110

The following "promoted" tweet has shown up repeatedly in my Twitter timeline as an advertisement for the SO podcast. Link

A screenshot

The claim it makes—that a photo is taken of anyone who edits Wikipedia—is implausible in the extreme (as this kind of surveillance would trigger all kinds of OS alerts, plus cause an international scandal; I also can't find any verification of it). As far as I can tell, this is just some kind of bizarre clickbait conspiracy theory misinformation meant to trick people into listening to the SO podcast to find out the details.

I have already reported this tweet to Twitter, but, can we talk about what ethical standards are being applied to SO advertising?

28
  • 17
    I didn't listen to the podcast, but it sounds like one of the intentionally farcical soundbytes that wasn't supposed to be taken that seriously (which isn't uncommon for the featured article titles we see recently). Maybe they should've added a smiley face onto the end or something? See the episode summary: "This week, we learn about Paul's interrogation tactics, ClueBot's ability to spot naughty edits, and Sara's penchant for children who break the rules." It's in the same vein. Sep 12, 2020 at 21:17
  • 49
    That seems super-irresponsible, especially from a super-trusted company in tech. We know that people often blindly share claims on social media and don't read past the headline. Sep 12, 2020 at 21:24
  • 10
    At least Stack Overflow is not a "serious site" anymore. Can we stop "hating fun" now and post silly Questions on main?
    – Scratte
    Sep 12, 2020 at 21:58
  • 8
    This is not a false claim, it is a joke that ties in with the topic of the podcast, and also carries meaning. Sep 12, 2020 at 22:01
  • 27
    Trying to be "funny" or "cool" is the last resort of a team that is ordered to market content that nobody wants.
    – Ian Kemp
    Sep 12, 2020 at 22:04
  • 12
    @RayWu I think you missed the point. How many people will skip the podcast, not understand the joke, and just take it seriously? Do you really think there will be no "It was a JOKE!!! Wikipedia is NOT taking your picture"?
    – Scratte
    Sep 12, 2020 at 22:04
  • 11
    @RayWu Maybe so, but it's just a very strange joke to make. Plus it's not even funny. Aren't jokes meant to be funny?
    – brianrobt
    Sep 12, 2020 at 22:16
  • 29
    You know a podcast is bad and in desperate need of traffic when they resort to this horrible clickbait
    – Zoe Mod
    Sep 12, 2020 at 22:20
  • 13
    @RayWu Ok, but the vast majority of people don't want to listen to the podcast. That's the point. It's the equivalent of Tweeting an inside joke that only you and your friends know to all of your Twitter followers. No one gets it, no one probably cares, and some would just be downright confused. It doesn't drive much new traffic because it's not funny to begin with. It's a strange ploy.
    – brianrobt
    Sep 12, 2020 at 22:24
  • 60
    This Tweet is particularly weird because it violates their own Code of Conduct: "Be inclusive and respectful. Avoid sarcasm and be careful with jokes — tone is hard to decipher online." stackoverflow.com/conduct
    – brianrobt
    Sep 12, 2020 at 22:56
  • 29
    @RayWu I know for a fact it's a blatant lie, so when it's phrased as a truth, I honestly couldn't care less about the content of the podcast. It's clickbait, and honestly far beyond the line for tolerable/acceptable clickbait. Clickbait is always scummy, but some are worse than others. Some misrepresent the other content - this one does fearmongering. I know that, lots of people here know that, but how long does it take until someone actually believes it? These types of things have consequences when they come from million dollar companies with a huge online presence. SE generally forgets that
    – Zoe Mod
    Sep 12, 2020 at 23:06
  • 14
    I'm gonna say it like it is: a few people are gonna take the tweet and use it as a source. No context, but assumes the tweet is true, no more fact checking. That happens a lot even in unrelated things, because hoomans. It's not just clickbait: It's a hit at Wikipedia's credibility.
    – Zoe Mod
    Sep 12, 2020 at 23:13
  • 27
    I've shared this question internally. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.
    – Catija
    Sep 13, 2020 at 0:01
  • 46
    The promotion has been removed and we've deleted the tweet. I'll follow up with Marketing to get a response to this on Monday. Thanks again, y'all.
    – Catija
    Sep 13, 2020 at 0:19
  • 10
    Marketing really been taking the piss recently havent they? The review for gift cards was... interesting. This is just foolish.
    – zero298
    Sep 13, 2020 at 0:55

3 Answers 3

82

That tweet is wholly unacceptable and should be removed. I would encourage someone to also post an apology tweet.

Given the size, reach, and influence of Stack Overflow, I would hope that the company would hold itself to high ethical standards. A tweet like this, taken without sufficient context, can cause harm to the reputation of the Wikimedia Foundation and is a clear misrepresentation of the work that the organization does. It actively harms the general public's understanding of computing-related issues, especially as this spreads through people who "favorite" or retweet this, especially if people who may not know better run with the text.

3
  • 57
    Given the size, reach, and influence of Stack Overflow, I would hope that the company would hold itself to high ethical standards. tom-cruise-laughing-meme-face.jpg You should ask Monica Cellio about the "ethics" of Stack Exchange Inc.
    – Ian Kemp
    Sep 12, 2020 at 22:05
  • Big corporate Ooops .... legal dept in scramble mode?
    – charlietfl
    Sep 12, 2020 at 23:14
  • 4
    A more complete answer could include the actual context of it for those that haven't or don't want to listen to the podcast (emphasising that providing the context is not an excuse). The context was an example/illustration of how parents lie to their children to make them do or don't do certain things (e.g. using fear to prevent them hurting themselves or others (physically or mentally)). Sep 13, 2020 at 15:27
43

I'd expect SE to be better than to use clickbaity titles like that.

You'll never guess what happens next!

3
  • 13
    You really would? Sep 12, 2020 at 21:58
  • 15
    Get more users with this One Weird Trick.... Sep 12, 2020 at 22:52
  • 17
    SE staff discovered a new formula to increase user base! Curators hate it!
    – E_net4
    Sep 13, 2020 at 9:10
32

Thanks for bringing this issue to our attention. I'm the director of content marketing at Stack Overflow and manage our blog, podcast, and newsletter. The tweet is a line from the podcast that is later revealed to be a total bluff, not a statement of fact, and was meant as a joke. But we failed to provide the adequate context for people to understand that attempt at humor in our tweet.

We promote one tweet a week in support of the podcast, and this one was in poor taste. Upon being notified of the concerns voiced in our community, we worked quickly to delete the tweet and cancel the paid promotion. We'll strive to be more careful about how we phrase things in the future, as humor doesn't always translate well online or on social media.

If you see stuff in the future that you worry may be offensive or misunderstood, you can raise the issue here on Meta, or reach out to a CM who can contact me on Slack.

7
  • 2
    I do appreciate the mea culpa, but Twitter isn't something that I, or anyone else, should take seriously anyway. Don't believe me? Check out The Real Donald Trump's last dozen or so tweets and get back to me. Go ahead; I'll wait. Sep 14, 2020 at 20:21
  • 4
    It's just not funny enough, even with context. Sep 14, 2020 at 20:28
  • 3
    @Trilarion: This is how marketing works nowadays. You put something out there that triggers an emotional reaction, something that gets clicks. Nobody gives much thought to the ethics behind it, because this is what everyone else does. Sep 14, 2020 at 20:34
  • 6
    @RobertHarvey whether you take it seriously is up to you, but it probably should be, considering it is official White House policy that tweets from that account are 'official declarations from the Office of the President'. It's not just the ramblings of a senile old man, unfortunately (otherwise Jack would be even more hard-pressed for allowing the tweets to stay up).
    – TylerH
    Sep 14, 2020 at 20:35
  • @TylerH: Yes, that's precisely why it's so ridiculous. Sep 14, 2020 at 20:36
  • 2
    @Trilarion: To be clear, the purpose of the tweet was not to be funny; it was to get attention. Which, if this meta post is any indication, it has roundly succeeded in doing. Sep 14, 2020 at 20:38
  • @RobertHarvey I just commented on the fun content of the tweet. The answer here kind of implies that if only there would have been sufficient context available, the joke would have been received well. I doubt it. Sep 15, 2020 at 8:17

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/401137/why-is-so-running-a-promoted-tweet-with-scaremongering-wikipedia-misinformation/401140
meta.stackoverflow.com
CC-MAIN-2024-22
170116
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:T2DWQJ44IUXDWIJGWTVHK6GNA6RBXEB5
<urn:uuid:54f0b902-cb88-46bc-9c29-bb0c7dbc1251>
2024-05-29T02:46:22Z
172.64.155.249
text/html
sha1:YH3MLX4UW2AJ5NLTIIXS2VGRTYZLCQPE
<urn:uuid:b0be132c-3b39-403a-abb4-7747275a3cba>
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/401137/why-is-so-running-a-promoted-tweet-with-scaremongering-wikipedia-misinformation/401140
response
<urn:uuid:36f5362d-b048-428a-b4d6-94d245c5e2bd>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2024-22
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for May 2024
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-96
software: Apache Nutch 1.19 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.5-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/