3 ms·

I think you missed his point (though I can't really blame you because he has a peculiar writing style). The way I read it he has two basic points. 1. Faceboo

I think you missed his point (though I can't really blame you because he has a peculiar writing style). The way I read it he has two basic points. 1. Facebook ads are different than Google ads (or other web site ads) because you go to Facebook to interact with friends while you go to the rest of the web to find information. So ads can fulfill the user's purpose on Google by providing information but they're just getting in the way of the user's purpose on Facebook. 2. Facebook's growth hides the fact that the ads don't work. Because from a revenue standpoint its hard to distinguish return customers from new customers and only return customers signal a successful platform. So people see Facebook successfully selling ads and assume the platform works when in fact its being driven by a stream of new customers who try it and fail.

crocowhile 16y ago
*Facebook ads are different than Google ads (or other web site ads) because you go to Facebook to interact with friends while you go to the rest of the web to find information. This is a false argument. If I interact with friends I talk about stuff I am interested about. There you have your connection with ad. Even just mentioning someone's look or hair color could immediately trigger an ad for something related to it and commercially interesting.
- TomOfTTB 16y ago
  Well it isn't a "false" argument it's an argument you disagree with. But your circumstantial evidence (that you click on ads) is no more or less compelling than his circumstantial evidence ("that he doesn't"). The question boils down to which of you more accurately represents the public at large.