3 ms·

I appreciate HN generally for its measured, evidence-based and logical approach to most things. But I can't help but feel that the anti-FB sentiment on HN goes

I appreciate HN generally for its measured, evidence-based and logical approach to most things. But I can't help but feel that the anti-FB sentiment on HN goes too far when parody articles with no substantial points made shoot to the top of HN within minutes.

ycombinete 6y ago
Front pages are always filled with articles that can garner a large amount of upvotes, on the agreeableness of their title alone. I don’t think HN is immune to that.
_def 6y ago
This displays the critical stance of HN users against Facebook, which is an important expression, culturally.
lnanek2 6y ago
> parody articles with no substantial points Personally, I found this article super useful. We've had long discussions at my company about what Facebook's announcement about not supporting IDFA opt-in means: https://twitter.com/rjonesy/status/1298662658934222848 https://twitter.com/rjonesy/status/1298662658934222848 This article made it much more clear. It's one of the only ones that addressed why Facebook says advertisers have to create a separate advertising account for iOS 14 ads, for example. What Facebook tells you: " To help preserve the fidelity of app install campaign measurement, we will require the creation and usage of a dedicated iOS 14 ad account " What the article explains: " Unfortunately, however, it will require them to set up a completely new advertising account to run campaigns for iOS users, because it’s not going to apply Apple’s new privacy protection measures any further than it has to " Makes sense. Facebook's recommendation to apps showing ads is to implement Facebook login or uploading hashed user information (Advanced Matching). Apple is already cracking down on those approaches, like saying any app that has social login must also support Apple login.

3 ms·

I appreciate HN generally for its measured, evidence-based and logical approach to most things. But I can't help but feel that the anti-FB sentiment on HN goes

by phonebucket 6y ago

ycombinete 6y ago
Front pages are always filled with articles that can garner a large amount of upvotes, on the agreeableness of their title alone. I don’t think HN is immune to that.
_def 6y ago
This displays the critical stance of HN users against Facebook, which is an important expression, culturally.
lnanek2 6y ago
> parody articles with no substantial points Personally, I found this article super useful. We've had long discussions at my company about what Facebook's announcement about not supporting IDFA opt-in means: https://twitter.com/rjonesy/status/1298662658934222848 https://twitter.com/rjonesy/status/1298662658934222848 This article made it much more clear. It's one of the only ones that addressed why Facebook says advertisers have to create a separate advertising account for iOS 14 ads, for example. What Facebook tells you: " To help preserve the fidelity of app install campaign measurement, we will require the creation and usage of a dedicated iOS 14 ad account " What the article explains: " Unfortunately, however, it will require them to set up a completely new advertising account to run campaigns for iOS users, because it’s not going to apply Apple’s new privacy protection measures any further than it has to " Makes sense. Facebook's recommendation to apps showing ads is to implement Facebook login or uploading hashed user information (Advanced Matching). Apple is already cracking down on those approaches, like saying any app that has social login must also support Apple login.