Twatter Says No, Facesucker Says Yes
The Market Ticker - Commentary on The Capital Markets
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
Full-Text Search & Archives

Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.


The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2019-10-31 10:46 by Karl Denninger
in Company Specific , 90 references Ignore this thread
Twatter Says No, Facesucker Says Yes
[Comments enabled]


Twatter's Jack says that they will not take political ads.  He cites as the firm's reasons for saying "No" a contradiction that logically cannot make any sense.  It is the combination of:

  • These ads are a minuscule percentage of the whole; ergo, they immaterial to our earnings.  That also means they're immaterial to the number of impressions a person sees -- that is, if you have something that is less than 1% of your ad volume then you'd only see 1 political ad and 99 non-political ones.  This of course means that the total experience would be immaterial and thus have exactly nothing to do with your "total experience."

BUT he also claims...

  • These ads are hyper-targeted and therefore are extremely effective in actually moving votesand therefore constitute an "unfair" influence in the political process.  Uh huh.

So which is it folks?

Think about this for a minute.  You can't both have an "ad platform" that makes no money from a given thing because it's a vanishingly small amount of cash and operations, and then turn around and claim it has some "major impact", let alone that it's unfair impact and thus should be banned.

One of the two may indeed be true but both are not.  Second, if it's unfair to swing your vote can you explain how it's fair to target you for any other purpose?  What -- screwing you out of your money is a sport but screwing you out of a vote is unacceptable?  Why is one all that is good and Holy and the second utterly irresponsible?

Incidentally since I was asked to prove "I'm not a bot" by Twatter it appears they're shadowbanning me, at least partly, based on reports from people who claim to follow me but aren't see my postings.  I guess when there's no penalty for lying, why not do a lot of it?

View with responses (opens new window)