3 ms·
The same goes for Google. It has nothing to do with the validity of the article. This is a "character assassination" because of singling Facebook out. I unders
by dfxm12 9y ago
The same goes for Google.
It has nothing to do with the validity of the article. This is a "character assassination" because of singling Facebook out. I understand putting Facebook in the headline will get you clicks right now, but why not paint a more full picture?
- soziawa 9y agoI don't think the same goes for Google is true. While both show you ads Google puts them in the context of websites in the internet which is not a priori trustworthy. Facebook on the other hand puts them into the context of people you follow and trust, this makes the ads themselves seem more trustworthy.
- anonymouz 9y agoGoogle banned the product that this article is about; Facebook cozied up to them. So far only for Facebook evidence has surfaced of these very shady practices. See the difference? > Google banned Voluum over cloaking concerns, but that didn’t derail the company—Facebook was where the action was. vs. > It’s not just affiliates who think Gryn is at the pinnacle of the industry. In June, just before the conference, Facebook’s newly installed executive in charge of fighting shady ads, Rob Leathern, had invited him to the company’s London office to explain the latest affiliate tricks.
- Fnoord 9y agoBecause Facebook is both relevant news, and a huge company who's core business is our data in exchange for a service.