Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Eli Lilly pulls millions in Twitter advertising after fake account debacle

endpts.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 222 posts

Re: Eli Lilly pulls millions in Twitter advertising after fake account debacle

#101

Post by mlsu »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #56
Spivak wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Patients seldom have a choice in any aspect of their care. We could flood the market with dirt cheap insulin using an older formulation but surprise you can’t actually do that without one of the oligarchs buying your company just to stop you.

Or the dirt cheap insulin does not work as well as the newer patented insulin that a private company paid to do R&D for. There is nothing stopping Congress from passing a bill to fund insulin R&D that provides the newest insulin technology without being patented, but the fact that they do not and would rather sit in their pulpit and “grill” private company representatives proves that it is all a show. We (sufficient…

The patents on lispro (the stuff that costs $300/vial) expired several years ago.

The fact is, Lilly isn't even the largest profiteer. The insane margins of insulin are actually split between Lilly, PBMs (like optumRX and CareMark) and insurance companies, through an incredibly complex system of rebates and vouchers. Turning over that rock reveals more writhing maggots than anyone cares to see.

Re: Eli Lilly pulls millions in Twitter advertising after fake account debacle

#102

Post by dariusj18 »

Robotbeat wrote: post #65

Are people aware that impersonating a company’s customer is, like, fraud and opens them up to being sued for damages when something like this happens? There are kind of two things that happened, here. One is a kind of rushed implementation of a questionable feature. The other is a breakdown of social taboo of just violating the law and/or acting in a damaging way. We all know that spam and bots are rampant on the Int…

Not difficult to claim parody protection

Re: Eli Lilly pulls millions in Twitter advertising after fake account debacle

#103

Post by century19 »

consumer451 wrote: post #93
petilon wrote: post #79

My guess is Elon Musk will sell Twitter at a loss within a year.

I wonder what the company is worth on the open market, say at this moment.

And sell it to who? It's going to have to be seriously discounted because it will cost them years to rebuild what he has already broken.

Re: Eli Lilly pulls millions in Twitter advertising after fake account debacle

#104

Post by shapefrog »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #89
sytelus wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They should have done actual verification like many financial accounts do (you upload your ID and answer questions on your past). Musk is ex-payments professional and should have known that gaming payments to adversely attack verification was bound to happen. His assertion that lords and peasant system needs to be dismantled is absolutely correct, however. Twitter has largely turned into message distribution system f…

> His assertion that lords and peasant system needs to be dismantled is absolutely correct, however. Not such a great system when a bunch of peasants convince themselves to believe in lies. "Everyone gets a voice to say damaging things" is the road to ruin.

> His assertion that lords and peasant system needs to be dismantled is absolutely correct, however.

But what if the entire business model was/is actually a lord and peasant system. Whereby lords can, while verified and identified as lords, communicate with the masses of pesants without any other gatekeepers.

The peasants having their chit chat on the side isnt the point, that is the noise and the lords are the signal.

Re: Eli Lilly pulls millions in Twitter advertising after fake account debacle

#105

Post by WorldMaker »

tablespoon wrote: post #36
kerkeslager wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You are freee to keep your money and die if you prefer. Just to be clear, you're proposing that "freedom" means "do what this corporations wants you to do or die". If this were anywhere but Hacker News, I'd think you were joking, but... you're being serious, aren't you? And let me guess: if a government says, "do what we want you to do, or die", that's regulation and therefore bad, because it's a government doing i…

> If this were anywhere but Hacker News, I'd think you were joking, but... you're being serious, aren't you? How did you come to that conclusion? I mean, there is a lot of earnest extreme libertarianism on HN, but not nearly so much that you can assume a comment like the GP isn't sarcastic. The correct interpretation is somewhere between "sarcastic" and "too ambiguous to tell" without digging into comment history.

HN downvotes enough unmarked sarcasm as a culture that most regular "non-green name" commenters on HN prone to (good) sarcastic tones learn quickly to try to mark it (/s, ~, , however you prefer). I know I also generally assume that unmarked text is not sarcasm nor ambiguous on HN.

Re: Eli Lilly pulls millions in Twitter advertising after fake account debacle

#106

Post by shapefrog »

dariusj18 wrote: post #102
Robotbeat wrote: post #65

Are people aware that impersonating a company’s customer is, like, fraud and opens them up to being sued for damages when something like this happens? There are kind of two things that happened, here. One is a kind of rushed implementation of a questionable feature. The other is a breakdown of social taboo of just violating the law and/or acting in a damaging way. We all know that spam and bots are rampant on the Int…

Not difficult to claim parody protection

Its just a prank bro - or I am a "Journalist"

Re: Eli Lilly pulls millions in Twitter advertising after fake account debacle

#107

Post by BitwiseFool »

It seems to me that "being verified" means you shouldn't get to change your Twitter display name without undergoing another review process. I don't think the whole idea of charging for verification is now a discredited idea because of these past events.

Re: Eli Lilly pulls millions in Twitter advertising after fake account debacle

#108

Post by jjulius »

antisthenes wrote: post #77
jjulius wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Is the fake accounts thing overblown? From the article: >By Friday morning, Lilly stock had dropped by more than 5% from the day before. The Twitter stunt pulled down the stock price of other diabetes drugmakers, including Novo Nordisk and Sanofi. Lilly’s stock has yet to recover and, on Monday morning, remained down more than 4% over the past five days. I'm not normally one to defend drug makers, but when you're ta…

Drugmakers pulling advertising and doing less advertising in general is a good thing anyway. So the negatives are definitely overblown.

Depends on your perspective. A good thing, collectively, for society. A bad thing for the health and longevity of Twitter in it's current state, and I think that's how it's being framed in most of these discussions.

Re: Eli Lilly pulls millions in Twitter advertising after fake account debacle

#109

Post by hysan »

scotty79 wrote: post #7

It's super funny that identity verification of authors of things published was basically more than half of the value twitter provided to its users, both readers and writers and the first thing Elon did was to destroy it. Just to replace it with what he calls "payment verified", which basically means you have 8$ and means to send it to twitter. Which apparently is worth less than nothing. It kind of reminds me how a w…

> It's really a bit surprising that noone told him that his tweets are worth anything only because people reading them can know they come from Elon not some guy who paid 8$ to call himself Elon on Twitter.

Given how obvious it is, a more logical premise might be to assume someone did and Elon chose to believe otherwise.

Re: Eli Lilly pulls millions in Twitter advertising after fake account debacle

#110

Post by jjulius »

oceanplexian wrote: post #54
jjulius wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Is the fake accounts thing overblown? From the article: >By Friday morning, Lilly stock had dropped by more than 5% from the day before. The Twitter stunt pulled down the stock price of other diabetes drugmakers, including Novo Nordisk and Sanofi. Lilly’s stock has yet to recover and, on Monday morning, remained down more than 4% over the past five days. I'm not normally one to defend drug makers, but when you're ta…

This sounds like nonsense to me. Tweets didn't bring down the stock price of multiple drugmakers, market volatility did. Pharma market cap will go up or down by more than that on a daily basis for a thousand and one reasons.

Sure. It's also why I cited other reasons beyond stock prices. :)
Post reply on HN