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

181–190 of 322 posts

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

#181

Post by rootusrootus »

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.

You could become the leader of the free world, even.

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

#182

Post by dang »

[deleted] wrote: post #178
dang wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]

It's obviously a judgment call but I don't think the GP comment was super pejorative. It was fulminating a bit (also against the guidelines), but not so much that we would post a moderation scolding. The issue with the comment I replied to is that it crossed into a personal harangue. That tends to degrade discussion much faster—note how with https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25634048 the thread is already headed down the drain.

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

#183

Post by soperj »

ghastmaster wrote: post #111
soperj wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Citation please.

> Downvoting should not be used for simple disagreement.

Used to be part of the guidelines. Seems as though they've removed it.

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

#184

Post by dang »

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.

Please don't respond with this sort of indignation even when the feeling is justified. It takes the discussion way off topic and encourages worse from others.

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

#185

Post by sfblah »

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…

Ok, but if an advertiser spends $57M across many years generating likes on the platform and doesn't change its business practices materially across that timespan, it seems like they might be entitled to a refund when the pages are shut down.

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

#186

Post by Justin_K »

This won't be a popular comment but if your entire business model is based upon the existence of FB, you should have had a formal contract in place, as well as dedicated points of contact. I can't imagine that someone with millions in annual spend couldn't require this of FB.

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

#187

Post by yls »

hsuduebc2 wrote: post #166
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)

What mistakes? Trusting Facebook?

Probably also putting all eggs into one basket.

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

#188

Post by s1artibartfast »

ben_w wrote: post #32
logronoide wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author is fully dependent from FB. He cannot bite the hand that feeds him. I think it’s a smart move to reach the front page of HN before taking this to court.

If he’s been kicked off their network, does he have anything to lose by biting the hand that used to feed him?

The cost of lawyers is >0 and the chance of winning is 0. Better to take whatever cash you have and walk away than sue.

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

#189

Post by slenk »

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.

Isn't that essentially FB's goal too? Albeit crap content that hits your brain's pleasure center

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

#190

Post by Retric »

rkachowski wrote: post #149
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.

Algorithms don’t close 57 Million dollar advertising accounts without some oversight.
Post reply on HN