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

171–180 of 322 posts

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

#171

Post by Yetanfou »

Gibbon1 wrote: post #158
Yetanfou wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You answer gives me vibes of the recent spat of apologetic answers to the news of Apple banning the "Amphetamine" app in that you defend a behemoth banning something or someone on vague grounds - a discussion on this type of Stockholm syndrome can be found here [1]. My response on to how to handle the shenanigans of these corporate megaliths - by shunning them [2] - was voted down so I have to assume that this is not…

> Is the general opinion here really that we are to simply give in to the whims of these companies? Ans: I can't pay for the $2M house I bought in Noe Valley on a normal salary.

That is just a matter of priorities. That $2M house in Noe Valley is a $500K house elsewhere as many ex-Californians have already found out. Yes, that'd imply moving elsewhere which creates another stack of priorities to sort out, some of which actually would point towards moving as well - where do you want your potential or actual children to grow up, etc. Still, sometimes there is a need to give up some temporary comfort to preserve a longer-term comfort.

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

#172

Post by philjohn »

smnrchrds wrote: post #47
AlexandrB wrote: post #5

Another sign that several FAANGs exist as a monopoly. When you're so big that you can provide effectively no customer service to a customer spending in the 10s of millions (and they have no competitor they can go to afterwards) there's a problem.

I agree with you. When the issue of Apple's anti-competitive behaviour comes up on HN, it is always rebuffed by saying Apple does not have a monopoly—its US share of smartphone market is merely 40%. This is demonstration that you don't need a 100% market share to act anti-competitively. Facebook and Google each have less than 30% market share in ad spend in the US.

To be fair - I'm more concerned about things like buying companies so that they have exclusive access to various technologies thereby denying other companies the ability to use them, e.g. the sensor used in the Kinect.

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

#174

Post by drtillberg »

_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…

I read the earlier comment as making aggressive, common-sense inteferences from 'facts' sprinkled through the original posting-- FB ended direct engagement with shared.com a long time ago, the shared.com ads were placed through 3d party contractors (maybe this is less exceptional than it sounds) and the OP says the reason he's sure FB was ok with the whole thing was shared.com's transparency about its business model ... which sounds like an admission it's low quality, that FB initiated communications about quality in the past, and that the OP was aware the shared.com content had implications for FB business standards. Those might be incorrect inferences, but they seem fair from the OP's marketing release.

An alternate hypothesis is that most of the spend referenced by OP is ancient and relevant only for old-time sake. Again. OP didn't say that exactly, but it's a fair thing to question based on how the OP wrote the posting and selected the relevant time period.

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

#175

Post by r00fus »

afpx wrote: post #148
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

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.

If I suspect something is flamebait (ie, responses are not discussion I think belongs on HN as it's redundant/religious/reactive) and the content's value doesn't exceed that flamebait characteristic, I'll downvote.

ie, I downvote things that I feel have an aggregate S/N degradation multiplier.

I kinda miss /.'s moderation qualifiers.

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

#176

Post by dazc »

afpx wrote: post #148
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

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.

Polite disagreement will often result in downvotes for oneself though. I think this is the problem?

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

#178

Post by [deleted] »

dang wrote: post #167
_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…

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.

[deleted]

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

#179

Post by faeyanpiraat »

vosper wrote: post #138
santoshalper wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're allowed to be anything you want. It's a free country. But 2c worth of advice - representing speculative things as high-confidence erodes your credibility. Unless you have some insight or information that everyone else here doesn't, you're really just full of it. "Facebook decided they don't want to be a part of this type of content distribution" - That is not stated as an implied opinion, it is stated as a fac…

> representing speculative things as high-confidence erodes your credibility I wish you were right, but I actually think most of the time the exact opposite is true: appearing highly-confident about speculative things makes someone seem more credible, rather than less.

Right up until something you say gets proven to be wrong.

The higher confidence you presented your wrong statement, the higher the hit to your credibility will be.

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

#180

Post by rootusrootus »

afpx wrote: post #148
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

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.

With all due respect, as someone who has been participating in online communities since the days of FidoNet, I don't think people have really changed. There's just more people, which itself drives up the opportunity for disagreement.

And some of the most disagreeable people on my social media are old farts, too :)

Post reply on HN