5 ms·

> there's a zero percent chance any social media platform such as Facebook would ever ban ads. Yes, this is what the article says. This means we must force the

> there's a zero percent chance any social media platform such as Facebook would ever ban ads. Yes, this is what the article says. This means we must force them to.

buboard 7y ago
so basically force facebook to shutdown so that all these people flock to HN which is ads-free? The shortsightedness of such thinking amazes me.
- matheusmoreira 7y ago
  They could try charging users for access to a clean, spyware-free social network instead. If Facebook can't survive without selling their users like products, then good riddance. It wasn't meant to be.
  - buboard 7y ago
    "try to charge" , and "survive only on ads" are not mutually exclusive. FB could charge for ads-free, but nobody would use it. It's delusional assume otherwise, with FB costing the average person $40/year, which is in some places on earth the entire year's income. I also assume FB doesn't offer the option because it's too much work to filter all the tracking in and out of their properties.
    - mistermann 7y ago
      > FB could charge for ads-free, but nobody would use it. It's delusional assume otherwise It seems more delusional to predict the future (nobody would use it) with confidence. I know framing such things as false dichotomies is kinda what educated Western intellectuals do, but God or nature impose no such limitations on us. We are free to think, negotiate, create hybrid solutions and adjust as necessary, and so forth and so on. We have the ability to largely be the masters of our own destiny, but waking up and making that choice is our responsibility, not God's.
      - buboard 7y ago
        "nobody" is a figure of speech of course. It's easy to settle the question with a poll: ask people worldwide if you 'd pay $40/year for FB. My bet would be it's < 5%
        NeedMoreTea 7y ago
        Then the ultimate valuation of FB is 5%, or a little less, of current. That's perfectly fine. They would have found an appropriate level in the marketplace.
        buboard 7y ago
        hmm the ultimate valuation is exactly the same, perhaps a bit higher because of the lowered negative press?
        NeedMoreTea 7y ago
        Hmm, that would be ironic, FB ending up being worth more by suddenly getting some ethics. :)
        mistermann 7y ago
        > "nobody" is a figure of speech of course. Ok then, can you restate your prediction of the future without the use of figures of speech? Calling people delusional who disagree with an utterly vague warning seems a bit inappropriate. > It's easy to settle the question with a poll: ask people worldwide if you 'd pay $40/year for FB. My bet would be it's < 5% I like this much better, as it is no longer suggestive that certain approaches cannot be done for certain reasons, and instead only poses a perfectly valid question with an explicitly speculative bet about what the answer would be. Fantastic.
  - zanny 7y ago
    Even better ending their exploitative ad model business would promote the use of decentralized social network solutions. If people couldn't easily monetize the platform the way Facebook does it opens up the market for diverse platforms. Monetizing email service is notoriously difficult and Gmails lack of in-app advertising sets a playing field nobody else can exploit for massive growth. That has probably in large part been what has kept IMAP alive while XMPP and other open communication protocols died - the ubiquity and lack of ability to dilute the user experience with ads for profit keeps predatory competition out. That hasn't stopped Google from doing some seedy shit in recent years with their position but even they have to be conservative on radical anti-user behavior that would drive their base off Gmail - because their userbase can leave. Its the beauty of decentralization.
dageshi 7y ago
Nothing like a good old fashioned moral panic, every time a new communication medium turned up someone tried to ban it or neuter it.
meritt 7y ago
> This means we must force them to. Advertising represents 98.5% of Facebook's revenue and you're proposing that we (btw, who is "we"? They are a global company) tell them they can't run ads? What exactly remains for the 43,000 employees and the 5% of the S&P500 market cap that you just decided to eliminate?
- JohnFen 7y ago
  I think there are strong ethical arguments to be made about why it's wrong to force a company to not advertise inside of their own services. But I don't really think that adverse economic impact is one of them.
- cameronbrown 7y ago
  There's going to be far more economic repercussions if ads are yanked out of the market. Believe it or not but they do drive a huge amount of small business growth.
  - zanny 7y ago
    Advertising is zero sum. It doesn't create value, it just redistributes it. And even worse it redistributes it through psychological manipulation. Modern advertising is an arms race of capital to rob the poor of their time and money through the most aggressive manipulation they can. In the absence of abusive advertising people would not suddenly stop spending money. They might even be more inclined to seek out new experiences without a constant mental assault by the largest corporations with the deepest coffers to bury them in their ads. Regardless of the way it goes, advertising is absolutely a net deficit to a small business - they don't have the capital resources or scale to permeate culture the way large corporations can. And if they are expending their limited resources trying to participate in the rat race they are sacrificing value to their existing customers and shortchanging their own growth for what is effectively an extortion of participation - if everyone else is deluged in manipulation to rob them and you don't participate there will be no money left over once the wallet has been rung dry by as many emotional vectors as possible for them to find you.
    - 7y ago

> there's a zero percent chance any social media platform such as Facebook would ever ban ads. Yes, this is what the article says. This means we must force them to.

buboard 7y ago

so basically force facebook to shutdown so that all these people flock to HN which is ads-free? The shortsightedness of such thinking amazes me.

matheusmoreira 7y ago
They could try charging users for access to a clean, spyware-free social network instead. If Facebook can't survive without selling their users like products, then good riddance. It wasn't meant to be.
- buboard 7y ago
  "try to charge" , and "survive only on ads" are not mutually exclusive. FB could charge for ads-free, but nobody would use it. It's delusional assume otherwise, with FB costing the average person $40/year, which is in some places on earth the entire year's income. I also assume FB doesn't offer the option because it's too much work to filter all the tracking in and out of their properties.
  - mistermann 7y ago
    > FB could charge for ads-free, but nobody would use it. It's delusional assume otherwise It seems more delusional to predict the future (nobody would use it) with confidence. I know framing such things as false dichotomies is kinda what educated Western intellectuals do, but God or nature impose no such limitations on us. We are free to think, negotiate, create hybrid solutions and adjust as necessary, and so forth and so on. We have the ability to largely be the masters of our own destiny, but waking up and making that choice is our responsibility, not God's.
    - buboard 7y ago
      "nobody" is a figure of speech of course. It's easy to settle the question with a poll: ask people worldwide if you 'd pay $40/year for FB. My bet would be it's < 5%
      - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
        Then the ultimate valuation of FB is 5%, or a little less, of current. That's perfectly fine. They would have found an appropriate level in the marketplace.
        buboard 7y ago
        hmm the ultimate valuation is exactly the same, perhaps a bit higher because of the lowered negative press?
        NeedMoreTea 7y ago
        Hmm, that would be ironic, FB ending up being worth more by suddenly getting some ethics. :)
      - mistermann 7y ago
        > "nobody" is a figure of speech of course. Ok then, can you restate your prediction of the future without the use of figures of speech? Calling people delusional who disagree with an utterly vague warning seems a bit inappropriate. > It's easy to settle the question with a poll: ask people worldwide if you 'd pay $40/year for FB. My bet would be it's < 5% I like this much better, as it is no longer suggestive that certain approaches cannot be done for certain reasons, and instead only poses a perfectly valid question with an explicitly speculative bet about what the answer would be. Fantastic.
- zanny 7y ago
  Even better ending their exploitative ad model business would promote the use of decentralized social network solutions. If people couldn't easily monetize the platform the way Facebook does it opens up the market for diverse platforms. Monetizing email service is notoriously difficult and Gmails lack of in-app advertising sets a playing field nobody else can exploit for massive growth. That has probably in large part been what has kept IMAP alive while XMPP and other open communication protocols died - the ubiquity and lack of ability to dilute the user experience with ads for profit keeps predatory competition out. That hasn't stopped Google from doing some seedy shit in recent years with their position but even they have to be conservative on radical anti-user behavior that would drive their base off Gmail - because their userbase can leave. Its the beauty of decentralization.

dageshi 7y ago

Nothing like a good old fashioned moral panic, every time a new communication medium turned up someone tried to ban it or neuter it.

meritt 7y ago

> This means we must force them to. Advertising represents 98.5% of Facebook's revenue and you're proposing that we (btw, who is "we"? They are a global company) tell them they can't run ads? What exactly remains for the 43,000 employees and the 5% of the S&P500 market cap that you just decided to eliminate?

JohnFen 7y ago
I think there are strong ethical arguments to be made about why it's wrong to force a company to not advertise inside of their own services. But I don't really think that adverse economic impact is one of them.
cameronbrown 7y ago
There's going to be far more economic repercussions if ads are yanked out of the market. Believe it or not but they do drive a huge amount of small business growth.
- zanny 7y ago
  Advertising is zero sum. It doesn't create value, it just redistributes it. And even worse it redistributes it through psychological manipulation. Modern advertising is an arms race of capital to rob the poor of their time and money through the most aggressive manipulation they can. In the absence of abusive advertising people would not suddenly stop spending money. They might even be more inclined to seek out new experiences without a constant mental assault by the largest corporations with the deepest coffers to bury them in their ads. Regardless of the way it goes, advertising is absolutely a net deficit to a small business - they don't have the capital resources or scale to permeate culture the way large corporations can. And if they are expending their limited resources trying to participate in the rat race they are sacrificing value to their existing customers and shortchanging their own growth for what is effectively an extortion of participation - if everyone else is deluged in manipulation to rob them and you don't participate there will be no money left over once the wallet has been rung dry by as many emotional vectors as possible for them to find you.
  - 7y ago