After spending $57M on Facebook ads, I was kicked off • Hacker News Board

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

#141

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 6:28 PM UTC

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.

[deleted]

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

#142

Post by bosswipe » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 6:29 PM UTC

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.

You are misinforming the HN audience by making it sound like you know why FB took their action. In a way you are distributing crap content here.

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

#143

Post by ogre_codes » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 6:32 PM UTC

ianlevesque wrote: post #112

pwned1 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would go so far as to say that "crap content" is Facebook's entire business model.

Hey now, my friends dogs and kids are very interesting! Or were when they used to go outside...

If they could, they would eliminate dog/kid photos entirely because they don't make money off that stuff. They just show you enough of your friends dogs and kids to keep you around to view the profit generating crap.

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

#144

Post by sto_hristo » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 6:32 PM UTC

jaywalk wrote: post #95

> Facebook had taken action against me, personally, that one assumes are reserved for the worst in our society — criminals, pedophiles and conspiracy theorists. Lumping in conspiracy theorists with pedophiles? This guy is an ass, his business was probably barely legitimate, and I don't feel sorry for him in the slightest.

Different outlets for different kinds of mental illnesses. There aren't really any levels to being disgusting. Once you hit that definition, you end up alongside with everything out there that fits it. Spreading hate, lies, paranoia, disinformation, your personal delusions is disgusting as is pedophilia.

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

#145

Post by rrrrrrrrrrrryan » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 6:34 PM UTC

__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

Funnily enough, I worked for a company that sold software to casinos, many of which very much exist on sovereign tribal land, where they're often the single major business entity.

It led to some quirkiness: we had to disavow ourselves of almost all cloud services. They wanted all the software and data on-prem because they didn't want anything on U.S. soil.

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

#146

Post by sto_hristo » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 6:35 PM UTC

string wrote: post #73

A business that creates garbage content with a business model that almost exclusively relies on another garbage company's ad platform. I have very little sympathy for companies that run ads in the first place. This just seems like good news to me.

The bigger picture is that it can be anyone's business - even the most "pristine" one. Getting banned without any notice when you run a business is just low and pathetic.

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

#147

Post by NeutronStar » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 6:35 PM UTC

ghastmaster wrote: post #111

soperj wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Citation please.

You want us to cite HN's rules? You're supposed to know them.

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

#148

Post by afpx » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 6:36 PM UTC

lhorie wrote: post #134

blantonl wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I thought the down arrow was supposed to be used to indicate that a post is of low quality or that it doesn't conform to guidelines, not to express disagreement; and that disagreement was meant to be expressed by posting arguments

It seems more common these days to use it on HN to express disagreement. That wasn't the case years ago.

I suspect it has to do with the reddit / youtube generation becoming adults. Polite disagreement seems to be on the way out.

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

#149

Post by rkachowski » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 6:38 PM UTC

blantonl wrote: post #61

Let'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…

How can you know Facebook decided anything? It could just as easily been an algorithmic error.

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

#150

Post by zentiggr » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 6:39 PM UTC

Sounds to me like this should be the zillionth warning sign that leaning on a FAANG for any significant portion of your business activities is a critical mistake.

If there is no customer support, there is no reliability, period. You can delude yourself into thinking you have a resource, when what you have is a niche in somebody else's place.

Of course this will throw his business into chaos.

Time to sue Facebook for unfair business practices. Or if that's not allowed under the TOS, walk away and find the next path.

Every story I hear paints another stroke of the picture of Facebook turning into a cesspool of AI-controlled careless swamp of attention-grabbing, only mitigated by reporting on their most callous bullshit.