What If Google And Facebook Admitted That All This Ad Targeting Really Doesn't Work That Well?

from the the-data-obsession dept

You may have heard the famous line from early department store magnate John Wanamaker that "half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half." Over the past decade or so, various companies have argued that their ability to provide a ton of data, combined with whatever algorithmic magic they could throw at their platforms, could lead to a magical mythical world in which there were perfectly targeted advertisements. And, of course, in the past few years there have been literally just two places where advertisers believe they can get perfectly targeted advertisements that don't waste half (or more) of their ad spend: Google and Facebook.

The end result of this thinking is that Google and Facebook need to engage in what people refer to as "surveillance capitalism," collecting a ton of data on everyone, building a huge profile about every user, and snooping on basically everything everyone does all day. This is why people have been getting more and more annoyed about the privacy trade-offs over the past few years (though, not so annoyed that they've stopped using these platforms in any significant way -- though, that could happen). It also has resulted in advertisers assuming that they must put the bulk of their ad dollars into those two platforms on the assumption that the money is better spent there. Indeed, the most recent IAB report on this noted that while the internet ad market continues to rise, 90% of the growth went to Facebook and Google (together the two companies represent about 58% of the total market share for online ads, but 90% of the growth in 2017).

Advertisers have been completely sucked into the belief that if you want to get results for your ads, you simply have to throw money at those two giants, and they'll mix some magic pixie dust with all the data they've collected, and voila: perfectly targeted advertising. Everyone get so focused on magic words like "big data" and "artificial intelligence" and "machine learning" that they rarely ask the larger question: does any of it actually matter?

As more and more questions are raised about the data practices of Facebook and Google, it seems worth questioning whether or not they actually need to be collecting all this data, and how much of a loss it actually is if they don't. Just recently, Facebook announced that -- as part of a settlement with the ACLU -- it was drastically changing how it handles certain ads: specifically that it would no longer allow such granular targeting for housing, employment, or credit ads -- all three of which were seen in the past as leading to discriminatory outcomes.

If such targeting really was important and useful, you'd think that this would have resulted in Facebook's stock price cratering. Instead, it went up.

The little secret behind all of this that very few people want to admit is that, in most cases super-targeted ads are crap. They don't perform well. That's because even if you're putting the ad in front of the right demographic, most of the time they don't care or don't want to see whatever it is that you're pushing. Or, it shows an ad for something you already have (or the ever popular laugher: something you just bought and don't need to buy again).

Unfortunately, most advertisers don't quite realize this yet, and Google and Facebook are in no rush to tell anyone (though, frankly, they should be more upfront about all of this). Some are realizing this through other means. It didn't get that much attention, but back in January it was reported that, because of the GDPR, the NY Times stopped using behavioral targeting for ads... and found its revenue went up. The Times is doing much more basic targeting now: just contextual and geographical.

And, if anyone should know this, it should be Google. For much of Google's existence, its big secret sauce was not deep knowledge about the people seeing the ads: it was just matching them against their search terms. That is, just a bit of simple contextual information, rather than tying it to a giant portfolio of data about you. It's really just over the last decade that Google really focused hard on building data profiles on everyone and "customizing" everything. There may be some advantages to some of those customizations -- and there are certain useful things that come with the data -- but better targeted advertisements... don't really seem to be among them.

Frankly, if Facebook and Google want to get regulators off their backs, they might start by coming to terms with this basic fact themselves and choosing to stop collecting so much data on everyone. Recognizing that they can still build incredibly powerful ad-driven businesses without so much data would be a big step forward. Right now, unfortunately, it seems that everyone remains bought into the myth that they need this data, that their business models are dependent on this data, and that this data is actually useful in the advertising context. Bursting that myth might mean that advertisers aren't quite as enamored with Google and Facebook over the long haul (though, they'd still spend a ton of money with them), but it might lead to a better overall experience for users, and a hell of a lot less regulatory pressure.

Filed Under: ad targeting, ads, business models, surveillance capitalism
Companies: facebook, google


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Mar 2019 @ 10:53am

    Even if targeted ads are complete and utter BS Facebook and Google are going to keep doing what they're doing if 90% of ad revenue growth continues to be funneled into their platforms. There is no incentive to do otherwise.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Thad (profile), 29 Mar 2019 @ 10:58am

      Re:

      There's some incentive: the threat of users leaving in disgust, increasing interest for government regulation, and lawsuits, to name a few examples.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Mar 2019 @ 11:20am

        Re: Re:

        Compared to their share of 90% growth in ad revenue those are all small potatoes until they manifest.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Mar 2019 @ 2:11pm

        Re: Re:

        These companies took the ad revenue while the advertizers were salivating all over themselves, but those who's data was being sold unknowingly felt like they had been molested and the smaller websites who were busy forming the internet and now what is left of it lost those advertizing revenues. In stepped those (first search engine) haha and spying became even more lucrative. Its such a pity many are beside themselves in disbelief. The internet came and went before it ever really got started because of a few truly sick and greedy dickheads.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2019 @ 6:00am

        Re: Re:

        There's some incentive: the threat of users leaving in disgust, increasing interest for government regulation, and lawsuits, to name a few examples.
        This reply is indicative of everything wrong with the issue. Let's break them down:

        "Users leaving in disgust": right, as if this were ever to be true. Not only are users not leaving, where would they go to avoid such tactics? Even Techdirt uses targeted ads. It's literally inescapable unless the website stops using ads.

        "government regulation": This is never the regulation people think it will be. Every "attempt" at "regulating" a business has always resulted in worse ways for the business to find other means.
        The simple fact AT&T was deliberately broken up as a federally regulated monopoly has lead directly to the issues of ISPs today.

        Let this sink in for a very, very long time.

        "Lawsuits": LMAO. The term "rose-colored glasses" is applicable.

        "to name a few examples:" Nope, this covers them all. There are no other options left.

        The reality of the situation is advertising focuses on the few who are affected by it, which can result in increased sales.

        For the rest of us: we use adblockers because we know ads don't work and they're fucking annoying as hell.

        What's really disheartening are those companies whining about ad revenue losses as being the same as business losses.

        If a company is sustaining itself on ad revenue and is not an advertising company, it is not a company.

        The truth hurts.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2019 @ 8:06am

          Re: Re: Re:

          ""Users leaving in disgust": right, as if this were ever to be true."

          • AOL is still alive, you're still using it right?

          "It's literally inescapable unless the website stops using ads."

          • Disable javascript ... escape enabled

          " Every "attempt" at "regulating" a business has always resulted in worse ways for the business to find other means."

          • I have tried to parse this, but there are too many possibilities. Let me guess, you think business is self regulating and would never do anything wrong.

          "The simple fact AT&T was deliberately broken up as a federally regulated monopoly has lead directly to the issues of ISPs today."

          • Bunk. The problems to which you refer existed for some time prior to the telephone.

          "The reality of the situation is advertising focuses on the few who are affected by it, which can result in increased sales."

          • The reality of the situation is advertising is all lies swallowed by the gullible.

          Are you a fellow graduate of the school of silly business?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Thad (profile), 1 Apr 2019 @ 9:53am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "Users leaving in disgust": right, as if this were ever to be true. Not only are users not leaving,

          https://www.statista.com/statistics/250934/quarterly-number-of-netflix-streaming-subscribe rs-worldwide/

          https://www.statista.com/statistics/264810/number-of-monthly-active-facebook-users-wor ldwide/

          where would they go to avoid such tactics?

          This is a reasonable question. If subscribers are leaving Facebook and going to Instagram (as seems to be the case), that's not really a loss for Facebook.

          Even Techdirt uses targeted ads. It's literally inescapable unless the website stops using ads.

          Nonsense. Adblockers and tracking blockers exist. While this does create an arms-race situation, sometimes a feature becomes so odious that browsers disable it outright -- remember popups? And we're seeing the same thing happen with autoplay videos. There is a risk -- not a certainty, but a risk -- that browsers will start blocking certain types of tracking ads. Obviously Google Chrome isn't going to block Google ads, but it's begun to set parameters for what constitutes an "acceptable" type of ad.

          "government regulation": This is never the regulation people think it will be. Every "attempt" at "regulating" a business has always resulted in worse ways for the business to find other means.

          That doesn't mean Facebook doesn't see government regulation as a threat.

          The simple fact AT&T was deliberately broken up as a federally regulated monopoly has lead directly to the issues of ISPs today.

          No, AT&T being broken up isn't what led (BTW, lead is a metal) to the ISP issues of today; AT&T being allowed to merge back together is.

          "Lawsuits": LMAO. The term "rose-colored glasses" is applicable.

          "LMAO"? How the fuck old are you?

          "to name a few examples:" Nope, this covers them all. There are no other options left.

          ...did you read the article? The entire article is about another example of reasons why Google and Facebook might wish to abandon targeted ads: because they don't work.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Federico (profile), 29 Mar 2019 @ 11:53am

      Re: Monetisation boycotts and targeting

      Apart from GDPR, I think a significant push against behavioral advertising might come from the ever-increasing amount of advertisers which wish to "boytcott" some websites, YouTube channels, you name it. Unilever has decided to switch to whitelisting:
      https://www.reuters.com/article/us-unilever-advertising/unilever-to-pick-trusted-publi shers-for-digital-advertising-idUSKCN1R900B

      Maybe pretty soon we'll be back to what is essentially the old world of display advertising, where you select some (kinds of) venues where to put your ads rather than attempt to chase specific demographics all over the internet.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Mar 2019 @ 1:33pm

      Re:

      AFAIK Google still sells ads to appear on non-Google pages. If they admit targeting is bullshit, what makes them better than any other advertising website?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Bobvious, 29 Mar 2019 @ 11:30pm

      How the British deal with Product Pushers

      "If a product pusher comes in and fouls up your housework...."
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0bD6tKqS_k

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Mason Wheeler (profile), 29 Mar 2019 @ 11:03am

    Not only does "all this ad targeting really not work that well," it's actually actively counterproductive. Any discussion about targeted advertising should include the principles laid out in the 2013 article Targeted Advertising Considered Harmful, which delves into the psychological reasons why when a person notices they're being targeted by a "relevant" ad, they become less inclined, rather than more, to follow it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Bamboo Harvester (profile), 29 Mar 2019 @ 11:19am

    How about....

    ...those of us who have several ad-blockers running and haven't seen an ad in years?

    Facebook apparently got around that by injecting them into the user feed a while back, but intelligent people don't use facebook. Then again, intelligent people don't believe adverts, so I guess it's a wash...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Rocky, 29 Mar 2019 @ 2:57pm

      Re: How about....

      If I run across an intrusive ad or just plain stupid ad, I add the brand to my do-not-buy-list plus blackhole the domain serving up the ad.

      It's getting a bit long at this point which means some type of wares where a bit problematical to get hold of for a while, but I've switched to buy stuff from local brands as much as I can at this point anyway since there are more and more of them popping up. The price is a bit higher, but so is the quality.

      It's my way to say f*ck you to the big brands.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    stine, 29 Mar 2019 @ 11:25am

    Doesn't matter to me.

    I typically make it a point to not buy merchandise or services that have been advertised at me.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Bamboo Harvester (profile), 29 Mar 2019 @ 12:18pm

      Re: Doesn't matter to me.

      I was brought up the same way, and instilled it in my kids - if it's advertised on TV or through the mail, it's a scam.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Moo (profile), 29 Mar 2019 @ 5:11pm

      Re: Doesn't matter to me.

      Even the most relevant ad is still an ad.
      If it gets past my adblocker, any effect on my likelihood of buying whatever is going to be in the "less likely" direction.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Gary (profile), 29 Mar 2019 @ 11:34am

    Targets

    the targeted adverts I see the most of are on Facebook, and I see things advertised because they are already in my Amazon shopping cart.
    Creepy.
    Oddly on-point - those are certainly things I'm interested in.
    But completely misses the point - they are already in my cart waiting for an order, it's a moot point and an useless ad.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 1 Apr 2019 @ 3:27am

      Re: Targets

      Yeah, that's what always gets me. Half the time I'm seeing ads for things I just bought. Typically, for example, I'll see ads from booking.com trying to sell me the hotel rooms I just booked with that site. It's less than useless.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 29 Mar 2019 @ 11:42am

    What to advertise and to whom

    The thing that has always gotten me about targeted advertising is how they think they know what I am about to buy, or am interested in buying. I might do a search for something that I am interested in, but have no intention of buying. I might research a field that has nothing to do with any possibility of any future purchases. They might conclude that I am looking up information about...say clouds, that I am not going to try to buy a cloud, but instead assume I want a weather station. I don't.

    So with all the data they dig up on someone, there is still some set of assumptions being made that don't necessarily correlate to someones buying behavior. Even trying to use machine learning or artificial intelligence to overcome the deficiencies of those assumptions by better targeting the differences between what they thought I would buy and what I did buy isn't going to help them predict the future of what I might be interested in buying, simply because tastes and interests change. Then I might have bought it off line and they have no idea about that purchase. I don't use store cards and tend to spend cash.

    Then there are economic factors as well. Today I might be able to afford an economy car, while dreaming about some super car. In the future, though, I might be able to afford something in between. So what do they target me with, and how do they justify their efforts when I actually go an buy a used car?

    The advertising buying businesses might be better off bolstering their brand names broadly, rather than advertising products to individuals. Perhaps if Mr. Wanamaker went about telling the world how and why his store was different and better than his top five competitors, he might have seen a different value perspective from his advertising dollar, as apposed to advertising certain products on sale. Maybe he did just that, but still felt his advertising program lacked the punch he desired.

    That leaves us with advertisers having to understand that even when their ads are seen, they may not have the desired impact for a variety of reasons, and accept that trying to target individuals might be just as wasteful. Then, add in the feeling that targeted individuals get when they realize that someone has been poking around in their lives, and use their disgust to go a different direction.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      mhajicek (profile), 29 Mar 2019 @ 1:42pm

      Re: What to advertise and to whom

      Yup. I just saw a targeted ad for a carbide tipped three-flute drill optimized for drilling cast iron. I don't even drill cast iron, I mostly drill Titanium!

      Cast iron. Psh.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Zgaidin (profile), 30 Mar 2019 @ 10:26am

      Re: What to advertise and to whom

      There are times and ways in which targeted ads make at least some sense (even if they are creepy). If I know that you just bought a bunch of diapers, and that based on specifically which diapers you bought I can reasonably assume you have a six month old - I can reasonably target you ads for bottles, bottle nipples, teething toys, children's books and videos, baby food, etc all based on a single purchase.

      That, as you note, is a far cry from reasonable ad targeting based on your web search history. Targeted ads make way more sense based on things linked to purchase history (things you've proven you're willing to spend money on) than interest history, and you can build reliable models about that sort of thing. For example, if I run a business that sells auto wax and car-washing accessories and the like, I initially target my adds at people who just bought a new car. Over time, it turns out, my ads are way more successful when targeted at people who bought new sports or luxury vehicles than economy cars or family SUVs, so I tweak my ad strategy to only target them. That's smart business, but sending you adds for auto wax because you googled images of an Aston Martin is insane. That's probably well more than half my money wasted.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Federico (profile), 29 Mar 2019 @ 11:49am

    Ad contrarian

    "Ad contrarian" is an interesting blog devoted to exposing the silliness of the modern ad industry, I recommend it. An example take:
    https://adcontrarian.blogspot.com/2015/07/what-if-targeting-doesnt-work.html

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Mar 2019 @ 11:58am

    Collecting data on people for advertising will never go away- it has been part of the advertising business since day one. Advertisers believe they can never have too much knowledge about consumers.
    They might change strategies or pitches, but they will not be changing data accumulation.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    TFG, 29 Mar 2019 @ 12:11pm

    Advertisements are rather unpersuasive to me. It seems like a fair few advertisements present themselves as trying to convince me to purchase the thing even when I may not have otherwise though I need or want the thing.

    The only time I will purchase the thing is when I have decided I need or want to purchase the thing beforehand. Advertisements may help to make me aware that it is available at a place, and may help convince me to get it from a specific provider, but they've never convinced me to purchase the thing in the first place.

    For me, simply making sure that the fact that you sell it is easily located is the way to get my business - I won't be buying your stuff unless I've first decided I want it. So data collection, targeted ads, etc. etc. etc. - they definitely aren't worthwhile where I'm concerned.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    ECA (profile), 29 Mar 2019 @ 12:44pm

    Ad targets...

    The programs are interesting, but Just as bad as Snail mail..
    But abit of gardening supplies and end up on a list for Every gardening book in he world??

    Fun isnt it..

    Yo buy a repair part oin the net and Then you get adverts for that SAME part and every part for anything that USED that part..

    IT AINT EASY..

    the most Fun Iv had is looking for Clothing..Anyone seen the latest prices?? TRY to find linen and cotton clothing.. WOW the prices for something so cheap, is STUPID..
    Goto a store..try to find the Cotton shorts(be careful, this stuff is REALLY bad quality, wont last 1 year).. you wont Find much if any..its all 50/50, 65/35 or all synthetic and costs $20-30 for what you CAN find, with Adverts all over it..
    TRY to find the old cotton Gyn shorts we used in school... Iv not seen a good quality pair in years..
    (good quality= Hold up to light and NOT see thru it BETWEEN the threads..(look at bed sheets, Close up,as the best way to see quality)

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Mar 2019 @ 12:46pm

    Well, just like much other heavy or bulk surveillance, they think the data could be more useful in the future, after everyone is long resigned to it and people have lived their entire lives knowing nothing different. The extreme longitudinal data collection and further development of both machine learning and use cases make this something so attractive that it violates the cultural rules of business most often projecting mostly to the next quarter at the most.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    michael, 29 Mar 2019 @ 1:13pm

    Depends on the business, I guess

    "in most cases super-targeted ads are crap. They don't perform well."

    It would be great to see some actual evidence of this, particularly from an ROI standpoint.

    I wouldn't expect Google ads to do that well, particularly on a national level. But I own a local business, and our Facebook ads are extremely lucrative. For like $5 I can put a super-targeted event ad in front of several thousand people (with no other advertising), and expect a turnout of several dozen to several hundred, depending on the event.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    madasahatter (profile), 29 Mar 2019 @ 1:25pm

    Forgetting something

    Targeted advertising ignores one key reason to advertise - brand awareness. In a mass market, customers need to know you exist and generally what you sell. If they are unaware of your product, they will not look for it or buy it. Now if you have a product that tends to appeal to a specific demographic it does make sense to advertise where that demographic will congregate. But I am talking about relatively broad demographics, such as males between 20 - 35.

    The consistent problem with highly targeted advertising is context, what is the person's motivation for the product choices and purchases they made. The narrower the focus the more critical extremely precise information becomes; information that is not that easy to get. Broad demographics, such as the example above, will not require the precision and detail to be effective.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ninja (profile), 29 Mar 2019 @ 1:53pm

    When you let the tracking reign free the ads get downright creepy sometimes. In any case, this ad hammering seems to be saturating people to the point it's starting to have the opposite effect. When I'm using a site or app that does too much advertising or it's too invasive I find myself memorizing the companies to avoid them like the plague.

    On a side note I'm actively avoiding companies that either call me directly or send unwanted message. So yay for advertisement I guess?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    bobob, 29 Mar 2019 @ 5:34pm

    I think the article has a mistaken idea of what ads are for. I used to believe that ads were to sell products (in that naive sense) until I worked in college selling stereo equipment. The owner was the best salesman I have ever met, bar none. I mentioned that the commercials he ran on TV (small college town) were rather annoying and wouldn't convince me to buy anything.

    He agreed that th ads were rather annoying, but pointed out that the purpose of the ad was to put the name of the store into people's heads so that wen they did decide to buy something, they would be familiar with the name of the store as a place to start looking. Ads don't sell products. The just make sure that the company name/brand/products are something you've heard of before.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Mar 2019 @ 6:19pm

      Re:

      You have a point but for some reason Hulu thinks I speak spanish. I have no idea what the ads are trying to sell let alone who is trying to get their brand in my head. Rarely, does Google throw an applicable ad my way that I would even consider the advertiser. I guess my interests are so random they are throwing off the AI.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Mar 2019 @ 7:24pm

    They have been making claims about how well it does work for a very long time. Not sure how their customers and shareholders would feel if they suddenly came out and said "nah, just kidding. It doesn't really".

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    morganwick (profile), 30 Mar 2019 @ 12:49am

    Known Google shill Mike Masnick continues to stick up for them with an article that (checks notes) questions their current business model and suggests that the aggressive, invasive targeting they've been engaged in doesn't actually work.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    TDR, 30 Mar 2019 @ 9:45am

    I would guess they also don't want to admit that a great deal of people simply don't want to be advertised to in any way, shape, or form. Hence the large number of people who use ad blockers when online.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    GERALD L ROBINSON, 30 Mar 2019 @ 11:03am

    AS targeting

    Something not mentioned is that as targeting is counter productive for the advertiser. Before targeted ads I went to a website from an ad because they had a product or service I did not know about ~once in two weeks. Sense targeting started I haven't done this for a targeted ad. I bought a lot of gear from B&H as I used to own a video company, I don't find their targeted ads anything but annoying as I subscribe to their news letter! I'm cases where folks do business with a business additional ads for that business are at best redundant and at worst annoy customers.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2019 @ 2:16pm

    A lot of people say they ignore ad,s or dont like them,
    ads are aimed at shopkeeperss , supermarkets , suppliers ,retailers ,wholesalers .Not just at the consumer .
    product x thats advertised on tv, is more likely to end up
    on your local supermarket shelf.
    Then one thats never advertised on tv or in general interest high selling magazines .
    Theres dozens of android phones, samsung can charge a premium over brand x phone because they spend millions on
    advertising and they make deals with phone companys .
    IF people see 20 products in a shop they tend to
    buy a brand they know if they can afford it,
    rather than just the cheapest item.
    Yes its true lots of ads may be ignored or have no effect
    on the viewer .
    I thing websites could aim ads at the consumer or reader of
    certain articles ,eg people who use pcmag or theverge may be
    more likely to buy advanced tech services, or products .
    Maybe google has info on millions of users as they have the no1
    email app and browser ,chrome .
    and they will use the data even though it ,s no more effective than ad,s based on the website they displayed on.
    EG kotaku.com a gaming website probably has an audience mostly under 40 ,
    maybe 60 per cent male, 40 per cent female .

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Al, 30 Mar 2019 @ 2:36pm

    google jews and co

    The jews are behind all this, it’s the jews of course Zuckeberg, facebook: jews, google: jews, corrupt bankers: jews, lobbies: jews again and again, soros jew, the media, the fake news outlets, and Hollywood, CNN and all the other fake news outlets: jews of course! They are the one behind the fake financial crisis to grab power, the false flags, the fake news, the fake terrorist attacks, the fake “migrations’, tey are the ones who created isis, the wars, pushing islamic hordes and the scum of the third world onto our lands. To rule they must divide, create chaos and permanent crisis, so they can continue to manipulate us and make us fight each other when we should fight them and their muslim allies. Hitler didn’t want to get rid of them for nothing.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      Al, 30 Mar 2019 @ 2:37pm

      Re: google jews and co

      Top article, someone got to say loud waht we all know about the jew lobby

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2019 @ 10:17pm

        Re: Re: full nappie and needs a nap

        You know how stupid you look replying to yourself. I mean stupider than you already look peddling that anti Semitic horseshit.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2019 @ 6:22pm

      Re: google jews and co

      People with Jewish backgrounds are over-represented in the ruling class and the intelligentsia because they tend to be more educated than others.

      But have a look at BRW rich lists, and the boards of F500 companies, and who the world leaders in academia are.

      If your simple-minded neo-nazi rants were accurate then these lists would almost exclusively be made up of Jews.

      If you have a problem with the Israeli government's behaviour or policies then talk about that specifically.

      If you have a problem with a particular business leader or politician then talk about them specifically.

      At the moment you just come across as a an angry, ignorant, bitter nobody with nothing valuable to contribute. Exactly the kind of pathetic, malleable fools that monsters like Hitler exploit in order to grab power.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 1 Apr 2019 @ 5:11am

        Re: Re: google jews and co

        "If your simple-minded neo-nazi rants were accurate then these lists would almost exclusively be made up of Jews."

        It's somehow telling that reading just ten lines from a neo-nazi about this "jewish conspiracy" gives the impression that if I want to be wealthy, untouchable by law, able to mind control entire governments, time travel to doctor evidence and, for all i know, become faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive and able to leap tall buildings in a single bound...then all I need to do is convert to judaism. All those jewish people walking around like common folk rather than fly under their own power must just be playing the long game, surely.
        /sarcasm tag for anyone actually in need of it. Which basically means Baghdad Bob/Blue/Bobmail/Jhon/sockpuppet #5/etc.

        It must truly suck to be a white supremacist and KNOW, beyond any doubt just how inferior their birth ethnicity and creed makes them, looking at the propaganda they trot out all the time.
        /no sarcasm tag, at all.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: I Invented Email
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.