141–150 of 462 posts
“We’re doing it more for the principle of the thing. We want to help lead the discussion on this.” I must not have been invited to that conversation where this discussion took place. Also, I don't trust Facebook advertising because a few of their ads injected pictures of my friends' faces/pictures into them to make them more appealing (erm. deceptive) to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Presumably because it rather directly puts the question of just how much the use of Facebook is worth into user's minds. Compared to alternative monetization schemes it's limited and sticky.
How much does Facebook receive for the ads they display on my page? If they are making $10 dollars a year, then charge me $10. Up to me. I can get it for free with ads, or pay without.
I do not think that ad blockers can win this cat and mouse game. Ads don't annoy a large-enough percentage of humans. And the ad industry is the lifeblood of several other business communities, each of which is many times the size of the ad blocking industry. I had lunch with one well respected publishing CEO last week, who told me that his single largest advertiser was Smuckers. The peanut butter maker. Smuckers is…
You know, I don't mind Google search ads or even static display ads (ie BuySellAds). And even FB's somewhat annoying and usually poorly targeted display ads don't bother me too much, since they don't slow me down and (very) occasionally actually show me something of interest. I draw the line with potential attack vectors/XSS injections, interstitials, youtube video ads, ads that keep me or slow me down from accessing…
There are some ideas here, along the content-type-blocking route: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12131329
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you have spam filter disabled and read all those great ads in your inbox?
If you took a look at the inbox of an ordinary consumer, you'd see lots of desired ads – in my case, a weekly email from a high end audio shop I like. You may assiduously unsubscribe from all unsolicited email, but most do not. For most people, what is in Gmail's spam folder is genuine junk – emails from Nigerian princes, emails in cyrillic, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That some advertisers think they should pay by impression and not by click is their own stupidity. It's not. Ads can be entirely successful without a click - sometimes it'll just be a reminder of the brand's name the next time you are shopping for their product. "Users running adblockers likely wouldn't click the ads anyway" is a pretty naive view of how the ad industry operates.
> sometimes it'll just be a reminder of the brand's name the next time you are shopping for their product. All it does is make me avoid the product out of spite.
They are welcome to try. And I am welcome to try harder to block them. As long as they don't try to force some sort of legislation on how people can use their internet connection, and their internet browser to fetch and display content, there's no problem. The real problem is Facebook is already full of advertising disguised as content. From sponsored posts to content from things you "like". So I'm kind of surprised…
Technically, Facebook could insert news feed ads like a post from one of your friend (assume that the friend has liked some page or organization). It could be tough to distinguish between ads and posts much like native advertising.