. The next application, Instagram, has fared far better. It hasn’t been overrun with bogus news, it hasn’t been exploited to exactly the same diploma, and most people appear to be happy with it — In particular young people, who vastly prefer it to Facebook. Mark Zuckerberg has pledged to invest 2018 cleaning up Fb, and ensuring that “our companies aren’t just fun to implement, but additionally excellent for folks’s effectively-becoming.” He’s also pledged to deal with the scourge of pretend information on Facebook, and do a better task of trying to keep lousy actors at bay. Superior for him. But there might be a simpler fix listed here. Why doesn’t he make his beleaguered blue application extra like Instagram, the Facebook-owned application that isn’t destabilizing Modern society? Previous 7 days, Facebook unveiled its most current make an effort to rein in its flagship merchandise. In order to curb Phony news, it introduced It might be allowing for Fb people to rank news stores by trustworthiness, and contemplate Those people scores when determining which information stories to Show in customers’ feeds. But this sort of insignificant algorithmic knob-fiddling is probably not ample. As a substitute, Fb should think about using what it’s realized with Instagram, which it obtained in 2012, to embark with a intestine renovation. If I were Mr. Zuckerberg, Here are several Instagram lessons I’d be considering. Lesson No. one: Emphasize visuals. De-emphasize text. Initially, and most clearly, Instagram is a visible medium. Images and movies are the primary event, and text, although present, is mostly confined to captions and comments. Subsequently, Instagram feels far more intimate than Facebook, where by shots and videos usually sit alongside lengthy diatribes, cafe Look at-ins and mundane status updates. Investigate has shown that, in some instances, visual platforms can be fantastic for us. One review, released by scientists within the College of Oregon in 2016, identified that the use of picture-dependent platforms like Instagram and Snapchat was connected to decrease levels of loneliness among end users, and better amounts of happiness and fulfillment, even though text-primarily based platforms experienced no correlation with enhanced mental well being. A closely visual System also makes a comparatively lousy conduit for breaking news As well as in-the-moment commentary, which might clarify why Instagram generally feels less exhausting than other social networking sites. (In addition, it points out why past thirty day period, just before I went on getaway, I deleted every single social media marketing application from my cellular phone except Instagram — the sole application I trustworthy to not destroy my beachside calm.) Lesson No. 2: Rethink the share button. One among Instagram’s most underrated virtues is always that it's got imposed structural limits on virality — the flexibility of a supplied write-up to spread further than its supposed audience. Contrary to Twitter and Facebook, on Instagram there is not any indigenous sharing function, indicating the arrive at of most Instagram posts is capped at the number of those who Keep to the user’s account. (There are ways to “regram” some other person’s Image utilizing a 3rd-party app, Nevertheless they’re clunky, and relatively couple of individuals utilize them. Instagram also not long ago began demonstrating end users posts from people today they don’t comply with, a Facebook-influenced improve which i’d argue is a mistake.) A native share button has long been tremendously valuable for Facebook’s and Twitter’s growth. It's got also authorized upstart media corporations like BuzzFeed and Upworthy to develop monumental audiences by specializing in really shareable tales. But ease of sharing has also allowed the loudest and most psychological voices for being rewarded with clicks — and a focus. It’s this incentive construction which includes permitted partisans and profiteers to hijack Facebook’s algorithms and distribute divisive messages and Wrong news to millions of men and women. The easy virality of Facebook also seems to have manufactured specific people much more hesitant about opening up. That makes sense — it’s much easier to share a selfie if you recognize it gained’t accidentally discover its way in to the feeds of 1,000,000 strangers. Lesson No. 3: Ban backlinks. Instagram’s greatest structural gain, however, could be a result of its conclusion to go primarily hyperlink-absolutely free. Links in Instagram captions and opinions aren’t clickable, and Although some customers have discovered workarounds, the vast majority of Instagram posts aren’t meant to deliver people to outside the house Internet sites. (The exceptions are ads, which may consist of clickable links and they are, not coincidentally, the most troubled A part of Instagram’s System.) The walled-garden nature of Instagram has disappointed publishers, who would like to send followers out to their Internet websites, where the publishers can generate advertising dollars and “control the reader knowledge.” (It’s truly pretty much The cash.) But Instagram has wisely refused to provide in, Probably noticing that permitting backlinks could possibly switch the System right into a screeching bazaar, with publishers and webpages all executing circus acts for clicks. Eliminating back links from Facebook would wreak havoc to the electronic media business, which has created an economic design all over referral traffic from Facebook. It will also danger alienating some buyers, who delight in advertising and marketing and speaking about stories from other elements of the online market place. But it will also fix several of the System’s most vexing troubles. And in the end, it would be better for the entire world. After all, malicious actors don’t write-up fabricated information, wildly exaggerated headlines or partisan outrage-bait on Fb only for entertaining. They do it, in many circumstances, because it’s profitable. Acquire absent undesirable actors’ incentives and they’ll go in other places. Banning most back links doesn’t appear to have damage Instagram as a company. It had over 800 million every month Energetic buyers as of September, and it received a million new advertisers past yr. Facebook doesn’t split out Instagram’s earnings, but some analysts expect the application could someday generate just as much as $ten billion in yearly income. That’s however nowhere in close proximity to Fb, which earned $ten billion in earnings very last quarter by itself, nonetheless it’s a meaningful range, and it displays that insularity isn’t usually a nasty matter. Lesson No. four: Bad actors are unavoidable, but their influence might be contained. Instagram is much from an ideal social network, and copying it wouldn’t deal with all of Facebook’s troubles overnight. Between other problems, some exploration has revealed that use of Instagram can breed insecurity and bullying, and exacerbate overall body image troubles, especially between younger Gals. Instagram also hosts its have sketchy microeconomy — just witness the scourge of Insta-celebrities endorsing dubious well being goods, or even the uptick in fly-by-evening purchaser makes that industry them selves utilizing Instagram ads. And Russian propagandists did use Instagram to try to influence American voters ahead of the 2016 presidential election, with posts that reached as several as 20 million people. (Much under the estimated 126 million people that had been achieved by Russian posts on Facebook, but a hefty amount Even so.) But even these flaws are preferable on the structural problems that have plagued Facebook. Provided the choice amongst a version of Facebook that created many of its people truly feel ugly and unpopular, and a single that might be utilized to undermine democracies and encourage misinformation worldwide, I understand which one particular I’d decide. A number of billion Fb consumers may well concur.