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

After spending $57M on Facebook ads, I was kicked off

jordan-shared.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 322 posts

Re: After spending $57M on Facebook ads, I was kicked off

#101

Post by beshrkayali »

This reads like an outcry from a wolf in sheep's clothing.

I see this as a good sign. I haven't used Facebook in over 6 years and don't intend to. Everything Facebook is piholed on my network. But I'm glad they're starting to kick out trash content producers.

And yeah, like others have said, if you spend ~$60M on Facebook ads (among others), I don't think you can call yourself a small business. This is like those 6 year old companies that still consider themselves startups.

If you make enough revenue from content farms to spend that much on ads AND getting kicked off of Facebook jeopardizes your "business" that much, I'm gonna assume you engage in some dark patterns to collect/sell data of your visitors, or to place ads in shady ways, or some form of SEO pollution. At the very least, you run native ads disguised as content. I wouldn't want to have any business with you either.

Re: After spending $57M on Facebook ads, I was kicked off

#102

Post by cookingmyserver »

smoyer wrote: post #30

> 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 that it could be considered a small business, but on the upper side probably. Their ads are the supplies they use to make their product. It works out to 4 million a year, although I doubt they were spending anywhere near that much starting off (which is why I think they could be past the point of the public's perception of a small business).

It would be like looking at how much a small business fabricator spent on metal and other supplies. That number is going to be larger than what they actually bring in as profit. If ads aren't your supplies then it would absolutely be an indication of being a large business if you spent $57 million on marketing.

Re: After spending $57M on Facebook ads, I was kicked off

#103

Post by SilasX »

blantonl wrote: post #93
SilasX wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

With regards to this, my point was that Facebook doesn't want to get into a long drawn out discussion with whataboutisms and splitting hairs on policy. They made a business decision to move on from this content platform. I love to hate on facebook with the best of them, but they really don't "owe" anyone anything. There seems to be this pervasive attitude in technology circles that platforms "owe" other businesses an…

Okay there are two separate issues here:

1) I think it's very unhelpful to speak in terms of "not owing things" to people and defending anyone whoever does the absolute minimum until they're dragged kicking and screaming to extend the most basic courtesy. Part of being a decent human being is extending such basic courtesies to others even when there's no legal obligation to do so, and, when an org doesn't do that, it's absolutely right to call them out on it.

2) If you're right, that this only came after extensive negotiation in which FB did reveal their objections, then yes, it's fair to call the advertiser out on that, for misrepresenting what explanation FB gave him.

Edit: Also,

>With regards to this, my point was that Facebook doesn't want to get into a long drawn out discussion with whataboutisms and splitting hairs on policy.

That's not relevant, because FB can recognize when they're making a judgment call; my point was just that it's courteous to at least recognize when you're doing so.

Re: After spending $57M on Facebook ads, I was kicked off

#104

Post by javajosh »

blantonl wrote: post #89
_vertigo wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Although I usually ignore responses like in the GP, I like what you wrote here. It implicitly names the unfair rhetorical attack (effectively the kind of strawman that treats you as if you spoke authoritatively, when you were clearly giving your opinion). But yeah, with the right audience you don't have to respond at all, we'll know wassup.

Re: After spending $57M on Facebook ads, I was kicked off

#105

Post by harperlee »

blantonl wrote: post #89
_vertigo wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Absolutely. I just mentally add “in my opinion” to everything I read and its liberating; I think way few people do it. More people should see the good wife.

Re: After spending $57M on Facebook ads, I was kicked off

#106

Post by alpaca128 »

throwaway99x99 wrote: post #94

"Facebook had taken action against me, personally, that one assumes are reserved for the worst in our society — criminals, pedophiles and conspiracy theorists ." Yah, it's those conspiracy theorists that are the worst in society.

Cult-like conspiracies like the QAnon stuff are not harmless. Comparing them to criminals is warranted, at least after the incident where one of them attempted a mass shooting.

But still that quoted sentence is quite weird. Banning someone from an online platform is the standard procedure for policy violations, not just for the "worst in our society" no matter how you define those.

Re: After spending $57M on Facebook ads, I was kicked off

#107

Post by kurtschwanda »

throwaway99x99 wrote: post #94

"Facebook had taken action against me, personally, that one assumes are reserved for the worst in our society — criminals, pedophiles and conspiracy theorists ." Yah, it's those conspiracy theorists that are the worst in society.

I've been in therapy for years after my uncle tried to convince me the mob killed JFK.

Re: After spending $57M on Facebook ads, I was kicked off

#108

Post by gadders »

From the article:

>>In total, several pages that had 21 million fans had been unpublished, and Facebook had taken action against me, personally, that one assumes are reserved for the worst in our society — criminals, pedophiles and conspiracy theorists.

Er, no. Just be slightly more right-wing that the current Facebook overton window and you'll get banned.

Re: After spending $57M on Facebook ads, I was kicked off

#109

Post by soperj »

blantonl wrote: post #89
_vertigo wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's not actually what the down arrow is for.

Re: After spending $57M on Facebook ads, I was kicked off

#110

Post by dkdk8283 »

__s wrote: post #37
smoyer wrote: post #30

> 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

Aren’t countries a business?
Post reply on HN