21–30 of 34 posts
If anything, this will devalue climate content in the eye of advertisers.
EDIT: No, seriously. This is *BAD*. It is technically interesting but super counterproductive and will have the opposite result of what it was made for in the first place.
So the rate of ad-fraud on climate news will be higher?
* Polarized, politicized, incendiary topic? Check. * Unclear intentions? Check. * Media manipulation on a grand scale? Check. * Fake traffic to websites? Check. * Publishers scoring fraudulent clicks? Check (maybe) * Somehow, being awesome in spite of all of the above. Check.
I want to like this as an art project but just can't. Yes, it's interesting to point out that manipulating content algorithms to favor special interests is a reality. It would have been nice to at least acknowledge that this is generally not employed for wholesome causes. Mostly, though, this just literally doesn't work.
Right. They didn't quite manage to connect the circle. Their website needed to say something like:
> Corporate monoliths with a financial stake in destroying the planet have been employing these tactics for years, see [this] [that] and [those]. It's time to fight back.
This is horrible. This feels like the public isn’t interested in a topic as much like a group is expecting them to be, so the group fakes interest. It reads like “for your own good”. I predict that this will have zero impact on greenhouse gas emissions.