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

161–170 of 322 posts

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

#161

Post by Imnimo »

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…

Wow, you were right about crap content. I'd never heard of shared.com, but the articles on that site are complete garbage. I really don't understand how that sort of thing can generate enough money to spend millions of dollars on ads.

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

#162

Post by smarx007 »

dstick wrote: post #132
JamesBarney wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's the right thing to do and I doubt it really has much influence on liability unless you say something like "we're not working with you because you're a black woman".

I watched a documentary called “Suits” a while back about a corporate legal firm and that convinced me that you are wrong. Those well dressed professionals will use anything you say against you in the court of law!

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1632701/ is a documentary?

I am afraid you failed to read the fine print ;) I think the average legalese boilerplate is along the following lines: All characters and events depicted in this film are entirely fictitious. Any similarity to actual events or persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

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

#163

Post by Raphmedia »

helsinkiandrew wrote: post #41

Looking 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.

> The quantity that they are posting now breaks a new FB policy

Could you tell me more about that? What new policy?

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

#164

Post by hsuduebc2 »

ogre_codes wrote: post #82
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…

> 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…

Exactly. Number of crappy Chinese comedy videos with millions of reacts is astounding.

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

#165

Post by politician »

jolmg wrote: post #139
lhorie wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Everyone votes by their own rules. There's no official guidelines on how to use the voting buttons.

Your comment inspired me to submit https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25636267

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

#167

Post by dang »

_vertigo wrote: post #74
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…

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…

Please don't harangue another user like this. The site guidelines put it this way: "Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Curious conversation requires a certain lightness of touch. You can still make your same point that way; actually it will work better that way.

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

#168

Post by aldarisbm »

javajosh wrote: post #104
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.

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.

But he did speak authoritatively, "Facebook decided..."

Facebook didn't decide anything as far as we know, he's presenting his opinions as facts, they aren't.

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

#169

Post by smarx007 »

rsweeney21 wrote: post #130
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…

The US Government, specifically the SBA, defines a small business as any business with fewer than 1,500 employees and less than $38.5 million in average annual receipts. I was surprised by this definition too.

That sounds a bit strange, I would count any business with more than employees to be "medium" and 1000 to be large. Think of coffee shops: 1500 people allows you to have a network across multiple cities.

But w.r.t. the amounts of money, they spent $57MM over 15 years, so it's $4MM/y using very rough math.

Upd: https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_Standards... says on p. 29 that it's less than $27.5MM or 1000 people, so you are right, it's quite a high bar.

Upd2: EU caps small businesses at 50 people and medium at 250, which sounds much more reasonable to me https://www.ucl.ac.uk/procurement/suppliers/smes#:~:text=Def....

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

#170

Post by onepointsixC »

kitkat_new wrote: post #10

fully in the hands of Facebook Absolutely deserved. I hope others use this as an opportunity to learn and not make the same mistake. (completely ignoring ads being a shady business anyways)

This seems needlessly dismissive. Who do you buy ads from if not FB and Google?
Post reply on HN