11–20 of 100 posts
Why is there even a separate field for "Display Link", is there a reason this can't be parsed from the actual URL (like HN)?
Because the actual URL is often some metrics or ad-billing service which is supposed to redirect to the target. This is quite common on Google as well as on Facebook.
Considering that Facebook lets you set the display domain separately from the actual link domain, this behavior seems entirely intentional. Convincing people to click on ads (by lying wholesale, in this case) is a crucial element of Facebook's business model. This does seem like they're trading long-term trust for short-term profits - users will click on fewer and fewer sponsored posts as the number of deceitful post…
Considering that Facebook lets you set the display domain separately from the actual link domain, this behavior seems entirely intentional. Convincing people to click on ads (by lying wholesale, in this case) is a crucial element of Facebook's business model. This does seem like they're trading long-term trust for short-term profits - users will click on fewer and fewer sponsored posts as the number of deceitful post…
Often marketing platforms (like Hubspot or whatever) lets you create multiple landing pages which might all be on a subdomain(s) to rather than handing full control of the root domain to the platform. In these cases, you wouldn't want pages.ctvnews.com to appear as the display domain.
Also not to mention the myriad of services and ways that act as a middleman for the click, in the same way that the link display on Twitter appears as ctvnews.com but it's actually a t.co link
Considering that Facebook lets you set the display domain separately from the actual link domain, this behavior seems entirely intentional. Convincing people to click on ads (by lying wholesale, in this case) is a crucial element of Facebook's business model. This does seem like they're trading long-term trust for short-term profits - users will click on fewer and fewer sponsored posts as the number of deceitful post…
Not to defend Facebook for not doing their due diligence, but this article is really underselling the complexity of the problem. The pseudocode given: if (display_domain == landing_page_domain) { approve_ad = true; }else{ approve_ad = false; } is, for one thing, not robust against cloaking (if malicious advertisers see the request coming from a Facebook IP, they might actually redirect to the displayed domain).
Considering that Facebook lets you set the display domain separately from the actual link domain, this behavior seems entirely intentional. Convincing people to click on ads (by lying wholesale, in this case) is a crucial element of Facebook's business model. This does seem like they're trading long-term trust for short-term profits - users will click on fewer and fewer sponsored posts as the number of deceitful post…
I think the case for this is to be robust for the many legitimate ways that online marketers use ads and create landing pages. Often marketing platforms (like Hubspot or whatever) lets you create multiple landing pages which might all be on a subdomain(s) to rather than handing full control of the root domain to the platform. In these cases, you wouldn't want pages.ctvnews.com to appear as the display domain. Also no…
Marketers can buy domains if they won't want to display a sub domain, and Facebook can check the final destination landing page. I mean, they already do! Every time you make a new ad they scrape the final destination for meta tags and content.
Not to defend Facebook for not doing their due diligence, but this article is really underselling the complexity of the problem. The pseudocode given: if (display_domain == landing_page_domain) { approve_ad = true; }else{ approve_ad = false; } is, for one thing, not robust against cloaking (if malicious advertisers see the request coming from a Facebook IP, they might actually redirect to the displayed domain).
It's not rocket surgery.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the actual URL is often some metrics or ad-billing service which is supposed to redirect to the target. This is quite common on Google as well as on Facebook.
While this is a good answer to the people saying "clearly facebook is trying to abet fraud by making these fields independent of each other", there is no technical reason why you couldn't parse the target URL from the actual one -- it's easy to hit the actual URL and parse the redirect you receive. That opens you up to a URL which redirects you somewhere trustworthy when you check it but redirects later ad-clickers s…
The problem with checking them is that if you make the check look just like a normal click-through, the advertiser gets billed for a click by their ad broker.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the actual URL is often some metrics or ad-billing service which is supposed to redirect to the target. This is quite common on Google as well as on Facebook.
Facebook is already getting their own data from clicks, why support competitors' data-gathering services?