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

Snap Detailed Facebook’s Aggressive Tactics in ‘Project Voldemort’ Dossier

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 177 posts

Re: Snap Detailed Facebook’s Aggressive Tactics in ‘Project Voldemort’ Dossier

#91

Post by moron4hire »

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #24
moron4hire wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if you are aware of the specific details of what Ashley Madison did, but basically they were using bots to convince men that there were actual women interested in meeting (if only the use paid the membership fee to enable messaging), when by-and-large there were none. It was a scam. I mean, most dating websites use a series of tricks of messaging and "matches" to trick people into thinking there are more…

Do you have that study - sounds an interesting read.

Old blog, now gone, sorry :(

Re: Snap Detailed Facebook’s Aggressive Tactics in ‘Project Voldemort’ Dossier

#92

Post by jimkleiber »

MiroF wrote: post #17

Why is this thread full of commentators attacking Snap for completely unrelated things? Strikes me as odd. FB told IG influencers they might lose their verified status if they link to a SC profile? Seems like that was a mistake on their part, could they really not anticipate future antitrust action?

Wow, they said they might revoke one's verified status if they linked to SC? I wish "verified" just meant "this account with identity X has been verified to be managed by person with identity X," instead of, "this account with identity X has been verified (or deemed, by us) to be a popular (or even, preferred) person."

I mean, I understand that verification of one's identity may not be that simple to do technologically, and yet, it seems more and more like they're not even trying to help bring more humanity to their platforms.

Re: Snap Detailed Facebook’s Aggressive Tactics in ‘Project Voldemort’ Dossier

#93

Post by omega3 »

moron4hire wrote: post #21
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes, Ashley Madison, the "dating" site. Not sure why you seem to be implying that the article is using a euphemism, as literally the next phrase in that sentence is "which caters to married people seeking affairs".

I don't know if you are aware of the specific details of what Ashley Madison did, but basically they were using bots to convince men that there were actual women interested in meeting (if only the use paid the membership fee to enable messaging), when by-and-large there were none. It was a scam. I mean, most dating websites use a series of tricks of messaging and "matches" to trick people into thinking there are more…

> I did a study of eHarmony years ago and came to the conclusion that only 10% of all "matches" were people who had the capability of returning a message.

Do you mind expanding as to how you were able to establish this?

Re: Snap Detailed Facebook’s Aggressive Tactics in ‘Project Voldemort’ Dossier

#94

Post by soup10 »

joe_the_user wrote: post #82
smacktoward wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may be competition, but it certainly isn't fair competition. As you note, Facebook has much deeper pockets than even a well-funded startup. They can afford to build a clone of your product and give it away for free, without any expectation of even future revenue, specifically to drive you out of business. And they can bundle their clone with their already-popular apps, so people never even feel the need to check o…

Efficient markets have never been about absolute fairness. There's no industry that has been built without the attempted participation of deep pocketed enterprises from earlier, related industries - adding machine companies (like IBM) naturally wanted to jump into computers. The system we live under is capitalism. It's aims are to provide profits to those who invest their existing wealth in innovations. If those with…

I don't get why people play devil's advocate in defense of scummy behavior by tech companies. Every shitty thing they do should be called out, exposed and condemned. If they know they don't have public support or defenders they will be better behaved.

Re: Snap Detailed Facebook’s Aggressive Tactics in ‘Project Voldemort’ Dossier

#95

Post by DenisM »

Porthos9K wrote: post #88
MiroF wrote: post #17

Why is this thread full of commentators attacking Snap for completely unrelated things? Strikes me as odd. FB told IG influencers they might lose their verified status if they link to a SC profile? Seems like that was a mistake on their part, could they really not anticipate future antitrust action?

Assuming FB gave any thought to antitrust action -- which is unlikely the prevailing doctrine that businesses can do as they like as long as they don't charge customers too much -- I think they ran some risk analysis and reached the conclusion that in a worst-case scenario they might take a hit to revenue and have to throw a VP or two under the bus, but would otherwise be able to continue with business as usual. The…

> The DOJ antitrust people and the FTC got a lot of their teeth knocked out when they went after Microsoft in the 1990s.

How do you mean? Microsoft got throughly declawed in the 90s, and never regained their top predator status.

Re: Snap Detailed Facebook’s Aggressive Tactics in ‘Project Voldemort’ Dossier

#96

Post by MiroF »

omega3 wrote: post #93
moron4hire wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if you are aware of the specific details of what Ashley Madison did, but basically they were using bots to convince men that there were actual women interested in meeting (if only the use paid the membership fee to enable messaging), when by-and-large there were none. It was a scam. I mean, most dating websites use a series of tricks of messaging and "matches" to trick people into thinking there are more…

> I did a study of eHarmony years ago and came to the conclusion that only 10% of all "matches" were people who had the capability of returning a message. Do you mind expanding as to how you were able to establish this?

Not the OP, but on Bumble, I matched with someone who I knew - she showed me her app and no such match had appeared on her app. I think this sort of behavior is not uncommon.

Re: Snap Detailed Facebook’s Aggressive Tactics in ‘Project Voldemort’ Dossier

#97

Post by PunchTornado »

habosa wrote: post #66
fasicle wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SNAP have had a great last 12 months, market cap up to 23.65B

7B and 24B are both effectively infinite money. If I could have the former just for signing my name or the latter but I need to go through an IPO and get slammed in the press every day, I go with the former.

why? he already has more money than he can spend. what should he do with his life? spend it on the beach or lead a company? beach is boring. I'd chose the company and have it my way. if it fails, it fails, who cares, I'm already rich.

Re: Snap Detailed Facebook’s Aggressive Tactics in ‘Project Voldemort’ Dossier

#98

Post by Porthos9K »

DenisM wrote: post #95
Porthos9K wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming FB gave any thought to antitrust action -- which is unlikely the prevailing doctrine that businesses can do as they like as long as they don't charge customers too much -- I think they ran some risk analysis and reached the conclusion that in a worst-case scenario they might take a hit to revenue and have to throw a VP or two under the bus, but would otherwise be able to continue with business as usual. The…

> The DOJ antitrust people and the FTC got a lot of their teeth knocked out when they went after Microsoft in the 1990s. How do you mean? Microsoft got throughly declawed in the 90s, and never regained their top predator status.

I think Microsoft got off relatively easily compared to AT&T and Standard Oil, but I was in the camp hoping they'd be forcibly partitioned so that the applications business was separate from the OS business, both of which were separate from Microsoft's hardware operations (which consisted mainly of peripherals, because they hadn't gotten into the game console business yet).

Re: Snap Detailed Facebook’s Aggressive Tactics in ‘Project Voldemort’ Dossier

#99

Post by mtnGoat »

habosa wrote: post #66
fasicle wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SNAP have had a great last 12 months, market cap up to 23.65B

7B and 24B are both effectively infinite money. If I could have the former just for signing my name or the latter but I need to go through an IPO and get slammed in the press every day, I go with the former.

never thought of it this way. if it was laid out as a red/blue pill like that, i'm not sure what id take. i think once you are a billionaire the average person probably just assumes your not nice anyways, might as well triple up the cash.

Re: Snap Detailed Facebook’s Aggressive Tactics in ‘Project Voldemort’ Dossier

#100

Post by MiddleEndian »

MiroF wrote: post #96
omega3 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I did a study of eHarmony years ago and came to the conclusion that only 10% of all "matches" were people who had the capability of returning a message. Do you mind expanding as to how you were able to establish this?

Not the OP, but on Bumble, I matched with someone who I knew - she showed me her app and no such match had appeared on her app. I think this sort of behavior is not uncommon.

Any more info on this or maybe some screen shots? I'm not on the market but given the complaints about the current state of dating apps I think lots of people would be curious to see this.
Post reply on HN