I've felt similarly about Raid Shadow Legends in that I keep thinking it must be doing SOMETHING right of some sort of they can still afford all those adds but same as you, I haven't broken yet.
Fake News!
- Thread starter Agema
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I suppose, but like, that's just cause previous usage was pretty lame. One almost wonders, could Donald Trump make "fetch" happen?
Isn't Raid Shadow Legends actually a casino game disguised as a fantasy RPG?
I mean once you know some of the advertising tricks you break a lot of them.
A real good example of a lot of the tricks on show in just 1 single advert
Twitter Blue Checkmarks.
One of the rules of keeping one was meant to be not tweeting information you know or suspect to be false so that created a degree of trust. That's been falling apart as not only are plenty of blue checks on twitter just liars / partisan spin doctors / partisan hacks but even media organisations have been getting fooled / not properly fact checking stuff.
Bit of a difference between targeted adverts and general advertising designed to influence desire.
Targeted =this info says this person is likely to like this product so all we do is make said product look good and they'll buy it.
General Influence = we don't have a target demographic or customer base yet but we need to convince people they need our product or want our product. Like say a toothbrush with tongue scraper on it
As an example
Advertisers getting targeting data would know to send me info on weird esoteric Sci-Fi stuff preferably with a decent amount of symbolism etc
Advertisers trying to sell a Sci-Fi film to general people would show it as a must see film that makes everyone feel happy or amazed with quotes about how you don't want to miss out.
The only time targeted advertising gets really sinister would be something like: When they know you and I tend to exchange replies quite often on here so they market the weird obscure Sci-Fi film to you in the hopes you'll then tell me about it at some point because you're a fellow poster telling me about the thing not a company so my guard will be less up when checking out the trailer.
Also with targeting they could apply more general stuff but that depends on the market they're in and the saturation in that market as some markets you just have to show people you exist and will see because the market is so underserved. E.G. Selling golf balls vs selling an AI controlled golf caddy troll that advises you on club choices and follows you round the course.
I'll tell you the following based on some youtubers who looked into it
1) yes it's as stupid. No it's not that game it's almost never that game. It's usually some entirely different game
2) The reason for the ad is it's determined to be the most effective format even if under many regions rules those ads are outright lies
3) It's literally been determined and picked right down to the colours and styles to try and appeal to people with basically test groups being fed slight variations on the advert to test which is more effective.
Raid is probably just false hype marketing.
Probably some Casino investment firm behind it trying to figure out how to sell gambling to more people.
Claim how many downloads it's had to convince people there's a community.
Keep advertising to convince people it's popular and successful and push FOMO.
Make people willing to try it thinking it won't be a fly by night cash grab and then willing to invest money into the game too
This is not helped by Wikipedia, whose policy is to quote "reliable" news media sources whenever possible. And lazy journalists using Wikipedia for cursory research. Creating a loop where once something is on Wikipedia future sources using Wikipedia for research establish to Wikipedia that the original source is right by consensus.This topic brings me back to me favorite piece on TV Tropes:
Cowboy BeBop at His Computer - TV Tropes
This is when the media reports blatantly incorrect facts about a creative work that any fan or — in the most egregious cases — even just someone with any kind of passing knowledge of said work would know to be wrong. It seems like …tvtropes.org
You can spend a bunch of time and get some real good laughs reading through that list of stupid things media people have gotten horrifyingly wrong , and every so often you get the sobering moment where you remember that the vast majority of people reading those mistakes believed them. "Everything you read in the newspapers is absolutely true except for that rare story of which you happen to have firsthand knowledge."
To be fair, it just started as a "we verify this account is who it claims to be" mark, and only became revocable by saying the wrong sorts of things later.
Oh yeah, another thing I remembered. Last year loads of variations of the exact same meme started circulating claiming Mad max takes place in 2021. Even Joe rogan shared it to his millions of credulous listeners. So many people believed this ridiculously easily disputed claim.
Or to tie into something I mentioned earlier, a vegan friend claimed that a peanut putter sandwich had as much protein as a chicken breast. I know what movie taught him that and I mean, yeah technically that is true but also it's only true of that peanut butter sandwich has 60g of peanut butter, about 20 times the fat content and roughly 5 times the calories. Those are estimates off the top of my head, not 100% accurate but close seeing as a chicken breast is about 35-ish grams of protein at less than 200 calories and two slices of bread alone will be about 160 calories. This is a thing super easy to research but a man with a nice British accent said it in a documentary that Jackie chan helped make so it must be true.
Edit: that should say 120g peanut butter
Or to tie into something I mentioned earlier, a vegan friend claimed that a peanut putter sandwich had as much protein as a chicken breast. I know what movie taught him that and I mean, yeah technically that is true but also it's only true of that peanut butter sandwich has 60g of peanut butter, about 20 times the fat content and roughly 5 times the calories. Those are estimates off the top of my head, not 100% accurate but close seeing as a chicken breast is about 35-ish grams of protein at less than 200 calories and two slices of bread alone will be about 160 calories. This is a thing super easy to research but a man with a nice British accent said it in a documentary that Jackie chan helped make so it must be true.
Edit: that should say 120g peanut butter
Last edited:
I can imagine people not bothering with that one because it doesn't matter in the slightest, though.
I know there's all sorts of things I believe that I'm accepting as fact without checking because I don't really care if I'm wrong about some of them.
I know it's unimportant but it's the confidence with which people cite it that annoys me. Also fuck Joe rogan.
And ironically, you'd probably be better off with the chicken breast as chances are it will have less carbs and fat.
Also relevant, depending on what you're aiming for, what protein? Because not all proteins are the same, and if you want to do stuff like consume protein for muscle devlopment, you pretty much cannot do better than the protein content found within a chunk of muscle.
I don't think it's a matter of important or not. People can believe what they want, right or wrong, and have it not matter in the slightest. The shocking thing is people's willingness to proselytize wrong information based on a headline or a Joe Rogan quote. Unfortunately, I can't seem to get to the data behind this story, cause they want me to pay $10 for that, which circularly makes one wonder if this whole thing is clickbait trying to fund raise for their journal... I got sidetracked there. Anyway, they mention some amount of people's willingness to share things, and I can't imagine ever saying "yes, I'd be willing to share that" in a study that's assessing my ability to identify fake news.
PNAS? I really don't think so.
Pretty common sort of access rights for an academic journal. A lot of it is usually open access due to conditions associated with funding bodies, but I guess that article isn't.
Yeah, I'm not super worried about it either, cause it seems mostly one of those "studies of studies of studies" scenarios where uncovering all the data is like 8 days of digging. I was just enjoying the irony of talking about fake news and advertising, and the source material gives a "wouldn't you like to know... $10".
if only there were a solution to the various conditions that result in keeping important knowledge behind paywalls.
You're right. We should get rid of money, abolish nation-states, destroy society as we know it, and compel people to support research papers on fake news so that we might avoid the awful scourge of someone asking for money.
Well, that's how they traditionally made money: you publish your data for free, and someone else pays to read it. Nowadays where it's open access, the person publishing pays up front, and everyone gets to read for free.
Academic publishing companies, incidentally, tend to make profits that nearly all other industries would beg for: over 30% operating profit is not unusual. Helps when a huge chunk of your labour force work for free.
There already is. How do you think info gets out there on all kinds of things?
Scientists aren't known for being well behaved when it relates to research work unless it's literally state funded in state labs. Most papers either find their way onto the internet or you get them on "trade" via the backdoors in the field of Science. The understanding is simple researchers will share their work with fellow researchers if asked if their establishment doesn't have a running subscription with the journal in question. You must then do the same for if you're approached. Sometimes it's just straight paper for paper trades sometimes it's a deal to pay it forward. It's just a general understanding in Science.
I mean, if you insist...