8 ms·

>the belief that Facebook was preventing Snap’s most popular content from trending on Instagram >Snap executives noted their belief that Instagram was blocking

by nova22033 7y ago

>the belief that Facebook was preventing Snap’s most popular content from trending on Instagram >Snap executives noted their belief that Instagram was blocking searches of these Snap-related terms Real solid data driven analysis here.. >Facebook’s tactics have long engendered concern across Silicon Valley, said Paul Keable, chief strategy officer at Ashley Madison. The dating site, which caters to married people seeking affairs, is blocked from advertising on Facebook, which now operates its own dating feature. Yes, Ashley Madison, the "dating" site.

GhettoMaestro 7y ago
Lol, the same Ashley Madison who screwed over their entire user-base by failing to secure their database. Please Ashley Madison, lecture us more about unethical behavior.
- nyolfen 7y ago
  it was not only that, it was revealed they ran bots to chat with users to convince them they had a shot with beautiful women that made up the bulk of user activity iirc. no sympathy obviously but it was a total scam
- dogma1138 7y ago
  Being incompetent isn’t the same as being unethical however given their target audience they were more negligent than incompetent. I think the biggest take away from that site was just how few women were there compared to men, like we were talking in the single digits for verifiable active accounts. Which is also where the unethical part comes in as AM was running chat bots or ignoring their existence to keep men on the site.
lhball 7y ago
I don't understand what editor allowed the A.M. section to remain in the article. Felt like an afterthought. They built up the 'Voldemort' file but then barely referred back to it. Would have preferred they wait to publish when the had the report in hand or could at least quote directly from it.
hn_throwaway_99 7y ago
> Yes, Ashley Madison, the "dating" site. Not sure why you seem to be implying that the article is using a euphemism, as literally the next phrase in that sentence is "which caters to married people seeking affairs".
- moron4hire 7y ago
  I don't know if you are aware of the specific details of what Ashley Madison did, but basically they were using bots to convince men that there were actual women interested in meeting (if only the use paid the membership fee to enable messaging), when by-and-large there were none. It was a scam. I mean, most dating websites use a series of tricks of messaging and "matches" to trick people into thinking there are more people available than there actual are. I did a study of eHarmony years ago and came to the conclusion that only 10% of all "matches" were people who had the capability of returning a message. But Ashley Madison took it to a whole new level of creating accounts ran by bots that actively messaged people. IIRC, it was much more on the order of 99% of activity.
  - sandworm101 7y ago
    There werent any women on AM. When the story broke they couldnt find anyone who actually had an affair. It was scams all the way down. (And when the mounties responded after the hack there wasnt any evidence either. A so-called unicorn had no cohesive security program.)
    - buboard 7y ago
      wow that's ... in a way ... sad. pretty telling about the state of relationships in this day
      - scarejunba 7y ago
        Well, it's not really that sad that there was no one actually having affairs on Ashley Madison.
  - 7y ago
disgruntledphd2 7y ago
So, my understanding is that FB blocks all dating apps except a bunch of white-listed partners. This goes back to 2013, and was driven (AFAIK) by user feedback (people hate dating ads, who knew?). The compromise was that dating ads could only be shown to people who reported their status as single, which clearly wouldn't work for Ashley Madison.
privateSFacct 7y ago
Interesting parent is so downvoted - the whole dating / facebook thing has been an issue for a while. Users didn't like cross-pollination between Facebook and dating and not all sites (AM comes to mind) even maintained facebooks LOW LOW standards. Good to see AM lecturing though as a source for these articles.

GhettoMaestro 7y ago

Lol, the same Ashley Madison who screwed over their entire user-base by failing to secure their database. Please Ashley Madison, lecture us more about unethical behavior.

nyolfen 7y ago
it was not only that, it was revealed they ran bots to chat with users to convince them they had a shot with beautiful women that made up the bulk of user activity iirc. no sympathy obviously but it was a total scam
dogma1138 7y ago
Being incompetent isn’t the same as being unethical however given their target audience they were more negligent than incompetent. I think the biggest take away from that site was just how few women were there compared to men, like we were talking in the single digits for verifiable active accounts. Which is also where the unethical part comes in as AM was running chat bots or ignoring their existence to keep men on the site.

lhball 7y ago

I don't understand what editor allowed the A.M. section to remain in the article. Felt like an afterthought. They built up the 'Voldemort' file but then barely referred back to it. Would have preferred they wait to publish when the had the report in hand or could at least quote directly from it.

hn_throwaway_99 7y ago

> Yes, Ashley Madison, the "dating" site. Not sure why you seem to be implying that the article is using a euphemism, as literally the next phrase in that sentence is "which caters to married people seeking affairs".

moron4hire 7y ago
I don't know if you are aware of the specific details of what Ashley Madison did, but basically they were using bots to convince men that there were actual women interested in meeting (if only the use paid the membership fee to enable messaging), when by-and-large there were none. It was a scam. I mean, most dating websites use a series of tricks of messaging and "matches" to trick people into thinking there are more people available than there actual are. I did a study of eHarmony years ago and came to the conclusion that only 10% of all "matches" were people who had the capability of returning a message. But Ashley Madison took it to a whole new level of creating accounts ran by bots that actively messaged people. IIRC, it was much more on the order of 99% of activity.
- sandworm101 7y ago
  There werent any women on AM. When the story broke they couldnt find anyone who actually had an affair. It was scams all the way down. (And when the mounties responded after the hack there wasnt any evidence either. A so-called unicorn had no cohesive security program.)
  - buboard 7y ago
    wow that's ... in a way ... sad. pretty telling about the state of relationships in this day
    - scarejunba 7y ago
      Well, it's not really that sad that there was no one actually having affairs on Ashley Madison.
- 7y ago

disgruntledphd2 7y ago

So, my understanding is that FB blocks all dating apps except a bunch of white-listed partners. This goes back to 2013, and was driven (AFAIK) by user feedback (people hate dating ads, who knew?). The compromise was that dating ads could only be shown to people who reported their status as single, which clearly wouldn't work for Ashley Madison.

privateSFacct 7y ago

Interesting parent is so downvoted - the whole dating / facebook thing has been an issue for a while. Users didn't like cross-pollination between Facebook and dating and not all sites (AM comes to mind) even maintained facebooks LOW LOW standards. Good to see AM lecturing though as a source for these articles.