For all those doing math and commenting regarding Facebook revenues vs this ad spend while you do your math keep in mind that Facebook revenues are reported in US dollars and the $57M mentioned in this article is Canadian dollars.
After spending $57M on Facebook ads, I was kicked off
81–90 of 322 posts
Re: After spending $57M on Facebook ads, I was kicked off
#82Let's be fair here. Shared.com is in the business of producing and distributing crap content. That's a subjective term, but it's like the supreme court ruling on pornography, you'll know it when you see it. These guys most likely "skirt the line" to just operate as a mediocre and crappy content distribution network, that at scale, makes a lot of money because there is a certain subset of the population that will eat…
> Shared.com is in the business of producing and distributing crap content. ...
> They just aren't going to bring themselves down to the level... and I don't blame them.
Without being familiar with Shared, I'm willing to take you at your word on the company. I do question your conclusion though. I've seen no indications that Facebook has any standards and if anything they seem to promote crap content not bury it. If it drives engagement and doesn't bring legal trouble to their doorstep, Facebook seems to be all over it.
Which makes me think there is something else going on here.
Re: After spending $57M on Facebook ads, I was kicked off
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's an interesting position (and I'm not disputing it) but if you were a business that has sovereign territory, you still need utilities (Internet). Penn State has its own data-centers, is part of the Internet2 consortium and has dedicated fiber to both AWS and Azure but you're still ultimately reliant on those you're leasing the connections from - even if you own the fiber, you're probably leasing the right-of-wa…
Satellite fleets?
Which could theoretically be done today but then you'd be a tenant of Musk. I really think the idea of mesh networks is great for neighborhoods but can it be extended to a global-scale network (well ... continent scale until there's a personal communication mechanism that will cross oceans)?
EDIT: This was posted on today's "Who is hiring?" thread - not really p2p Internet but ... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25633106
Re: After spending $57M on Facebook ads, I was kicked off
#84A pattern that I see with tech companies like these is poor communication about features and decisions made within the company. Price changes and policy changes, understandably, are made quickly and following rules. What about when the UI changes, or when a policy change affects how a user can behave? That's probably either not communicated at all or hidden in the many, many pages of the T&Cs.
Re: After spending $57M on Facebook ads, I was kicked off
#85> Facebook has systematically shut down our 2 small businesses during a pandemic and economic crisis without explanation. If you've spent $57MM on Facebook ads, are you still considered a "small business"? Perhaps I'm out of touch. I think the warning about building your business on someone else's land still applies but I'm not sure how you get around that when so much of the world's attention is controlled by a few…
> I think the warning about building your business on someone else's land There aren't really any businesses which have sovereign territory
On a single someone else's land then?
Going multi-platform from the start is probably not the way to go as you are adding complication before you have the basics rounded out, but once you are spending that much on advertising you presumably have a sizable turn-over and should have long ago looked at diversifying to deal with situations like this which (even if temporary) could kill the business model.
Of course if FB is truly the only game in town for your target audience, you have a problem there...
Re: After spending $57M on Facebook ads, I was kicked off
#86I’m glad that FB treats everyone equally.
Re: After spending $57M on Facebook ads, I was kicked off
#87Let's be fair here. Shared.com is in the business of producing and distributing crap content. That's a subjective term, but it's like the supreme court ruling on pornography, you'll know it when you see it. These guys most likely "skirt the line" to just operate as a mediocre and crappy content distribution network, that at scale, makes a lot of money because there is a certain subset of the population that will eat…
You are right about content. But in that case FB should have clearly communicated about violations for those pages and given a chance to correct them. Also taking down personal accounts seems more like an automated action where a graph of related accounts are taken down.
It's not even about violations (which there may not have been), just some kind of explanation. "Hey we don't want to be involved in this kind of content, we're making a judgment call to disallow it."
Re: After spending $57M on Facebook ads, I was kicked off
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
Satellite fleets?
Which could theoretically be done today but then you'd be a tenant of Musk. I really think the idea of mesh networks is great for neighborhoods but can it be extended to a global-scale network (well ... continent scale until there's a personal communication mechanism that will cross oceans)? EDIT: This was posted on today's "Who is hiring?" thread - not really p2p Internet but ... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id…
You can theoretically run a very low bandwidth set of links over any radio technology, including HF which will give you that long range connectivity.
Problem is, people expect streaming video on their smartphones. You can't do that over low bandwidth over the horizon links.
Continent scale? Depends on the continent. No way to do that in the Americas, there's just too much open space. You could do it in many cities I do think.
Re: After spending $57M on Facebook ads, I was kicked off
#89Let's be fair here. Shared.com is in the business of producing and distributing crap content. That's a subjective term, but it's like the supreme court ruling on pornography, you'll know it when you see it. These guys most likely "skirt the line" to just operate as a mediocre and crappy content distribution network, that at scale, makes a lot of money because there is a certain subset of the population that will eat…
Facebook is absolutely full to the brim with “crap content”. Crap content happens to be what drives engagement, so hosting crap content is a large part of Facebook’s business model. You’re speaking with a pretty authoritative tone there as though you’re absolutely sure that Facebook has had a change of heart and only wants to host quality content, and there’s no other reason why the pages were removed. Do you have so…
I stand by what I posted. I'm allowed to be authoritative as I want in my opinions and what I deem to be a personal analysis of what is a subjective issue. If you aren't in agreement with my assertions, you are free to click the down arrow to the left of the post.
Re: After spending $57M on Facebook ads, I was kicked off
#90Looking at shared.com content - If I was forced to guess what might justify this apart from an FB screw up, is that while no single post breaks FB rules. The quantity that they are posting now breaks a new FB policy and that shared.com is seen as producing huge quantities of low quality, click bait content that FB see as 'polluting` their platform, leeching away users/ad viewers. That is just a guess.
I'm with others who point out that FB is already a dumpster fire of junk, so jettisoning low-quality clickbait isn't on their agenda.
What I do think is on FB's agenda is producing and profiting off of low-quality clickbait directly. Thus, someone at FB could have decided the OP's business is competing with them. Even if you don't agree that FB is all about low-quality clickbait right now, it shouldn't shock anyone that FB might decide to get into that market and take steps to squash a potential competitor.