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

Post by ummonk » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 8:02 PM UTC

smarx007 wrote: post #162

dstick wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post by Gunax » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 8:19 PM UTC

dustinmoris wrote: post #35

I've become increasingly more skeptical when I read those stories. Let me be clear, I absolutely despise Facebook, but as I understand it, they are massively under fire from all sorts of governments over moderating the content which is posted on their platforms. There is a chance that this business knew they were doing something borderline dodgy in a grey area and Facebook started to weed those "bad" actors out in th…

Post by admax88q » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 8:26 PM UTC

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…

Post by JKCalhoun » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 8:28 PM UTC

absolutelyrad wrote: post #60

smnrchrds wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The fact that 30% app store tax exists and both stores (App Store by Apple and Google Play Store) have somewhat similar strategies highly indicate collusion going on. Apple only changed it for people making under $1m a year after people got mad and they got sued by Epic Games or they knew Epic Games was coming for their asses. But they know that majority of their revenue comes from pubs making over $1m a year which t…

Post by toast0 » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 8:31 PM UTC

smoyer wrote: post #67

__s wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think the warning about building your business on someone else's land There aren't really any businesses which have sovereign territory

That's an interesting position (and I'm not disputing it) but if you were a business that has sovereign territory, you still need utilities (Internet). Penn State has its own data-centers, is part of the Internet2 consortium and has dedicated fiber to both AWS and Azure but you're still ultimately reliant on those you're leasing the connections from - even if you own the fiber, you're probably leasing the right-of-wa…