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

Zuckerberg: advertisers will be back to Facebook 'soon enough'

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 250 posts

Re: Zuckerberg: advertisers will be back to Facebook 'soon enough'

#151

Post by shripadk »

untog wrote: post #72
shripadk wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because broadcast media is a publisher. Does Facebook want to call itself a publisher? If it does then I am sure FCC will regulate Facebook too. Right now all social media platforms are shielded by Section 230. They are platforms and not liable to what is posted on their platforms. But, some social media companies like Twitter have taken on the mantle of a publisher by mucking around with the US President's tweets. T…

> Does Facebook want to call itself a publisher? I'm quite sure it doesn't want to call itself one. But once it made an algorithmic feed it decided to have a hand in what users do and do not see. It's not unreasonable to ask for some accountability in what that algorithm does, and such accountability is definitely not a violation of the first amendment. > Will it continue to edit/censor Presidents and Prime Ministers…

> Point of clarification here: Twitter censored and edited absolutely nothing. They attached a warning to Trump's tweet. It is still available for all to read in its entirety.

No Twitter actually removed a video[1] that Trump posted.

[1]: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/twitter-labels...

Re: Zuckerberg: advertisers will be back to Facebook 'soon enough'

#152

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

vin047 wrote: post #109
product50 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are absolutely wrong on both counts. THe only real change will come from users. If Facebook users start boycotting (and to be clear no users are doing this), that is what will hurt them. So while you and I continue to be outraged, a lot of users don't care enough and just goto Facebook to see what their friends are doing and clicking on that ad. And the wheel keeps on turning around. Employee activism won't matte…

Agree with you on the first part, but not sure on the second – if skilled employees leave (especially for other competing social media apps) Facebook will start to lag. Even with its core loyal employees Facebook can’t compete if they don’t retain skilled workers.

Facebook has enough momentum that not having the best and brightest probably wouldn't slow them down. And, let's face it, for what Facebook pays, there are still plenty of skilled people who don't favor one side or the other who would happily take their money.

Re: Zuckerberg: advertisers will be back to Facebook 'soon enough'

#153

Post by esoterica »

Barrin92 wrote: post #7

Of course he's right. If anything I'm surprised advertisers aren't cutting back more given how much revenue they're probably losing during the pandemic. Real change has to come from two sources. Firstly regulation, Facebook will never "self-regulate" and this corporate activism is a joke. And secondly, from employees who in sufficient numbers have at least some leverage.

If you have leverage with your employer you should use it to demand more money. Don't let other people bully you into wasting your negotiating capital on their pet causes.

Re: Zuckerberg: advertisers will be back to Facebook 'soon enough'

#154

Post by linuxftw »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #83
jehlakj wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s even a meme: Facebook is for boomers. Idk how much of that is true, but apps like Instagram and tiktok are definitely talked about more these days

Boomers have the money, though. And advertisers like people with money.

Smart advertisers, anyway.

The older folks make facebook sticky for the younger people too. It might not be their first choice for social media, but they're on there cause extended family are on there.

Some people quit facebook, most people don't. There's lots of groups, and now you have market place. It's genuinely useful.

Re: Zuckerberg: advertisers will be back to Facebook 'soon enough'

#155

Post by ThrustVectoring »

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...

This advocacy for a group boycott raises anti-trust concerns, IMO. While it is not aimed at getting price concessions, it is aimed at getting other concessions in terms of the public perception of the context of the advertisements bought. This is a material contractual term, and organizing a group boycott to coerce concessions from Facebook to their business partners seems problematic on anti-trust grounds.

Re: Zuckerberg: advertisers will be back to Facebook 'soon enough'

#156

Post by iateanapple »

shuntress wrote: post #105
higglydiggly wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is pretty explicitly the type of speech that doesn't need protection by 1A. The absolutism of it is really an ideal that practically achieved would lead to some ugliness. But I'm wondering how this extends to banning conservatives, conspiracy theory pages, or even jokes? When is it going too far over the line, which is drawn at different points for different people/groups? Because my fear is the government doesn…

Lets start by condemning and removing organized genocide. There is (hopefully) enough space between "actively organizing genocide" and "conservatives, conspiracy theory pages, or even jokes" to allow room for a reasonable line. >how do we convince people still thinking those jokes are appropriate to cease using them By restricting their ability to make those jokes in a way that is clearly tied to the act of making th…

> There is (hopefully) enough space between "actively organizing genocide" and "conservatives, conspiracy theory pages, or even jokes" to allow room for a reasonable line.

There is no trust to allow anything resembling a reasonable line.

Re: Zuckerberg: advertisers will be back to Facebook 'soon enough'

#157

Post by efdb »

Aperocky wrote: post #24
shoguning wrote: post #5

My interpretation of what's going on: CEOs finally have leverage against their marketing departments to do black-out testing on social media ad spend. It's difficult to actually measure impact of ad spending, and marketing teams spin results to their advantage. They will observe what happens and re-introduce spending where it actually works.

When a recession happen the first to go is marketing. As a test, you would need to control other variables, the present economic uncertainty basically rendered that impossible. It's just the CEOs finding a convenient excuse to cut costs.

Zuckerberg: "We're not going to change our policies or approach on anything because of a threat to a small percent of our revenue."

Facebook Mission: "Give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together."

Please update the mission statement

Re: Zuckerberg: advertisers will be back to Facebook 'soon enough'

#158

Post by untog »

shripadk wrote: post #151
untog wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Does Facebook want to call itself a publisher? I'm quite sure it doesn't want to call itself one. But once it made an algorithmic feed it decided to have a hand in what users do and do not see. It's not unreasonable to ask for some accountability in what that algorithm does, and such accountability is definitely not a violation of the first amendment. > Will it continue to edit/censor Presidents and Prime Ministers…

> Point of clarification here: Twitter censored and edited absolutely nothing. They attached a warning to Trump's tweet. It is still available for all to read in its entirety. No Twitter actually removed a video[1] that Trump posted. [1]: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/twitter-labels...

> in response to a copyright claim from one of the children’s parents

So they didn't remove it because of their own demands for censorship, they removed it because the DMCA required them to.

Re: Zuckerberg: advertisers will be back to Facebook 'soon enough'

#159

Post by simo_dax »

wolco wrote: post #115
paulgb wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody was ever hiding that the boycott is for July; the call for the boycott says so in the first line. Some companies decided to go for more than a month but that's their choice. > On June 17, Color Of Change along with the NAACP, ADL, Sleeping Giants, Free Press, and Common Sense Media called on Facebook’s advertisers to hit pause on ad spending for July 2020 > https://colorofchange.org/stop-hate-for-profit/

Is there a big list of all of the companies taking part?

https://www.stophateforprofit.org/participating-businesses

Re: Zuckerberg: advertisers will be back to Facebook 'soon enough'

#160

Post by dcolkitt »

someluccc wrote: post #108

The cool thing about facebook’s highly targeted advertising is that it balances the ad market in favor of niche players vs. generalists, which also means they have a long long tail of millions of small buyers vs. a few huge ones who used to dominate traditional media. Old marketing was carpetbombing, which meant only those with B-52 sized budgets could dominate. It was also deeply entwined with centralized high-volum…

Another reason that Internet ads don't completely supplant traditional mass marketing, is because a lot advertising is about creating a cultural consensus around a product. Beer is the classic example.

Corona wants to create the image that it's the beer for cool, relaxed dudes. We all know that there's nothing inherent to Corona that makes it the beer for cool, relaxed dudes. But through mass advertising they've created a widely shared cultural connotation for that brand. If I show up to a party with a six-pack of Corona, I'm projecting a clear message to everyone there that I'm a cool, relaxed dude. (Or at least style myself that way.) If I was going for sophisticated, adventure-lover I might show up with Dos Equis instead. And most everyone in America would understand.

For this type of marketing, hyper-targeted advertising defeats the purpose. You don't just want to reach the target customers. You want everyone in the broader culture to understand what your brand stands for. It's why mass reach advertising, like Super Bowl commercials or Times Square billboards command such hefty premiums. I watch a beer commercial at Super Bowl half time, and not only do I know that I've seen that commercial. but I know everybody else will too.

Post reply on HN