281–290 of 322 posts
This guy or someone in his business or personal circle has caused problems for someone and they've leant on him.
Around 20% of all deplatforming originates with these covert coerce requests from states or big corporate
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…
What the hell is a non-crap ad?
>Our legacy promotional business, Freebies (freebies.com, free.ca), publishes notices of free samples, savings and coupons from great brands. The majority of our expenditure on Facebook is through Freebies.
Translation: Promoted marketing content and clickbait sites of very little actual content value. I'm absolutely unsurprised FB banned them.
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…
Well let’s be fair here. They made that conscious decision after running away with the money. After the first few mil wouldn’t you understand your partner a little better? At 57 it’s a rocky divorce and you know full well who you were sleeping with.
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…
Even today, it’s likely they don’t make much on those 99 cent purchases, last I looked transaction costs were probably over 10%.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The ~$60million is over 15 years, so it's about $330k/month on average, which is still a very substantial amount of money, but at "Facebook scale" this is pocket money you find in the sofa; their revenue is about $5.8 billion a month . For Facebook, the effect is like refusing to serve a customer their coffee at a coffee shop. I suppose that's the real problem with these kind of issues; you see the same on e.g. YouTu…
$330k/month means that you could have multiple employees specifically and solely tasked with managing this one account. It is not a small amount by any means.
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.
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. Therefore it makes them money.
In the sense that bait on a hook fills a fish's belly.
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…
They must have pissed off Zuck some other way because I don't think that he cares about that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a difference between "crap content" shared by users on the platform, and crap content promoted via ads.
The difference is primarily the fact that the crap content promoted by ads pays Facebook's bills.