151–160 of 254 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exploration vs exploitation. If the ad has a high CPC and there isn't enough targeted inventory, it's worth showing it to random folks to see if a new target market can be identified.
> there isn't enough targeted inventory Did I just get called 'inventory'? God, that's the next step after "human resources"...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Governance is lacking in those countries. And if you look at levels of corruption it it significantly higher. So it's completely legitimate to be wary of businesses run from those countries.
That's a fair enough response. Still if someone on here said you should be wary of businesses run from China or India (which have the same issues), I don't think the response here would be so cordial.
these news sent the bitcoin charts below the magical $10000, a second time after the "crash that wasn't", two weeks ago will we finally see a real dramatic crash, or will it just fade away? as much as I feel sorry for those that were duped, some part of me is urging for the drama.
This is weird to me. Does Facebook currently ban advertisements for commodities like gold? If no, then what's the difference between advertising for bitcoin and advertising for gold?
My best guess is, based on their guidelines (https://www.facebook.com/policies/ads/), sure, Facebook would be okay with any gold advertisements from accredited commodities investment institutions.
On the other hand, advertisements from certain random shady gold coin dealers? Honestly, Facebook should be weary of advertisements in this space too, if they aren't already.
If there was a way for cryptocurrency to come from an "accredited institution" with "sufficient disclosure" of various metrics and safeguards typically used in retail investing, I would think Facebook would be okay with it. It's more that a lot of cryptocurrency (really unfortunately considering how fascinating the tech is) feels shady and/or scam like at the moment.
I haven't seen these ads, but this is probably the right move. The irony is that Facebook has built its perceived value to advertisers, investors, businesses, and audience alike on its ability to use deep learning to process all these posts and images and ads and understand what they mean. But here they are explicitly admitting they are unable to do that. It's a healthy thing to do. But it's interesting that it's fin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> rewards it's users for sharing content and attention You mean spamming content?
It's possible to tell the difference between genuine, authentic sharing, and automation. Rewarding the right behavior will make spam go away.
What do you think it takes to tell this difference with a high degree of reliability (>4 nines) at scale (>1000/s)? How about in an environment where people are strongly incentivized to find and exploit the weaknesses of your approach? Is it just maybe possible that this might not quite be handwave-it-away trivial? Facebook has had a shocking level of success in cutting down spam with their investments in punishing bad behavior and rewarding good behaviour.
Thank you for your thoughts. You're completely correct! It's possible to tell the difference, and rewarding good behavior will drive out bad actors.
I am sure real, legitimate ICOs must exist, but I have yet to find one. Can anyone point to one that they strongly believe is legitimate?