Message auto-removed

[JHB]

6. The point I raised isn't about McAdams. It's that browser ads depend on broswer history

For instance, after I'd looked things up for this post about the chickenhawk CEO of Heritage Action, I ended up getting ads for Heritage Action nonstop for about 2 weeks, even on nonpolitical sites. They were paying for ads, and my browser was flagged in whatever algorithm used to determine who received those ads during that time.

I searched on "John McAdams acapella" and found what is probably the current version of that page (it has the same photo, at least). The ads were for Babies R Us and diapers.

If Pat Speer searched that site during a time when 1) he had been browsing CIA-related sites, including CIA.gov, when 2) the CIA was paying for recruiting ads, then it's not particularly suspicious that he saw their ads.

Furthermore, unless Speer can clarify the circumstances a bit more, then it looks like he doesn't know that the ads were likely more related to his browsing rather than to McAdams, which can undermine his other points because it leaves the reader thinking "That part was sloppy and wrong. What else is he being sloppy and wrong about?"

I don't know anything about McAdams, so I don't have any opinion on him one way or another. But the answer to "what are the odds I'd goggle YOUR name and find a series of CIA ads above YOUR face" is: "If you've been searching CIA sites and documents online and are googling me when the CIA is buying ads, the odds are pretty good."

It doesn't confirm Speer's point, it detracts from it.