time to sharpen your pencils, people
Mariana Olaizola Rosenblat covers How
Meta Turned Its Back on Human Rights for Tech Policy Press.
Zuckerberg announced that his company will no longer work to detect
abuses of its platforms other than
high-severity violations
of
content policy, such as those involving illicit drugs, terrorism, and
child sexual exploitation. The clear implication is that the company
will no longer strive to police its platform against other harmful
content, including hate speech and targeted harassment.
Sounds like a brand-unsafe environment. So is another rush of
advertiser boycott stories coming? Not
this time. Lara O’Reilly reports that brand safety has recently
become a political hot potato and been a flash point for some
influential, right-leaning figures.
In uncertain times, marketing
decision-makers are keeping a low profile. Most companies aren’t really
set up to take on the open-ended security risk of coming out against
hate speech
by users with friends in high places. According
to the Fraternal Order of Police, the January 6 pardons send a
dangerous message,
and that message is being heard in marketing
departments. The CMOs who boycotted
last time are fully aware that stochastic
terrorism is a thing, and that rage stories about companies spread
quickly in Facebook groups and other extremist media. If an executive
makes the news for pulling ads from Meta, they would be putting
employees at risk from lone,
deniable attacks. So instead of
announcing a high-profile boycott, marketers are more likely to follow
the example of Federal
employees and do the right thing, by the book, and quietly.
Fortunately, big advertisers got some lower-stakes practice with the
X
(former Twitter) situation. Instead of either (1) staying on
there and putting the brand at risk of being associated with material
copied out of Henry
Ford’s old newspaper or (2) risking getting snarled up in a lawsuit
for pulling the X ads entirely, brands got the best of both by cutting
way back on the actual money without dropping X entirely or saying much
one way or the other.
And it’s possible for advertisers to reduce support for Meta without
making a stink or drawing fire. Fortunately, Meta ads are hella
expensive, and results can be unrealistic
and unsustainable. Like all the Big Tech companies these days, Meta
is coping with a slowdown in innovation by tweaking the ad rules to
capture more revenue from existing services. As Jakob Nielsen pointed
out back in 2006, in Search
Engines as Leeches on the Web, ad platforms can even capture the
value created by others. A marketer doesn’t have to shout ¡No
Pasarán!
or anything—just sharpen your best math pencil, quietly go
through the numbers, spot something that looks low-ROAS or fraudulent in
the Meta column, tweak the budget, repeat. If users can dial
down Meta, so can marketers. (Update: Richard Kirk writes, Brands
could be spending three times too much on social. You read that
right. Read the math, do the math.) And if Meta comes out with
something new and risky like the adfraud
in the browser thing, Privacy-Preserving Attribution, it’s easy to
use the fraud problem as the reason not to do it—you don’t have to stand
up and talk politics at work.
From the user side
It’s not that hard to take privacy measures that result in less money for Big Tech. Even if you can’t quit Meta entirely, some basic tools and settings can make an impact, especially if you use both a laptop and a phone, not just a phone. With a few minutes of work, an individual in the USA can, in effect, fine the surveillance business about $50/month.
My list of effective privacy tips is prioritized by how much I think they’ll cost the surveillance business per minute spent. A privacy tips list for people who don’t like doing privacy tips but also don’t like creepy oligarchs. (As they say in the clickbait business, number 9 will shock you: if you get your web browser info from TV and social media, you probably won’t guess which browsers have built-in surveillance and/or fraud features.) That page also has links to more intensive privacy advice for those who want to get into it.
Bonus links
After Big Social.
Dan Phiffer covers the question of where to next. I am going into
this clear-eyed; I’m going to end up losing touch with a lot of people.
For many of my contacts, Meta controls the only connection we have. It’s
a real loss, withdrawing from communities that I’ve built up over the
years (or decades in the case of Facebook). But I’m also finding new
communities with different people on the networks I’m spending more time
in.
No
Cookies For You!: Evaluating The Promises Of Big Tech’s
‘Privacy-Enhancing’ Techniques Kirsten Martin, Helen Nissenbaum, and
Vitaly Shmatikov cover the problems with privacy-enhancing
Big
Tech features. (Not everything with privacy
in its name is a
privacy feature. It’s like open
I guess.)
update 30 Apr 2025: Why
price cuts and agency pressure haven’t changed calculus for brands on
X by Sam Bradley. To understand why more brands aren’t seriously
reconsidering X, it’s useful to quickly examine how they actually choose
between platforms in the media planning process.