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

301–310 of 322 posts

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

#301

Post by rkagerer »

Like the author, I built my first business on someone else's platform. It was a great niche, but eventually you hit a ceiling and run into impediments stemming from their business decisions - over which you have no control. The author seems fully aware of his situation.

I hope he at least gets some explanation, but this goes to show there's no substitute for forging a trench of independence around your business model (at least where it makes sense) and growing your own ecosystem (certainly not an easy task, of course).

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

#303

Post by KirillPanov »

We’ve determined that you are not eligible to use Facebook. For safety and security reasons, we can’t give you any additional information as to why your account was disabled.

As someone who has never had a facebook account, I am more confused than ever about why people want anything to do with it.

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

#304

Post by KirillPanov »

sto_hristo wrote: post #144
jaywalk wrote: post #95

> Facebook had taken action against me, personally, that one assumes are reserved for the worst in our society — criminals, pedophiles and conspiracy theorists. Lumping in conspiracy theorists with pedophiles? This guy is an ass, his business was probably barely legitimate, and I don't feel sorry for him in the slightest.

Different outlets for different kinds of mental illnesses. There aren't really any levels to being disgusting. Once you hit that definition, you end up alongside with everything out there that fits it. Spreading hate, lies, paranoia, disinformation, your personal delusions is disgusting as is pedophilia.

This kind of intolerance is disgusting to me.

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

#305

Post by Closi »

JamesBarney wrote: post #117
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…

I run a consulting company and if I decided to stop working for a client the right thing would be to give some explanation even if it's "We don't think your website meets our quality bar". Almost 80% of the ads I see on Facebook are of similar quality. If they're trying to reduce low quality content on their platform, than they should just say that.

Typically consultancy companies declining work will give a reason that maintains the relationship, which often isn’t the real reason.

If you hate the people, that’s not the reason you tell them. You tell them you don’t have sufficient resource to provide the level of support you would want to put on the project, or that you don’t feel you can be price/quality competitive because of some factor and don’t think you are a good fit compared to your competitors.

I would never tell a client that their website “doesn’t meet our quality bar” - that’s basically saying “we are too good for you” and I would personally think it’s incredibly condescending - just look at Berkshire Hathaways website!

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

#306

Post by helsinkiandrew »

Raphmedia wrote: post #163
helsinkiandrew wrote: post #41

Looking at shared.com content - If I was forced to guess what might justify this apart from an FB screw up, is that while no single post breaks FB rules. The quantity that they are posting now breaks a new FB policy and that shared.com is seen as producing huge quantities of low quality, click bait content that FB see as 'polluting` their platform, leeching away users/ad viewers. That is just a guess.

> The quantity that they are posting now breaks a new FB policy Could you tell me more about that? What new policy?

The policy I guess at in the rest of that sentence immediately after the words you quote.

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

#307

Post by string »

sto_hristo wrote: post #146
string wrote: post #73

A business that creates garbage content with a business model that almost exclusively relies on another garbage company's ad platform. I have very little sympathy for companies that run ads in the first place. This just seems like good news to me.

The bigger picture is that it can be anyone's business - even the most "pristine" one. Getting banned without any notice when you run a business is just low and pathetic.

I agree that banning people from platforms for no reason isn't cool. But what do people honestly expect from Facebook? Running ads in the first place is contemptible. Basing basically your entire business model on running Facebook ads is stupid in the extreme. If you're greedy enough to run your business like that, you reap what you sow.

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

#308

Post by microtherion »

JamesBarney wrote: post #124
corobo wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why open yourself up to a lawsuit though? If you say something that can't be solidly proven now you have to deal with lawyers

Because it's the right thing to do and I doubt it really has much influence on liability unless you say something like "we're not working with you because you're a black woman".

Because of the scale at which Facebook operates, and the various antitrust etc investigations constantly surrounding it, they probably have every reason to be circumspect in such cases. As much as I am personally in favor of transparency, I can understand why Facebook thinks it's not in their best interest to communicate any reasons for severing business relationships. Anything they say can and will be used against them, and pretty much nothing they say will benefit them.

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

#309

Post by Grustaf »

ipsum2 wrote: post #234
BikiniPrince wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

To be fair, it's a business transaction. I can sell you $50 million widgets, and decide to not sell you any more for (almost) any reason.

Yeah but this is not really the same. You spend money on advertising to build up your brand, your followers are your capital. Facebook took money for ads, that did indeed build up the follower capital, but then suddenly they didn't just stop accepting ads (which would have been fine), they destroyed the capital by removing their page.

At least that's how I understand what happened.

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

#310

Post by Grustaf »

IThinkImOKAY wrote: post #151
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…

>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?

They explicitly said they will not provide any reasons, for "security reasons".
Post reply on HN