How the NDP blatantly and shamelessly attempt to defend skirting election laws
Agree with them or not, Elections Ontario provides some strict rules for social media use in Ontario during elections. Blackout periods imposed for traditional advertising have been extended to digital media, often leaving room for interpretation of what is and what is not allowed the day before and day of an election.
However, one thing is crystal clear: paid advertising intended to sway a voter is strictly prohibited during the blackout.
But the NDP don’t seem to care about this.
Hiding behind the veil of offering “services to voters”, they are blatantly and shamelessly attempting to skirt the law and advertise their candidate when they are not legally allowed to.
Doesn’t that look a LOT like an ad for Wayne Gates?
Candidate’s name? Check. Party colours and fonts? Massive picture of Wayne Gates on it? Check.
Looks like an ad to me.
So here’s the defence…
@michaeledwards services such as a ride to the poll. You’re welcome to not vote for Wayne once there.— Dave Scrivener (@davescrivener)February 12, 2014
Yep. That little blue box is what makes the NDP think what they are doing here is a-okay.
'They are advertising “services” on election day, NOT Wayne Gates.'
The trouble is they aren’t actually listing any services. They are only asking questions.
“Want a million dollars?”….
Asking a question really doesn’t mean much of anything.
Skirting the law ethically questionable. Doing it wrong is legally questionable.
This type of tactic is just plain wrong and I hope Elections Ontario investigates accordingly.
The extreme error of interpreting stats in isolation (or reading them like tea leaves)
Today mobile analytics heavyweight, Flurry, posted a report based on data is collected from over 1 billion smartphones and tablets it detected in February 2013.
The report analyzed usage amongst the top 200 unique device types detected, and broke usage down by screen size. Specifically, Flurry broke devices into five categories:
1. Small phones (e.g., most Blackberries), 3.5” or under screens
2. Medium phones (e.g., iPhone), between 3.5” - 4.9” screens
3. Phablets (e.g., Galaxy Note), 5.0” - 6.9” screens
4. Small Tablets (e.g., Kindle Fire), 7.0” - 8.4” screens
5. Full-size tablets (e.g., the iPad), 8.5” or greater screens
Flurry demonstrated that “phablet” usage in the dataset was not enough to show serious market penetration, and declared this form factor a fad.
Their interpretation is flawed for a few reasons and should serve as a reminder for the need to consider data within a broader set, and never in isolation.
First, the report makes no mention of preceding monthly usage to establish expansion or contraction of device usage, or growth over time.
Second, the dimension cut-offs for each category are arbitrary. Samsnug’s upcoming Galaxy s4’s screen will measure 4.99” really blurring the line between the 4.9” and 5.0” distinctions that separate the most popular and least popular categories.
Third, it’s likely that only a single “phablet” device made it into the top 200 sample — the Samsung Galaxy Note (and Note II). Given this, uptake of this device is nearly a third of the total “full-size” tablet market. One established years earlier and includes the iPad.
Fourth, the numbers shared aren’t granular enough to discern, but based on percentages, “phablet users” account for 130% of the active user base and sessions vs. their devices in market. This suggests that phablet users use their device more than the average user and exhibit behaviour on par with tablet usage (an known emerging market).
Fifth, “phablet” devices are 100% Android (based on Flurry’s usage data). Considering the Galaxy Note has sold in the millions, it is no implausible that other Android makers, as well as other operating systems, will test the waters with 5.0-6.9” devices. This means that of all the categories mentioned, the phablet is the only range yet to proliferate.
I’m sure there is more, but these five points are concrete examples of Flurry using data as tea leaves instead of fact.
Sure it’s possible that they have a ton of additional data to back up their claims, but the data shared, device pipelines and rumour mill suggest otherwise.