it shows that when you have a monopoly or a strong moat, you can basically say "fuck you" to your clients in a polite way of course, oh well
Zuckerberg: advertisers will be back to Facebook 'soon enough'
201–210 of 250 posts
Re: Zuckerberg: advertisers will be back to Facebook 'soon enough'
#202And yes, he's absolutely correct. Some advertisers such as the big Canadian banks aren't even hiding it now switching from announcing a boycott to a limited-time withdrawal: "Participating brands will suspend all advertising on the platform for the month of July." https://globalnews.ca/news/7129688/facebook-boycott-canada-b...
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/
It wouldn't particularly surprise me if none of the vast majority of the public, HN commenters or the companies that signed up for it had actually read the boycott documentation so that might not be as important as it seems.
Re: Zuckerberg: advertisers will be back to Facebook 'soon enough'
#203Earlier 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/
It’ll continue beyond July. This quote may have changed everything. If he’s trying to become the silicon trump he is certainly getting there. Unsurprisingly both are clearly sociopaths.
So because he won't kowtow to the demands of what he says is a threat to a small percentage of the company's revenue, he is now Trump?
Is there a list of mobs you believe companies should kneel before, lest you deem them to be in-line with Trump?
Re: Zuckerberg: advertisers will be back to Facebook 'soon enough'
#204Re: Zuckerberg: advertisers will be back to Facebook 'soon enough'
#205My 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.
>It's difficult to actually measure impact of ad spending, and marketing teams spin results to their advantage. Have you used any self-serve ad tool? It's quite easy actually.
It's easy to bullshit yourself into thinking your ads are much more effective than they really are. It's even easier to bullshit the people who pay you to do ads for them. Advertising and analytics platform happily oblige both use cases.
As 'sokoloff wrote, it's easy to get a measurement on the screen. But gaining real insight from it, or even knowing whether that measurement makes sense, requires a certain amount of analytical thinking and knowledge of statistics. Maybe among corporate marketing departments such skills are plenty, but in my experience, it's not usually the case with small marketing agencies serving smaller companies. Bullshitting has a better effort/reward ratio, particularly when your customers understand statistics even less than you.
Re: Zuckerberg: advertisers will be back to Facebook 'soon enough'
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are _very_ clearly acting as publishers as well. When you connect to twitter do you see the same monolithic platform that everyone else sees before you each sort it as you please? Of course not. You see a specific-as-possible individual experience published just for you. Edit: Twitter clearly needs and should have the ability to manage the content they publish. But they also clearly function like a platform in s…
> They are _very_ clearly acting as publishers as well. Then they should be held liable for every post/tweet that goes on their platform! Will they be willing to accept that liability like the media houses do? You can sue the media house if it posts something that is false. You can't sue Facebook for a post someone put on it. Facebook will call itself a platform and deny taking liability for someone's post. > It does…
The post office (Twitter) is _already_ opening every envelope. That is how the personalized feeds are created.
Do you think the post office should be able to check the content of your message to determine whether to deliver it to you tomorrow, next week, now (if the sender pays more)?
This is a much more complicated issue than a simple publisher-platform determination. The only thing that is clear is that Twitter, Facebook, etc, behave very much like both a platform and a publisher.
I do agree with you that new regulation is critical to help manage these systems.
Re: Zuckerberg: advertisers will be back to Facebook 'soon enough'
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Could you please expand on that?
Trust between who?
Re: Zuckerberg: advertisers will be back to Facebook 'soon enough'
#208He is 100% correct. These advertisers have gotten millions of dollars in free PR for the "boycott" but that last won't long for most of them.
I really have a hard time believing consumer behavior is affected by these boycotts. Is the average person running to spend more at Starbucks or Hershey or Honda because they temporarily "stood up to Facebook"?
Analogously, does the average person run to spend more at Starbucks or Hershey or Honda because they scrolled past the same ad 10 times in a single day in their Instagram feed?
Re: Zuckerberg: advertisers will be back to Facebook 'soon enough'
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Does DMCA really require them to do so? Doesn't it fall under fair use? Do memes also attract DMCA notices now? How about this Nickelback meme that was removed from Trump's tweet: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/10/twitter-nixes-tr... Are you actually telling me that this doesn't constitute fair use? If this doesn't constitute fair use then Twitter will have to delete a billion tweets that use the same meme.…
> Does DMCA really require them to do so? Doesn't it fall under fair use?
Yes, if they want to keep their safe harbor protections. If they think it's fair use, refuse to comply with the DMCA notice, and it turns out it wasn't fair use, they're now liable as infringers.
Re: Zuckerberg: advertisers will be back to Facebook 'soon enough'
#210The 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 crea…
> 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.
The idea of someone showing up with a specific type of beer to attempt to project an image is hilariously absurd and incredibly sad at the same time. I guess that's just where we're at as a society, though.
I definitely wouldn't have received your clear message if you showed up at a party with your 6-pack of Corona hoping to let me know how cool and relaxed you are.