7 ms·
This title's grammar is mangled and confusing on HN. The $160000 was for the developer, not for anyone else. The "for those who use Facebook ads" was a separate
by rspeer 10y ago
This title's grammar is mangled and confusing on HN. The $160000 was for the developer, not for anyone else. The "for those who use Facebook ads" was a separate clause saying who the post is for.
I know HN approves of original titles but also disapproves of sensationalism and exclamation points. I would suggest something like:
App developer says: "Facebook stole my $160000"
- rplnt 10y agoAnd they didn't steal it either. They just didn't pay it out yet, it says pending. And even if it was canceled or whatever, "steal" is not the right word since they were never his money to begin with.
- sashagim 10y agoTo me it seems that like with any contract, the money is his once he fulfilled his part of the deal (ad views/clicks). I agree that not payout out is not the same as stealing, but in this case it does seem awfully close since Facebook is acting as a middle man. If someone hires me to do a job for a 3rd party, gets paid for my work, but doesn't pass me my part - I'd call this stealing.
- st3v3r 10y agoBut if it was determined that the part you did was done fraudulently? That's essentially FB's position here. And their contract states that the remedy for that is account termination and forfeiture of the balance.
- akhatri_aus 10y agoThis is an interesting interpretation of (possible) theft. What if Facebook has no intention of paying it out?
- rplnt 10y agoI'm pretty sure Facebook would be covered if they decided not to pay, I doubt the developer even read the ToS, let alone understood it. But to the point, "steal" is to take something. If you didn't ever own it, I don't think it can be called stealing.
- Beltiras 10y agoThe OP is from the Ukraine. I think grammar nitpicking is not the best way to understand the issue.
- Jean-Philipe 10y agoI didn't get the title even after reading it three times.