As Josh Chasin opined in a comment on this revival of the X suit against the WFA and its now shuttered GARM initiative, brand responsible social media planning & buying requires ardent brand safety considerations which the major social media site contemt gutters do not deliver. Meta, X, etc. do not need a boycott just the application of fundamental solid media planning & buying principles based on persons-based attention metrics and common sense! 

He didn't tell "the ad industry"
to F off. He said any advertiser who is going to tell him what kind of content is/isn't appropriate and using their ad dollars as investment can F off. 

Advertisers threatening to remove or reduce their ad spend based on editorial coverage or content is nothing new. A publisher not kowtowing to the threat and telling the advertiser he doesn't care is. 

Josh - amen!  Beyond real person-based media audiences and typically unsound CPMs (Completely Positively Mad), overall media and program content and environment have always been a critical part of planning and buying effective media along with concerns for other brand messages displayed and their "suitability" on any media/channel under consideration.  As noted, the GARM Guidelines were voluntary.  However, placing one's brand message on the various gutters of social media is an unecessary risk when so many quality safe media vehicles are available that protect a brand's stature and long term equity.  

When did brand safety become a crime?

Agreed Tony.

In Australia we've had a few 'researches' reported that in a month that more than 100 million Aussies watched a particular programme.   Quite a miracle with Australia when it just crossed 28 million people!

Great commentary Gord.

I agree that effectiveness over efficiency is a likely road to staleness rather than expansion.

But I have spotted that when you tried various podcasts but still felt things missing ... it's serendipity found your hat! 

Wayne: We need to always remember "served" is not necessarily "viewed" and even real persons-based "viewed" metrics are not necessarily reflective of "attention".  Without attention there can be no outcomes for programmers or advertisers.  So the final attention proportions across the programming and channels mentioned will, most likely, be significantly different.  

What's next ... maybe AI going to the toilet for you ?!?!?!

What is the step-by-step process that can put an end to the Super PACs?  Who is the "we" in "we declare the Super PACs are over."

Money will always be in politics and I don't believe politicans on either side when they say that which Abdual El-Sawayed ads is saying he'll get money out of politics not happening. In Michigan Larry Lessig idea maybe on the ballott to get money out of politics I'll vote to end it, it will be the courts that decide it as will be a lawsuit in my opinion.

"It is hard to defend soliciting donations from the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. But Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard Law professor, has been trying."

That's your friend?

Wayne, haven't the TV/Movie guys--the ones who make TV series,  movies, etc--always been willing to license their fare--originals or rerus--to Netflix or anyone else who will pay them? Isn't standard "TV" content the backbone of the libraries of virtually all streaing services? 

Good job Jordan keep going when the tornado was at the station glad no major damage to WDNH and no injuries as well. I'm always weather ware when it is a level 3 and I was glad this past Monday was a dud in Michigan was in a level 3 was under a thunderstorm watch. I think the dying thunderstorms in the morning helped along with it being cloudy as well only saw flitter sun only for a few minutes which the clouds won out.

It was just rain & garden variety thunderstorms on Monday only warnings were Michigan/IN stateline. I felt sorry for WI, IL, IN that delt with the storms on Monday in around Appleton, WI seeing the video of the car and the powerlines coming down and the sky looking green and very dark as well.

Josh and Ed, thank you for your honesty of the comments you have discussed.   Wisdom has strength.

Five  months ago I took a gander at my Linkedin profile with an eye to updating it. We had a new service--"TV AD Cume"---and I was about to publish my new book, "TV Yesterday, Today And Tomorrow". However for some reason that I have no explanation for, AI had revised my old profile and turned it into a pile of BS crap. So I quickly redid it. AI has some valid  uses, but , so far, it stinks when it comes to creating  what amounts to a  personal resume. 

I notice that, unlike pretty much every other tool I sit down t, LinkedIn no longer asks if I want AI to "fix" my post.

First of all when you said "the man" I thought you meant Mamdani. Now I understand you meant "the man" in the collloquial sense.

Second, I still think this is more or less objective - citing the absurd right-wing led outrage is worthwhile, especially when contrasted with the data that the writer includes, i.e. "At Hunts Point in the Bronx, where the first store is scheduled to open by the end of 2027, 77% of households struggle to pay for basics. A recent poll finds that 80% of New Yorkers have some concern about food prices." 

What definitely gave me pause is this one: "Because profit margins are already so thin for grocery retailers, several experts tell the outlet, such a steep discount will generate losses, ultimately paid for by taxpayers." Uh... how will coompetition among grocery stores, especially in food-deserts where these new stores are being opened, affect the taxpayers whatsoever? Will we pay MORE taxes if an Aldi goes out of business? This made zero sense to me.

Compared to what I'm paying fpor Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, Paramount+, Peacock, and HBO Max, that seems like a bargain.

(Note: I'm excluding Prime, because I buy that for the free shipping.)

Huh? You're being either disingenuous or blind. 3 of the 4 judgements in the lede are negative- "Disastrous communism? Failed socialism? Welcome relief for hungry families? Just another political stunt?"

And all of first 3 pubs cited- NYT, Newsmax and Fox - are the usual slanted screeds from 3 pubs who have invested all their editorial heft to takedown Mamdani. The only mildly neutral take - AP's - is buried in the close.  

Can't help but notice that the combintion of Roku Channel and Tubi would rank third behine only YouTube and NFLX.

Wayne: I wonder if brother Rahm would agree...

How is this "shilling?" Seems pretty objective to me in terms of the variety of sources cited and opinions represented.

shill for the man much?...