LeeHarveysGrave

The credit was given to Amy Bach repeatedly throughout the article, I'm not sure how you missed that.

One of the many funding organizations happens to be funded by Mark Zuckerberg which makes for interest catching headlines but they're certainly not alone in funding the project.

https://www.measuresforjustice.org/about/overview/

>Bach’s work has attracted the attention of the tech industry’s increasingly activist leadership. Earlier this year, Google.org awarded Measures for Justice a $1.5 million grant. Today, Mark Zuckerberg’s Chan Zuckerberg Initiative announced it is giving $6.5 million to the non-profit to help it expand into California.

>Even among its Silicon Valley peers, which have drawn closer scrutiny from investors recently because of their generous stock-based compensation practices, Twitter is notable for how much equity it doles out.

>And those grants of restricted stock units or options, which would have to be covered to some degree by any buyer, simply add to the purchase price of any deal.

>According to Twitter’s most recent annual filing, the company racked up $682 million in stock-based compensation last year. By comparison, the company’s adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization — which also excludes stock-based compensation — for the year was $557.8 million.

>Factoring in the payouts would have pushed Twitter well into the red for the year.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/27/business/dealbook/twitter...

"the author doesn't understand much about the ecosystem as a whole (and considers Allo to be a market leader before launch). lazy reporting, and quite disappointing."

I've noticed over past year that internet security / privacy has become something of a clickbait topic for media outlets with no reputation for writing about it. Usually after reading one paragraph that becomes all too apparent. Sadly that doesn't prevent the headline from becoming mythological truth in internet time.

Exactly.

So let's stop the pretense that acceptable advertising is meaningful.

No kidding, nor do they explain that ad agencies have little to no interest in selling their clients this 'acceptable experience'.

Nor do large brands have any interest in promoting expensively created brands with sub-par adverts.

Truth be told they're after a slice of the remnant and low rent market so they're effectively extorting the small and medium businesses, "mom and pop" outfits, folks that use adwords and similar to build their brands.

Extorting publishers and telling them to pay to advertise on their own content is pretty cheeky.