Seriously? Ads? • Hacker News Board

Re: Seriously? Ads?

#201

Post by shmerl » Wed, May 30, 2012, 6:45 PM UTC

girlvinyl wrote: post #188

shmerl wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole approach of Facebook at its core is a disdain for the users, because Facebook profits from users' profiles. They can argue that users are willing to trade off their privacy for the "free" service, but it's just a sneaky way to get users information to monetize on. Given that, why do you think they should have more respect in other kind of interactions?

There are lots of reasons they /should/ have more respect. But my whole point was that I don't think they ever /will/. Putting a high touch endeavor like financial dealings on top of a no touch venture like a social network is dumb. Basically, looks like you and I agree.

Yes, we agree. Really Facebook is not fitting to be a social network, but at the same time it has such a huge number of users at the moment. Hopefully real social networks like Diaspora which are built for social interactions and not for ripping users off on their privacy, will eventually gain more traction.

Re: Seriously? Ads?

#202

Post by jiggy2011 » Wed, May 30, 2012, 6:45 PM UTC

kreilly wrote: post #141

pbreit wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the opposite: Facebook data can mostly help out with fraud (identifying, authenticating users) and is nearly useless for assessing credit risk.

Facebook data is not useless for assessing credit risk. People with high credit scores are likely to be connected to each other via social networks. The converse is likely also true. Although it is controversial, banks seem to be starting to look at this.

This would be easy to game and would also encourage snobbery "I'm not going to friend him , he's poor"

Re: Seriously? Ads?

#203

Post by pg » Wed, May 30, 2012, 6:49 PM UTC

I'm surprised this got so many upvotes. Does the author really believe that Facebook hasn't thought about this? Or that the ways they make money now are the the only ways they ever will?

Re: Seriously? Ads?

#204

Post by chris-deskpro » Wed, May 30, 2012, 6:53 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #98

> Fraud. Paypal and others use complex algorithms, special teams and God knows what. But Facebook has an unique and unparalleled data base of a user’s history, friends, activities and what not. The author seems to confuse credit risk and fraud risk. Credit risk pertains to the probability of you being unable or unwilling to honour your commitments. Fraud, within this context, pertains to the unauthorised use of funds…

Facebook does have data that can be used to fight fraud; e.g. "which of these 10 photos if your friend" or "which of these 10 cities did you visit last year".

Visa/Mastercard/Amex only have your transactions to go on so naturally they have spent billions building fraud tools around this data; that's not to say there are not a lot of other data points to build these tools.

Re: Seriously? Ads?

#205

Post by freehunter » Wed, May 30, 2012, 7:08 PM UTC

smiler wrote: post #178

freehunter wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least in the US, every major credit card has rules against minimum transactions. Reporting a minimum transaction requirement will cause the CC company to investigate the retailer and possibly punish them. Many small businesses still do it, of course. What keeps people from reporting them is a mixture of not knowing the regulations and wanting the small business to stay afloat. But regardless, minimum payments actu…

Please see http://blog.visa.com/2010/09/02/minimizing-confusion-over-mi... Minimums are now allowed on CC

Interesting. I'll admit it's been some time since I checked the regulations. Thanks for the update.

Re: Seriously? Ads?

#206

Post by reneherse » Wed, May 30, 2012, 7:15 PM UTC

sanswork wrote: post #107

pessimizer wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people don't click on ads, but the minority that do can generate billions of dollars of revenue. The minority that do follow the ones that don't.

A recent report showed that the minority that click ads at facebook is pretty close to half. Not a bad minority to have using your site.

Yeah, I'm sure I accidentally clicked on a few ads in the days before I deactivated my account. So put me in that minority.

Re: Seriously? Ads?

#207

Post by reneherse » Wed, May 30, 2012, 7:25 PM UTC

smsm42 wrote: post #172

crag wrote: post #12

I've been on FB since the beginning. And I've never clicked on an ad. What makes you think I will to actually buy something? I barely trust Paypal, you think I'm gonna trust FB with my CC details. You gotta be kidding. There are a few steps FB must do before I'll trust them with anything other than bs about what games I'm playing now: 1. Convince me they take my security and privacy seriously. 2. Convince me they are…

I'm definitely not gonna trust FB with credit card or anything private. It is a company built on sharing, with repeated history of privacy issues. It's one thing posting there about my vacation and what I think of latest Hollywood blockbuster and quite another to give them a line to my bank account. For the latter I would rather have some company that has better privacy traditions.

Precisely. The ethos of the Facebook notion of sharing and privacy is antithetical to what a financial service needs to have.

One big reason I trust Paypal for everyday transactions is because they make money off of each transaction directly, whether through direct fees or merchant fees. I can understand their business model, and the service has a certain simplicity.

The OP wants me to give financial data to a company where my data is their product, and who is always trying to prise more "openness" from me through a byzantine privacy UI and borderline surreptitious app installations? I'll pass, thanks.

Re: Seriously? Ads?

#208

Post by girlvinyl » Wed, May 30, 2012, 7:41 PM UTC

shmerl wrote: post #201

girlvinyl wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are lots of reasons they /should/ have more respect. But my whole point was that I don't think they ever /will/. Putting a high touch endeavor like financial dealings on top of a no touch venture like a social network is dumb. Basically, looks like you and I agree.

Yes, we agree. Really Facebook is not fitting to be a social network, but at the same time it has such a huge number of users at the moment. Hopefully real social networks like Diaspora which are built for social interactions and not for ripping users off on their privacy, will eventually gain more traction.

You inspired me to write a little blog post. http://www.sherrod.im/81/just-give-them-their-money/

Re: Seriously? Ads?

#209

Post by shmerl » Wed, May 30, 2012, 8:44 PM UTC

girlvinyl wrote: post #208

shmerl wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, we agree. Really Facebook is not fitting to be a social network, but at the same time it has such a huge number of users at the moment. Hopefully real social networks like Diaspora which are built for social interactions and not for ripping users off on their privacy, will eventually gain more traction.

You inspired me to write a little blog post. http://www.sherrod.im/81/just-give-them-their-money/

Commented there.

Re: Seriously? Ads?

#210

Post by InclinedPlane » Wed, May 30, 2012, 8:48 PM UTC

stickfigure wrote: post #185

InclinedPlane wrote: post #179

Just plain silly. People who see a big user base and jump to the conclusion of "payments!" as a future business don't have the slightest clue what they're talking about. Facebook isn't competent at tackling that problem, they don't have the expertise, experience, or relationships. It makes about as much sense as looking at facebook with their billion users and saying "You know what all these people have in common? Th…

Facebook's potential advantage in this space is not that they have a billion users, it's that they arbitrate the identity of those users. And payment is inexorably linked with identity, especially WRT avoiding fraud. Certainly it is a difficult market to enter, but a few billion dollars can buy you a lot of expertise, relationships, and time to build experience. The reason Facebook should go into transactions is the…

The problem is that it isn't where the money is, not much more money than Facebook is already making anyway. Not unless facebook intends to commit theft. The money today is in selling digital goods which have a near zero transactional cost. Music, movies, games, books, etc. Not that it makes sense for facebook to get into that business either, necessarily.