9 ms·

Interesting article. I don't blame Facebook for doing whatever they can to properly show ads tho, they provide a "free" service and in exchange serve ads. It's

Interesting article. I don't blame Facebook for doing whatever they can to properly show ads tho, they provide a "free" service and in exchange serve ads. It's not free to support a company their size and its expected they do everything they can to monetize the site properly. What do you guys think?

oferzelig 7y ago
So you're basically against ad blockers.
- dannyr 7y ago
  If a business chooses how they make money to survive, can you just say "I don't like how you make money so I'll just get everything for free"? If you don't like how a company uses ads (regular, spammy, deceptive), no better way than tell them than by not giving them any traffic at all.
  - baroffoos 7y ago
    Users are allowed to control how they view content on their own computer. Facebook has chosen to give the content out for free and users may choose to render the content however they wish. Facebook is free to charge for the service.
    - dannyr 7y ago
      "Facebook has chosen to give the content out for free". No, it's not free. Facebook makes money off data from its users.
      - baroffoos 7y ago
        The "free" in this case is the fact that they have not charged any fee to obtain the data.
      - dannyr 7y ago
        Let me paraphrase your statement then ""Facebook has chosen to give the content out for free BY SERVING ADS".
        baroffoos 7y ago
        And the user is in no way obligated to look at the ads. If I start a business giving away things for free expecting the users to pay me back later but in no way requiring them to and it doesn't work out then thats just a bad business model.
  - ACow_Adonis 7y ago
    The internet/web is USED by businesses. The internet/web is not FOR businesses. Perhaps that's the fundamental difference in perspective about who's responsibility it is to make allowances for who serves/receives content...
  - rdiddly 7y ago
    In this case, yes, yes you can. Although note that the value flows in the other direction. We're getting Facebook content (worthless), they're getting our attention (valuable).
- squeaky-clean 7y ago
  You can be in favor of both sides of this argument, I would say I am. I believe in my right to modify what's running on my computer and network, including things like installing adblocker extensions and pi-hole and so on. But I also believe that no organization is obligated to serve their data to me in a way that makes it easy to block those ads. They are wasting CPU hours and man hours on obfuscation features rather than real value to the end user. But nothing is really wrong with that, it's just a bit silly. If they think it makes them more profit overall than actually enhancing Facebook, they can take that bet. (I think it's the wrong bet, but they can still take it)
  - ACow_Adonis 7y ago
    That's basically my attitude too, and I'd consider myself one of the more pro-adblocker advocates. I see the internet as a bunch of servers talking to each other. Some make requests to others, some respond to those requests by sending content. You can block me, you can choose to not send or respond data to my requests, and you can send your website/content in some form that's better suited to Perl golf or the obfuscated C contest. That's your prerogative. On my end, I get to decide who I send my requests to, how I spend my time and attention, and what I do on my machine with incoming requests and data. Make your site bad enough, and I (and others) will stop going, and eventually you'll likely sow the seeds of your own destruction (as people move away and create competition), but fundamentally that's your call to make. Just like its mine to ignore you or your requests that I talk to your affiliated servers, edit and filter the content once it's on my machine/infrastructure, and not pay attention to the nonsense you send.
- derekp7 7y ago
  Personally I would like an ad blocker that only blocks annoying ads, or ads that contain malware. I would also be willing to pay a monthly subscription for an adblock service, where the subscription gets divvied out to the sites I visit. In fact, I can think of how this could work on a large scale. A site can sign up to the adblock service to receive a prorated portion of revenues that individual subscribers pay in, and subscribers have a browser button where they can rate the site (thumbs up, neutral, or thumbs down) for usefulness. That rating can then be fed into a trainer for a search engine so that search results are tuned to that user's preferences (along with a user profile that gets automatically built up, or that a user can adjust themselves). For extra bonus points, the user can get a 10% discount on the service for agreeing to allow the adblock service to monetize that data (and agreeing to their data sharing policy) -- otherwise that data is used only to influence search results. BTW, for years I didn't bother with an ad blocker until I started getting repeatedly hit with malware served up by the ad networks. For that same reason I don't bother with an ad blocker on my phone, because so far I haven't gotten hit with ad-delivered malware on my phone or tablet yet.
  - amphibian87 7y ago
    ad nauseum Firefox clicks ads already, to pay the person advertising. and you never see them. it's great in mobile too
DevKoala 7y ago
I agree. If you are using their platform, then you have to abide to their terms of use. I don't use Facebook for this reason.
- glofish 7y ago
  What if the company does not make it clear what the terms of use are - wich covers pretty much 99.99% of face book users. They trick you - you trick-em back.
- commoner 7y ago
  Not using Facebook is the best way to avoid Facebook ads, but Facebook's terms of service don't forbid ad blocking. https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms
  - Jamwinner 7y ago
    Ads are the most benign thing FB does. If that was the only issue, nobody would care.
dannyr 7y ago
I dislike Facebook but using it means you should agree with how they monetize their business.
- FussyZeus 7y ago
  The network effects of sites like Facebook, YouTube, Google, and Twitter oftentimes mean taking the ethical stance and "not being part of it" can create serious harm to your business/career/vocation. There's a reason Instagram Influencer and YouTuber are, despite the sniggering of many people, real jobs that earn tons of money for those skilled in plying the craft.
  - dannyr 7y ago
    True. I'm currently in the Philippines and a lot of businesses don't have their own web sites and just have Facebook and Instagram pages. I just browse Facebook without logging in but it has a huge dialog asking me to log in. Of course there are exceptions to the rule but most people are not IG Influencers and Youtubers so opting out of these social media services are not as painful.
    - godzillabrennus 7y ago
      Gotta love pinoy marketing. Treats. Not just a class of food but a brand for gas stations to sell food.
  - grogenaut 7y ago
    You can pretty easily use any of these sites in a professional only capacity.
    - FussyZeus 7y ago
      But you're still using them, and by virtue of using them are increasing their engagement numbers, which is what they want. The only winning move is not to play. But they've created an environment where you pretty much have to.
tjpnz 7y ago
I have issues with Facebook and do everything I can to limit my interaction with the platform, but for some situations it's unavoidable - RSVPs to events where there is no alternative, some things relating to births/deaths or marriages, close family members who I've failed to coax off their messaging platform all come to mind. In those situations I'm not going to compromise my own security or privacy.
- grogenaut 7y ago
  You can only rsvp over facebook, not via text, email, phone, in person, etc? I've never found there to be no alternative. Hell for most events unless the outlay to throw it was extensive you can just show up, I've never actually had an issue with this, and if they actually want you to show they'll call YOU.
  - Jamwinner 7y ago
    Its amazing when you find out who are actually your friends, and who just likes you at their parties, or associated with their event.
crispinb 7y ago
There's some justice to that argument for access to strictly discretionary sites, but Facebook has been so 'successful' that it's now approaching monopolistic power, & is something close to required infrastructure. There are an increasing number of online contacts which literally offer no alternative. I have a few fake facebook accounts I'll use where I literally have no alternative, none of which have real data associated with them. I personally have a 100% no-corporate-propaganda rule. No logos on anything where avoidable, no ads allowed on my network, etc. If ads slip through ad blockers & I notice an ad somewhere I place the advertised product or company on a 'never buy' list. No-one other than Facebook has any benefit to gain by forcing ads on me, and frankly in the very unlikely circumstance that people do manage to damage Facebook by circumventing its propaganda platform, so much the better. I'd very much like to see it driven out of business (wild fantasy, I know).
- grogenaut 7y ago
  Can you give some specific examples of places with no contact alternatives? Not really grokking this point. Do you mean they (the business) can't be contacted any other way, and facebook is their only presence?
  - crispinb 7y ago
    Not if specific means linking to FB! But, yes, there are many local businesses (notably pubs, cafes & some specialty stores) whose only online presence is there. Also some noncommercial stuff - eg in recent bush fires where I live, a local FB group was sometimes the most up to date, if not always the most accurate, source of information. Bizarrely, some XR events are also only publicised on FB.
  - jameshilliard 7y ago
    Look at the developing world where services like internet.org/free basics exist, there are effectively no realistic alternatives for many people.
notafraudster 7y ago
"do everything they can to monetize" Except, evidently, allow users to pay money to not be subjected to ads.
- rabidrat 7y ago
  This is a really good observation. What if we required all ad-based services to make available an equivalent premium offering that showed no ads? I think 99% of people would be stunned at the necessary price and would not pay it anyway, but at least it would be quantified.
  - grogenaut 7y ago
    not sure this is true. Twitch has Ad Free Turbo, it's about $15/month. Youtube had Red, similar price. Both have customers. The real issue is that with google or FB I don't know that I'm not still being sold all over the place. I only know with Twitch because I work there. Also Youtube has been ratcheting up the ads like crazy lately, and I'm very sure red isn't worth it for me personally.
    - rvnx 7y ago
      Well you know, your data is not directly sold. Your data with Google just as part of targeting campaigns ("User is high spender in Google") or equivalent in DoubleClick and Twitch/Amazon is on its way. If you prefer, we don't give to someone the info that IP A.B.C.D but we sell the possibility to target IP A.B.C.D with an ad. It's not "selling" data, but still monetizing it.
  - beefield 7y ago
    This is one of the more important regulations big tech should be subjected to in my opinion. Let me pay for the services I use, with believable guarantees that my data is not used or sold in any way by the service provider. And regulate the cost to be a reasonable margin over production costs of these services. Hosting my hosting my posts and photos should not be that expensive.
ksangeelee 7y ago
The web has, since the very beginning I think, had the notion of public and private resources, where access to private resources requires authentication. I view facebook as an almost entirely private resource, protected by a user name, password, and terms of use. So, they can do what they want within the law, so far as I care. I only get annoyed when people engage in hostile behaviour on the public internet - resources that we're meant to freely read, share links to, or index, or process in whatever way we choose. As far as I can tell, facebook do quite a good job of keeping their walled garden well controlled and secure. I barely see anything of their website, but others are willing to jump through hoops just to be in there (e.g. sending in copies of passports). You know, these people will put up with quite a lot of abuse.
Lio 7y ago
I don’t blame Facebook for trying insist you see ads. I do blame them for dirty dark patterns like blocking copy and paste in calendar events so that you can’t copy them to an external service.
Yhippa 7y ago
I think they should provide an option to perhaps pay them directly to opt-out of ads. If you choose not to pay but still use their service for free then they must do what they must to monetize.

oferzelig 7y ago

So you're basically against ad blockers.

dannyr 7y ago
If a business chooses how they make money to survive, can you just say "I don't like how you make money so I'll just get everything for free"? If you don't like how a company uses ads (regular, spammy, deceptive), no better way than tell them than by not giving them any traffic at all.
- baroffoos 7y ago
  Users are allowed to control how they view content on their own computer. Facebook has chosen to give the content out for free and users may choose to render the content however they wish. Facebook is free to charge for the service.
  - dannyr 7y ago
    "Facebook has chosen to give the content out for free". No, it's not free. Facebook makes money off data from its users.
    - baroffoos 7y ago
      The "free" in this case is the fact that they have not charged any fee to obtain the data.
    - dannyr 7y ago
      Let me paraphrase your statement then ""Facebook has chosen to give the content out for free BY SERVING ADS".
      - baroffoos 7y ago
        And the user is in no way obligated to look at the ads. If I start a business giving away things for free expecting the users to pay me back later but in no way requiring them to and it doesn't work out then thats just a bad business model.
- ACow_Adonis 7y ago
  The internet/web is USED by businesses. The internet/web is not FOR businesses. Perhaps that's the fundamental difference in perspective about who's responsibility it is to make allowances for who serves/receives content...
- rdiddly 7y ago
  In this case, yes, yes you can. Although note that the value flows in the other direction. We're getting Facebook content (worthless), they're getting our attention (valuable).
squeaky-clean 7y ago
You can be in favor of both sides of this argument, I would say I am. I believe in my right to modify what's running on my computer and network, including things like installing adblocker extensions and pi-hole and so on. But I also believe that no organization is obligated to serve their data to me in a way that makes it easy to block those ads. They are wasting CPU hours and man hours on obfuscation features rather than real value to the end user. But nothing is really wrong with that, it's just a bit silly. If they think it makes them more profit overall than actually enhancing Facebook, they can take that bet. (I think it's the wrong bet, but they can still take it)
- ACow_Adonis 7y ago
  That's basically my attitude too, and I'd consider myself one of the more pro-adblocker advocates. I see the internet as a bunch of servers talking to each other. Some make requests to others, some respond to those requests by sending content. You can block me, you can choose to not send or respond data to my requests, and you can send your website/content in some form that's better suited to Perl golf or the obfuscated C contest. That's your prerogative. On my end, I get to decide who I send my requests to, how I spend my time and attention, and what I do on my machine with incoming requests and data. Make your site bad enough, and I (and others) will stop going, and eventually you'll likely sow the seeds of your own destruction (as people move away and create competition), but fundamentally that's your call to make. Just like its mine to ignore you or your requests that I talk to your affiliated servers, edit and filter the content once it's on my machine/infrastructure, and not pay attention to the nonsense you send.
derekp7 7y ago
Personally I would like an ad blocker that only blocks annoying ads, or ads that contain malware. I would also be willing to pay a monthly subscription for an adblock service, where the subscription gets divvied out to the sites I visit. In fact, I can think of how this could work on a large scale. A site can sign up to the adblock service to receive a prorated portion of revenues that individual subscribers pay in, and subscribers have a browser button where they can rate the site (thumbs up, neutral, or thumbs down) for usefulness. That rating can then be fed into a trainer for a search engine so that search results are tuned to that user's preferences (along with a user profile that gets automatically built up, or that a user can adjust themselves). For extra bonus points, the user can get a 10% discount on the service for agreeing to allow the adblock service to monetize that data (and agreeing to their data sharing policy) -- otherwise that data is used only to influence search results. BTW, for years I didn't bother with an ad blocker until I started getting repeatedly hit with malware served up by the ad networks. For that same reason I don't bother with an ad blocker on my phone, because so far I haven't gotten hit with ad-delivered malware on my phone or tablet yet.
- amphibian87 7y ago
  ad nauseum Firefox clicks ads already, to pay the person advertising. and you never see them. it's great in mobile too

DevKoala 7y ago

I agree. If you are using their platform, then you have to abide to their terms of use. I don't use Facebook for this reason.

glofish 7y ago
What if the company does not make it clear what the terms of use are - wich covers pretty much 99.99% of face book users. They trick you - you trick-em back.
commoner 7y ago
Not using Facebook is the best way to avoid Facebook ads, but Facebook's terms of service don't forbid ad blocking. https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms
- Jamwinner 7y ago
  Ads are the most benign thing FB does. If that was the only issue, nobody would care.

dannyr 7y ago

I dislike Facebook but using it means you should agree with how they monetize their business.

FussyZeus 7y ago
The network effects of sites like Facebook, YouTube, Google, and Twitter oftentimes mean taking the ethical stance and "not being part of it" can create serious harm to your business/career/vocation. There's a reason Instagram Influencer and YouTuber are, despite the sniggering of many people, real jobs that earn tons of money for those skilled in plying the craft.
- dannyr 7y ago
  True. I'm currently in the Philippines and a lot of businesses don't have their own web sites and just have Facebook and Instagram pages. I just browse Facebook without logging in but it has a huge dialog asking me to log in. Of course there are exceptions to the rule but most people are not IG Influencers and Youtubers so opting out of these social media services are not as painful.
  - godzillabrennus 7y ago
    Gotta love pinoy marketing. Treats. Not just a class of food but a brand for gas stations to sell food.
- grogenaut 7y ago
  You can pretty easily use any of these sites in a professional only capacity.
  - FussyZeus 7y ago
    But you're still using them, and by virtue of using them are increasing their engagement numbers, which is what they want. The only winning move is not to play. But they've created an environment where you pretty much have to.

tjpnz 7y ago

I have issues with Facebook and do everything I can to limit my interaction with the platform, but for some situations it's unavoidable - RSVPs to events where there is no alternative, some things relating to births/deaths or marriages, close family members who I've failed to coax off their messaging platform all come to mind. In those situations I'm not going to compromise my own security or privacy.

grogenaut 7y ago
You can only rsvp over facebook, not via text, email, phone, in person, etc? I've never found there to be no alternative. Hell for most events unless the outlay to throw it was extensive you can just show up, I've never actually had an issue with this, and if they actually want you to show they'll call YOU.
- Jamwinner 7y ago
  Its amazing when you find out who are actually your friends, and who just likes you at their parties, or associated with their event.

crispinb 7y ago

There's some justice to that argument for access to strictly discretionary sites, but Facebook has been so 'successful' that it's now approaching monopolistic power, & is something close to required infrastructure. There are an increasing number of online contacts which literally offer no alternative. I have a few fake facebook accounts I'll use where I literally have no alternative, none of which have real data associated with them. I personally have a 100% no-corporate-propaganda rule. No logos on anything where avoidable, no ads allowed on my network, etc. If ads slip through ad blockers & I notice an ad somewhere I place the advertised product or company on a 'never buy' list. No-one other than Facebook has any benefit to gain by forcing ads on me, and frankly in the very unlikely circumstance that people do manage to damage Facebook by circumventing its propaganda platform, so much the better. I'd very much like to see it driven out of business (wild fantasy, I know).

grogenaut 7y ago
Can you give some specific examples of places with no contact alternatives? Not really grokking this point. Do you mean they (the business) can't be contacted any other way, and facebook is their only presence?
- crispinb 7y ago
  Not if specific means linking to FB! But, yes, there are many local businesses (notably pubs, cafes & some specialty stores) whose only online presence is there. Also some noncommercial stuff - eg in recent bush fires where I live, a local FB group was sometimes the most up to date, if not always the most accurate, source of information. Bizarrely, some XR events are also only publicised on FB.
- jameshilliard 7y ago
  Look at the developing world where services like internet.org/free basics exist, there are effectively no realistic alternatives for many people.

notafraudster 7y ago

"do everything they can to monetize" Except, evidently, allow users to pay money to not be subjected to ads.

rabidrat 7y ago
This is a really good observation. What if we required all ad-based services to make available an equivalent premium offering that showed no ads? I think 99% of people would be stunned at the necessary price and would not pay it anyway, but at least it would be quantified.
- grogenaut 7y ago
  not sure this is true. Twitch has Ad Free Turbo, it's about $15/month. Youtube had Red, similar price. Both have customers. The real issue is that with google or FB I don't know that I'm not still being sold all over the place. I only know with Twitch because I work there. Also Youtube has been ratcheting up the ads like crazy lately, and I'm very sure red isn't worth it for me personally.
  - rvnx 7y ago
    Well you know, your data is not directly sold. Your data with Google just as part of targeting campaigns ("User is high spender in Google") or equivalent in DoubleClick and Twitch/Amazon is on its way. If you prefer, we don't give to someone the info that IP A.B.C.D but we sell the possibility to target IP A.B.C.D with an ad. It's not "selling" data, but still monetizing it.
- beefield 7y ago
  This is one of the more important regulations big tech should be subjected to in my opinion. Let me pay for the services I use, with believable guarantees that my data is not used or sold in any way by the service provider. And regulate the cost to be a reasonable margin over production costs of these services. Hosting my hosting my posts and photos should not be that expensive.

ksangeelee 7y ago

The web has, since the very beginning I think, had the notion of public and private resources, where access to private resources requires authentication. I view facebook as an almost entirely private resource, protected by a user name, password, and terms of use. So, they can do what they want within the law, so far as I care. I only get annoyed when people engage in hostile behaviour on the public internet - resources that we're meant to freely read, share links to, or index, or process in whatever way we choose. As far as I can tell, facebook do quite a good job of keeping their walled garden well controlled and secure. I barely see anything of their website, but others are willing to jump through hoops just to be in there (e.g. sending in copies of passports). You know, these people will put up with quite a lot of abuse.

Lio 7y ago

I don’t blame Facebook for trying insist you see ads. I do blame them for dirty dark patterns like blocking copy and paste in calendar events so that you can’t copy them to an external service.

Yhippa 7y ago

I think they should provide an option to perhaps pay them directly to opt-out of ads. If you choose not to pay but still use their service for free then they must do what they must to monetize.