Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I'm an ex-Facebook exec: don't believe what they tell you about ads

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 140 posts

Re: I'm an ex-Facebook exec: don't believe what they tell you about ads

#81

Post by pvg »

ajmurmann wrote: post #71
pvg wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a difference between an interest in yoga pants and an 'interest' in predatory loans or military service for lack of other options.

Yeah I get that it is unfortunate to say the least that people need/want these loans. However, what is the right thing to do about the loans? If they are predatory, maybe they should be illegal. But who am I to tell people what they can and cannot do with their money? That would be rather patronizing. If we assume that people getting these loans are grown adults why shouldn't we allow people offering them to advertis…

If you're an advertising platform, you can choose what sort of products are advertised on it. All of them do. You can, quite reasonably, decline to advertise things that are unethical. For instance, predatory loans. You are choosing not to profit off the misery of others. This is not nearly as complicated as you make it out to be.

Re: I'm an ex-Facebook exec: don't believe what they tell you about ads

#82

Post by ferongr »

lucasmullens wrote: post #72
ferongr wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does an ad cause poverty?

If it encourages someone to do something that will cause them to go into poverty, such as taking a payday loan they can't afford.

I don't think it's actually responsible for the problem then. The choice rests entirely with that person.

Re: I'm an ex-Facebook exec: don't believe what they tell you about ads

#83

Post by mpeg »

ithinkinstereo wrote: post #78
[deleted] wrote: post #75

[deleted]

> If working at Facebook in 2011 gives you the self-perceived authority to talk about the company in 2017, I must be a world expert on the topic. Not to nitpick, but the author worked at FB from 2011-2013. He was there when FB's ad platform really started to find legs.

In those years FB ads was a toddler compared to the platform of today, I worked with FB ads at the time and until 2013-2014 too (author went to Nanigans after FB)

For starters, today's platform is completely mobile focused. FBX (product the author worked on) was entirely desktop inventory.

Re: I'm an ex-Facebook exec: don't believe what they tell you about ads

#84

Post by flycaliguy »

milesf wrote: post #17

"We are not Facebook's customer. We are their product." I have stated that fact so many times to so many people, and yet most people don't care. They continue to use Facebook. It's almost as if people are addicted to Facebook.

It gets more complicated when you consider the concept of "social currency" and the utility of one's profile in matters such as... gettin' laid for example.

I view Facebook on one level from your perspective. They sell to an advertiser eyeballs of potential customers. It's user performs the immaterial labour required to create content which drives eyeballs to the site and sort the customers into demographic groups.

But there really is a much more complicated Web of transactions taking place on Facebook. Exchanges which can convert the labour performed on a user's part into a social profit.

Re: I'm an ex-Facebook exec: don't believe what they tell you about ads

#85

Post by obmelvin »

devoply wrote: post #41
jolux wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not questioning, that's rejecting wholesale without a proper argument as to why. And frankly I don't at all see the ethical analogy between luxury athleisure and payday loans, and it seems to me you'd have to be pretty damn fucking self-deluded to think they're remotely comparable.

it's a good that a demographic buys. that's the way that ethically bereft corporations see it. i would even guess that this is how zuck sees it. people who buy jay-z buy obama. people with lower income buy payday loans. there is nothing ethical about any of this unless you want to add the ethical dimension. corporations are expected not to. and yet the data is allowing them more and more to target these "opportunitie…

yes, most things are goods that people can buy at their own discretion. However, payday loans are predatory and should not be considered in the same category as unhealthy food, expensive clothing, etc.

Re: I'm an ex-Facebook exec: don't believe what they tell you about ads

#86

Post by devoply »

obmelvin wrote: post #85
devoply wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's a good that a demographic buys. that's the way that ethically bereft corporations see it. i would even guess that this is how zuck sees it. people who buy jay-z buy obama. people with lower income buy payday loans. there is nothing ethical about any of this unless you want to add the ethical dimension. corporations are expected not to. and yet the data is allowing them more and more to target these "opportunitie…

yes, most things are goods that people can buy at their own discretion. However, payday loans are predatory and should not be considered in the same category as unhealthy food, expensive clothing, etc.

i could argue that addictive foods are similarly predatory. they have long lasting impact on the health of a person the same way that payday loans have on their economic health. predatory is arbitrary, the question is what is the impact of the harm. and can people be expected to control themselves or at least regulate themselves when presented with the option, so as to act in their best interest. for many things in the economy i don't believe this to be the case.

yet business gets done and the system at least appears to continue to function. people learn from their mistakes and move on if the damage isn't too great. or they get caught up and stuck and that's a problem that needs regulation.

Re: I'm an ex-Facebook exec: don't believe what they tell you about ads

#87

Post by hackuser »

empath75 wrote: post #38
hackuser wrote: post #22

I don't agree with his claims that the following are among "a long list of Truths That Cannot Be Stated Publicly". I don't think anyone would care; I care very much about racism and can't imagine anyone I know objecting to these. * "people who liked Jay Z were more likely to like Obama" * "Hispanics between the ages of 18 and 25 probably do engage with ads singing the charms and advantages of military service." (I'm…

Yeah, basically if you have any kind of oppressed category of people, you can take advantage of them by exploiting their vulnerabilities (lack of education, lack of access to credit, etc). If you aren't careful with how you use your algorithms, you can come up with all kinds of systems that reinforce systemic racism.

A good point that I overlooked; thanks.

Re: I'm an ex-Facebook exec: don't believe what they tell you about ads

#88

Post by nunez »

Clubber wrote: post #63
jolux wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not questioning, that's rejecting wholesale without a proper argument as to why. And frankly I don't at all see the ethical analogy between luxury athleisure and payday loans, and it seems to me you'd have to be pretty damn fucking self-deluded to think they're remotely comparable.

>I don't at all see the ethical analogy between luxury athleisure and payday loans The "athleisure" market has bilked people out of $35 billion dollars a year using offshore sweatshops to turn $1 into $20 a pop, mainly by amplifying people's insecurities day after day after day through mass advertising.

man, this hits home. i just recently got a pullover made by "Nike Golf" at work. It's a nice pullover. It's listed at somewhere between $37.50 and $150 on Amazon.

The box it came in? The same box that I used to see stuff delivered to the 99 cent store across the street at my old apartment.

It's amazing what athlete endorsements can do for brand value:

Re: I'm an ex-Facebook exec: don't believe what they tell you about ads

#89

Post by derefr »

mattnewton wrote: post #66
H4CK3RM4N wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As soon as Facebook takes a political stance, the other half of the population will leave.

It is sad that voter participation is a partisan issue in the United States.

The idea was telling only those voters in certain counties (who predictably would vote a certain way) to vote; i.e., a less-blatant version of telling exactly the subset of people who are registered to vote for a given party, to go out and vote. That is a partisan action.

Re: I'm an ex-Facebook exec: don't believe what they tell you about ads

#90

Post by antongm »

Mendenhall wrote: post #9

Ahh the old "so what" argument. So what if I can target recovering alchoholics with alchohol ads? So what if I target gambling addicts with my gambling platform? So what?

Those ads are actually prohibited, or at least were when I was there. :)
Post reply on HN