271–280 of 322 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I haven't spent a dime on online ads, but if it were my problem, I'd go though the top Alexa websites and see if they accept money for ads.
The days of that kind of thing are over. Everyone does placements using ad networks. Best you'll manage along those lines is approaching celebrities and youtube/insta stars and getting them to endorse your product.
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.
All "episodes of Galaxy Quest are true historical documentaries".
Classic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So is the business that I buy an ad on Facebook, someone clicks on it, I then show them a bunch of ads, and I get paid enough for those ads to recoup the money I spent on my Facebook ad, and then some? Kind of genius, in a way.
I always wondered who's actually making the money, when so many ads inside free mobile games are for other free mobile games. Someone has to actually buy something at some point! I wish there was a global tracker for services that make money through ads, that reported the percent of ads that are for other services in the same category. All that data is secret though, probably.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Therefore it makes them money.
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…
IMO, this should be part of the HN guidelines. HN would certainly be a better place if everyone followed this rule.
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…
>Your Page has been unpublished They even give them a reason. How is: >they kicked me and my pages off without warning or explanation truthful?
The only message that I can find which might qualify is, *“Due to repeated Page violations, you can’t post to any Pages eligible for monetization.”
That doesn't explain what the violations might have been. And in the dashboard where they were supposed to see said violations, no pages were marked as having any violations.
Which boils down to, "Due to repeated violations that we won't tell you about..."
Yeah, in their position I wouldn't consider that an explanation either.
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…
HN deserves better than sweeping generalisations and shallow black and white polemics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> 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. Therefore it makes them money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Perhaps you would also consider book publishers as colluding since they too have a "tax" to publish books. Even with ePubs book publishers are likely to take 50—75%. Print books the publishers still take 85% and higher. Now that is a tax. But I would not call it collusion.
Then Apple decided to cut it out. And also cripple web apps so they can't even be alternatives properly. Can you build a Mail app on the web? No. Apple didn't add the required features to Safari that developers could build on top of. And Chrome/Firefox/Edge did add them and they work. However on iOS, Apple does not allow them, instead they're forced to use Safari under the hood with Chrome/Google branding sprinkled on top.
Tell me how much publishers pay to distribute on Windows from their websites? Or the WebApps that don't need to be installed? Apple provides little value as a middle man.
The just wanted to be parasite middlemen and they don't deserve to be. They're the mafia.
Go for them under anti-competition clauses. And if there is indication that they have colluded, start trust busting on both. Google is already not trustworthy. They colluded with Facebook already. And Apple colluded to lower wages with other tech companies.
It is entirely reasonable to think that this is anti-competitive and hinders innovation.