36 ms·

Let's be fair here. Shared.com is in the business of producing and distributing crap content. That's a subjective term, but it's like the supreme court ruling

Let's be fair here. Shared.com is in the business of producing and distributing crap content. That's a subjective term, but it's like the supreme court ruling on pornography, you'll know it when you see it. These guys most likely "skirt the line" to just operate as a mediocre and crappy content distribution network, that at scale, makes a lot of money because there is a certain subset of the population that will eat up any content at any quality level. Facebook decided they don't want to be a part of this type of content distribution, and they made a conscious business decision to not to engage with it's owners and operators because it will simply result in an exercise of splitting hairs and a reduction to the ridiculous. They just aren't going to bring themselves down to the level... and I don't blame them.

h43k3r 6y ago
You are right about content. But in that case FB should have clearly communicated about violations for those pages and given a chance to correct them. Also taking down personal accounts seems more like an automated action where a graph of related accounts are taken down.
- SilasX 6y ago
  It's not even about violations (which there may not have been), just some kind of explanation. "Hey we don't want to be involved in this kind of content, we're making a judgment call to disallow it."
  - blantonl 6y ago
    With regards to this, my point was that Facebook doesn't want to get into a long drawn out discussion with whataboutisms and splitting hairs on policy. They made a business decision to move on from this content platform. I love to hate on facebook with the best of them, but they really don't "owe" anyone anything. There seems to be this pervasive attitude in technology circles that platforms "owe" other businesses and individuals something when they build businesses on top of said platforms. Just because you spent 54MM in ads on a platform doesn't entitle you to anything when a legal or business decision has to be made. Is it crappy not to communicate and give an explanation...? you bet it is. Did that 54MM in spend generate anything for Shared... you bet it did. Everyone was a winner until Facebook moved on. I suspect that Facebook and Shared working to negotiate out of this will just result in a lot of spinning wheels, ammunition collection on both sides to pursue legal remedies, and nothing of real value changing. Facebook said we're moving on. Done.
    - SilasX 6y ago
      Okay there are two separate issues here: 1) I think it's very unhelpful to speak in terms of "not owing things" to people and defending anyone whoever does the absolute minimum until they're dragged kicking and screaming to extend the most basic courtesy. Part of being a decent human being is extending such basic courtesies to others even when there's no legal obligation to do so, and, when an org doesn't do that, it's absolutely right to call them out on it. 2) If you're right, that this only came after extensive negotiation in which FB did reveal their objections, then yes, it's fair to call the advertiser out on that, for misrepresenting what explanation FB gave him. Edit: Also, >With regards to this, my point was that Facebook doesn't want to get into a long drawn out discussion with whataboutisms and splitting hairs on policy. That's not relevant, because FB can recognize when they're making a judgment call; my point was just that it's courteous to at least recognize when you're doing so.
    - nojokes 6y ago
      In what kind of Lalaland is 50 million nothing?
      - maskedinvader 6y ago
        I guess parent comment is comparing facebook's quarterly revenue (~20 Billion) from ad sales, 50 million would be a fraction of a percent of 1 quarter of ad revenue I would imagine for a company like Facebook.
      - CamperBob2 6y ago
        In the context of advertising, I read "57M" as $57,000. They would normally write 57MM if they meant $57 million, wouldn't they?
        pdonis 6y ago
        > In the context of advertising, I read "57M" as $57,000. ?? I would expect to see $57,000 abbreviated as $57K.
        6y ago
_vertigo 6y ago
Facebook is absolutely full to the brim with “crap content”. Crap content happens to be what drives engagement, so hosting crap content is a large part of Facebook’s business model. You’re speaking with a pretty authoritative tone there as though you’re absolutely sure that Facebook has had a change of heart and only wants to host quality content, and there’s no other reason why the pages were removed. Do you have some sort of proof for that, or are you just speculating? If you’re speculating, don’t you think it would be a good idea to match the tone of your post to your true amount of confidence in what you’re saying, so as not to misinform people who might read your comment?
- blantonl 6y ago
  I stand by what I posted. I'm allowed to be authoritative as I want in my opinions and what I deem to be a personal analysis of what is a subjective issue. If you aren't in agreement with my assertions, you are free to click the down arrow to the left of the post.
  - javajosh 6y ago
    Although I usually ignore responses like in the GP, I like what you wrote here. It implicitly names the unfair rhetorical attack (effectively the kind of strawman that treats you as if you spoke authoritatively, when you were clearly giving your opinion). But yeah, with the right audience you don't have to respond at all, we'll know wassup.
    - aldarisbm 6y ago
      But he did speak authoritatively, "Facebook decided..." Facebook didn't decide anything as far as we know, he's presenting his opinions as facts, they aren't.
  - harperlee 6y ago
    Absolutely. I just mentally add “in my opinion” to everything I read and its liberating; I think way few people do it. More people should see the good wife.
webmobdev 6y ago
> Facebook decided they don't want to be a part of this type of content distribution Isn't that a slippery slope? In my country, Facebook decided not to ban some right-wing posters for hate speech because the right-wing in power had managed to get one of their OWN into Facebook, who "advised" Facebook that fighting hate-speech from such people would adversely affect Facebook operation in India as the government in power won't be happy about it. This person also got Facebook to take down opposition ads during the elections, thus harming their electoral prospects. Source: Facebook and Narendra Modi: How FB’s policy head in India allowed a BJP politician to spread hate online so that it would not hurt its “business prospects” - https://churumuri.blog/2020/08/15/facebook-and-narendra-modi-how-fbs-policy-head-in-india-allowed-a-bjp-politician-to-spread-hate-online-so-that-it-would-not-hurt-its-business-prospects/ https://churumuri.blog/2020/08/15/facebook-and-narendra-modi...
ogre_codes 6y ago
> Shared.com is in the business of producing and distributing crap content. ... > They just aren't going to bring themselves down to the level... and I don't blame them. Without being familiar with Shared, I'm willing to take you at your word on the company. I do question your conclusion though. I've seen no indications that Facebook has any standards and if anything they seem to promote crap content not bury it. If it drives engagement and doesn't bring legal trouble to their doorstep, Facebook seems to be all over it. Which makes me think there is something else going on here.
- hsuduebc2 6y ago
  Exactly. Number of crappy Chinese comedy videos with millions of reacts is astounding.
- admax88q 6y ago
  There's a difference between "crap content" shared by users on the platform, and crap content promoted via ads.
  - ogre_codes 6y ago
    The difference is primarily the fact that the crap content promoted by ads pays Facebook's bills.
    - renewiltord 6y ago
      The natural conclusion being that they're sacrificing money for some higher purpose, surely a praiseworthy act.
JamesBarney 6y ago
I run a consulting company and if I decided to stop working for a client the right thing would be to give some explanation even if it's "We don't think your website meets our quality bar". Almost 80% of the ads I see on Facebook are of similar quality. If they're trying to reduce low quality content on their platform, than they should just say that.
- corobo 6y ago
  Why open yourself up to a lawsuit though? If you say something that can't be solidly proven now you have to deal with lawyers
  - JamesBarney 6y ago
    Because it's the right thing to do and I doubt it really has much influence on liability unless you say something like "we're not working with you because you're a black woman".
    - dstick 6y ago
      I watched a documentary called “Suits” a while back about a corporate legal firm and that convinced me that you are wrong. Those well dressed professionals will use anything you say against you in the court of law!
      - smarx007 6y ago
        https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1632701/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1632701/ is a documentary? I am afraid you failed to read the fine print ;) I think the average legalese boilerplate is along the following lines: All characters and events depicted in this film are entirely fictitious. Any similarity to actual events or persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.
        ummonk 6y ago
        You're replying to obvious sarcasm.
Yetanfou 6y ago
You answer gives me vibes of the recent spat of apologetic answers to the news of Apple banning the "Amphetamine" app in that you defend a behemoth banning something or someone on vague grounds - a discussion on this type of Stockholm syndrome can be found here [1]. My response on to how to handle the shenanigans of these corporate megaliths - by shunning them [2] - was voted down so I have to assume that this is not seen as a viable option either. Is the general opinion here really that we are to simply give in to the whims of these companies? The argument here is that shared.com distributes "mediocre and crappy content". If that is the bar by which companies are to be measured Facebook itself would never be able to meet it. I sense a need for a new Ralph Nader, someone who has the clout to take on these companies and put them in their place. That place is not in the halls of power, it is not at the dining table of lawmakers, in the ear of regulators. Their place is on the market where they are to compete with other companies, where developers and users use their power of choice to keep them from attaining too much power as they currently clearly have. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25618066 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25618066 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25606807 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25606807
- Gibbon1 6y ago
  > Is the general opinion here really that we are to simply give in to the whims of these companies? Ans: I can't pay for the $2M house I bought in Noe Valley on a normal salary.
  - Yetanfou 6y ago
    That is just a matter of priorities. That $2M house in Noe Valley is a $500K house elsewhere as many ex-Californians have already found out. Yes, that'd imply moving elsewhere which creates another stack of priorities to sort out, some of which actually would point towards moving as well - where do you want your potential or actual children to grow up, etc. Still, sometimes there is a need to give up some temporary comfort to preserve a longer-term comfort.
maxehmookau 6y ago
I was with you until this statement: > Facebook decided they don't want to be a part of this type of content distribution Facebook's entire business model is built around the proliferation of "crap" content.
BikiniPrince 6y ago
Well let’s be fair here. They made that conscious decision after running away with the money. After the first few mil wouldn’t you understand your partner a little better? At 57 it’s a rocky divorce and you know full well who you were sleeping with.
- ipsum2 6y ago
  To be fair, it's a business transaction. I can sell you $50 million widgets, and decide to not sell you any more for (almost) any reason.
  - tpoacher 6y ago
    Depends on the product and your reason for refusing to sell to a particular customer/group who is not against your TOS. This is not like there was a contract and you decide not to extend. It sounds more like "I dont sell to gays anymore and I don't have to explain myself to you". Not cool. Especially if you rely on that product for your business. Even if your business is something like Shared.com.
  - Grustaf 6y ago
    Yeah but this is not really the same. You spend money on advertising to build up your brand, your followers are your capital. Facebook took money for ads, that did indeed build up the follower capital, but then suddenly they didn't just stop accepting ads (which would have been fine), they destroyed the capital by removing their page. At least that's how I understand what happened.
- valuearb 6y ago
  Divorces often happen when one parties standards change.
bosswipe 6y ago
> Facebook decided ... How do you know that?
rkachowski 6y ago
How can you know Facebook decided anything? It could just as easily been an algorithmic error.
- Retric 6y ago
  Algorithms don’t close 57 Million dollar advertising accounts without some oversight.
  - bigiain 6y ago
    Not even “move fast and break things” evolved algorithms? (I suspect you are right though, and this is more likely to be a “hot or not” type arbitrary decision from a management team developed around superficial face value judgements and zero empathy... Apple ended up with a “Jobs culture”, Facebook reflects Zuckerberg...)
  - smaryjerry 6y ago
    That is pure speculation. Algorithms are all completely individual and a catch all term for basically anything done in software automatically. Whether the algorithm factors in advertising dollars or not is a complete unknown.
IThinkImOKAY 6y ago
>Your Page has been unpublished They even give them a reason. How is: >they kicked me and my pages off without warning or explanation truthful?
- btilly 6y ago
  What reason are you talking about? The only message that I can find which might qualify is, *“Due to repeated Page violations, you can’t post to any Pages eligible for monetization.” That doesn't explain what the violations might have been. And in the dashboard where they were supposed to see said violations, no pages were marked as having any violations. Which boils down to, "Due to repeated violations that we won't tell you about..." Yeah, in their position I wouldn't consider that an explanation either.
- Grustaf 6y ago
  They explicitly said they will not provide any reasons, for "security reasons".
jimnotgym 6y ago
And who are Facebook to decide what is crap? Since they claim to be somewhat of a public utility surely everyone within the bounds of the law should be able to post what they want. Facebook are, of course, not a publisher, yet they are now the editor? Sounds to me they are whatever they want to be, depending on the audience.
Imnimo 6y ago
Wow, you were right about crap content. I'd never heard of shared.com, but the articles on that site are complete garbage. I really don't understand how that sort of thing can generate enough money to spend millions of dollars on ads.
- supernovae 6y ago
  arbitration. Spend less on FB ads than what you earn shoving ads into the users browser. That's the real thing here, FB knows they can get crap content and earn more than 54 million lost in advertising it to 3rd party.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- JVillella 6y ago
  This is very common content marketing content. These articles are not intended to educate the reader, they're written to get high search rankings, and high click throughs.
  - Imnimo 6y ago
    So is the business that I buy an ad on Facebook, someone clicks on it, I then show them a bunch of ads, and I get paid enough for those ads to recoup the money I spent on my Facebook ad, and then some? Kind of genius, in a way.
    - rightbyte 6y ago
      Ye I believe so. They have like a picture of Britney Spear and an drug addict with the text "You can't believe how the celebtrity looks now" but no Britney if you click the article. I have seen it on Forbes looking over a shoulder without adblock. I guess they do click scams via bots too?
    - NoodleIncident 6y ago
      I always wondered who's actually making the money, when so many ads inside free mobile games are for other free mobile games. Someone has to actually buy something at some point! I wish there was a global tracker for services that make money through ads, that reported the percent of ads that are for other services in the same category. All that data is secret though, probably.
sfblah 6y ago
Ok, but if an advertiser spends $57M across many years generating likes on the platform and doesn't change its business practices materially across that timespan, it seems like they might be entitled to a refund when the pages are shut down.
- criddell 6y ago
  Why? They paid for a service and received it. If your ISP decides to pull out of your area and sends you a notice that your account will be closed at the end of the month, would you expect to be reimbursed for the years of service you paid for?
slenk 6y ago
> Shared.com is in the business of producing and distributing crap content. Isn't that essentially FB's goal too? Albeit crap content that hits your brain's pleasure center
wesleywt 6y ago
If it was Facebook's policy to remove what hackernews determines to be "crap content" then this should be communicated to the users so that they can adjust their behavior. They did not change their policies nor was the account flagged as being outside the TOS.
tyingq 6y ago
"Facebook decided they don't want to be a part of this type of content distribution" I still see lots of these types of ads on Facebook, just from different publishers. Are they broadly going after it?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Technically 6y ago
> Shared.com is in the business of producing and distributing crap content. What the hell is a non-crap ad?
Triv888 6y ago
> Shared.com is in the business of producing and distributing crap content. They must have pissed off Zuck some other way because I don't think that he cares about that.
SergeAx 6y ago
At first glance, Facebook's content is a way crappier. Did you check "Recommended videos" section recently?
LdSGSgvupDV 6y ago
There are lots of crap game ad, crap video ad, and crap fan page ad. I would be glad if fb banned them all, especially crap mobile game ad.
xnx 6y ago
There's a lot not to like about Facebook and Uber, but they both replace systems that were much less reputable (i.e. ad networks that delivered all manner of deceptive and malicious ads, or taxi operators that were low quality and dangerous).

h43k3r 6y ago

You are right about content. But in that case FB should have clearly communicated about violations for those pages and given a chance to correct them. Also taking down personal accounts seems more like an automated action where a graph of related accounts are taken down.

SilasX 6y ago
It's not even about violations (which there may not have been), just some kind of explanation. "Hey we don't want to be involved in this kind of content, we're making a judgment call to disallow it."
- blantonl 6y ago
  With regards to this, my point was that Facebook doesn't want to get into a long drawn out discussion with whataboutisms and splitting hairs on policy. They made a business decision to move on from this content platform. I love to hate on facebook with the best of them, but they really don't "owe" anyone anything. There seems to be this pervasive attitude in technology circles that platforms "owe" other businesses and individuals something when they build businesses on top of said platforms. Just because you spent 54MM in ads on a platform doesn't entitle you to anything when a legal or business decision has to be made. Is it crappy not to communicate and give an explanation...? you bet it is. Did that 54MM in spend generate anything for Shared... you bet it did. Everyone was a winner until Facebook moved on. I suspect that Facebook and Shared working to negotiate out of this will just result in a lot of spinning wheels, ammunition collection on both sides to pursue legal remedies, and nothing of real value changing. Facebook said we're moving on. Done.
  - SilasX 6y ago
    Okay there are two separate issues here: 1) I think it's very unhelpful to speak in terms of "not owing things" to people and defending anyone whoever does the absolute minimum until they're dragged kicking and screaming to extend the most basic courtesy. Part of being a decent human being is extending such basic courtesies to others even when there's no legal obligation to do so, and, when an org doesn't do that, it's absolutely right to call them out on it. 2) If you're right, that this only came after extensive negotiation in which FB did reveal their objections, then yes, it's fair to call the advertiser out on that, for misrepresenting what explanation FB gave him. Edit: Also, >With regards to this, my point was that Facebook doesn't want to get into a long drawn out discussion with whataboutisms and splitting hairs on policy. That's not relevant, because FB can recognize when they're making a judgment call; my point was just that it's courteous to at least recognize when you're doing so.
  - nojokes 6y ago
    In what kind of Lalaland is 50 million nothing?
    - maskedinvader 6y ago
      I guess parent comment is comparing facebook's quarterly revenue (~20 Billion) from ad sales, 50 million would be a fraction of a percent of 1 quarter of ad revenue I would imagine for a company like Facebook.
    - CamperBob2 6y ago
      In the context of advertising, I read "57M" as $57,000. They would normally write 57MM if they meant $57 million, wouldn't they?
      - pdonis 6y ago
        > In the context of advertising, I read "57M" as $57,000. ?? I would expect to see $57,000 abbreviated as $57K.
        6y ago

_vertigo 6y ago

Facebook is absolutely full to the brim with “crap content”. Crap content happens to be what drives engagement, so hosting crap content is a large part of Facebook’s business model. You’re speaking with a pretty authoritative tone there as though you’re absolutely sure that Facebook has had a change of heart and only wants to host quality content, and there’s no other reason why the pages were removed. Do you have some sort of proof for that, or are you just speculating? If you’re speculating, don’t you think it would be a good idea to match the tone of your post to your true amount of confidence in what you’re saying, so as not to misinform people who might read your comment?

blantonl 6y ago
I stand by what I posted. I'm allowed to be authoritative as I want in my opinions and what I deem to be a personal analysis of what is a subjective issue. If you aren't in agreement with my assertions, you are free to click the down arrow to the left of the post.
- javajosh 6y ago
  Although I usually ignore responses like in the GP, I like what you wrote here. It implicitly names the unfair rhetorical attack (effectively the kind of strawman that treats you as if you spoke authoritatively, when you were clearly giving your opinion). But yeah, with the right audience you don't have to respond at all, we'll know wassup.
  - aldarisbm 6y ago
    But he did speak authoritatively, "Facebook decided..." Facebook didn't decide anything as far as we know, he's presenting his opinions as facts, they aren't.
- harperlee 6y ago
  Absolutely. I just mentally add “in my opinion” to everything I read and its liberating; I think way few people do it. More people should see the good wife.

webmobdev 6y ago

> Facebook decided they don't want to be a part of this type of content distribution Isn't that a slippery slope? In my country, Facebook decided not to ban some right-wing posters for hate speech because the right-wing in power had managed to get one of their OWN into Facebook, who "advised" Facebook that fighting hate-speech from such people would adversely affect Facebook operation in India as the government in power won't be happy about it. This person also got Facebook to take down opposition ads during the elections, thus harming their electoral prospects. Source: Facebook and Narendra Modi: How FB’s policy head in India allowed a BJP politician to spread hate online so that it would not hurt its “business prospects” - https://churumuri.blog/2020/08/15/facebook-and-narendra-modi-how-fbs-policy-head-in-india-allowed-a-bjp-politician-to-spread-hate-online-so-that-it-would-not-hurt-its-business-prospects/ https://churumuri.blog/2020/08/15/facebook-and-narendra-modi...

ogre_codes 6y ago

> Shared.com is in the business of producing and distributing crap content. ... > They just aren't going to bring themselves down to the level... and I don't blame them. Without being familiar with Shared, I'm willing to take you at your word on the company. I do question your conclusion though. I've seen no indications that Facebook has any standards and if anything they seem to promote crap content not bury it. If it drives engagement and doesn't bring legal trouble to their doorstep, Facebook seems to be all over it. Which makes me think there is something else going on here.

hsuduebc2 6y ago
Exactly. Number of crappy Chinese comedy videos with millions of reacts is astounding.
admax88q 6y ago
There's a difference between "crap content" shared by users on the platform, and crap content promoted via ads.
- ogre_codes 6y ago
  The difference is primarily the fact that the crap content promoted by ads pays Facebook's bills.
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    The natural conclusion being that they're sacrificing money for some higher purpose, surely a praiseworthy act.

JamesBarney 6y ago

I run a consulting company and if I decided to stop working for a client the right thing would be to give some explanation even if it's "We don't think your website meets our quality bar". Almost 80% of the ads I see on Facebook are of similar quality. If they're trying to reduce low quality content on their platform, than they should just say that.

corobo 6y ago
Why open yourself up to a lawsuit though? If you say something that can't be solidly proven now you have to deal with lawyers
- JamesBarney 6y ago
  Because it's the right thing to do and I doubt it really has much influence on liability unless you say something like "we're not working with you because you're a black woman".
  - dstick 6y ago
    I watched a documentary called “Suits” a while back about a corporate legal firm and that convinced me that you are wrong. Those well dressed professionals will use anything you say against you in the court of law!
    - smarx007 6y ago
      https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1632701/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1632701/ is a documentary? I am afraid you failed to read the fine print ;) I think the average legalese boilerplate is along the following lines: All characters and events depicted in this film are entirely fictitious. Any similarity to actual events or persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.
      - ummonk 6y ago
        You're replying to obvious sarcasm.

Yetanfou 6y ago

You answer gives me vibes of the recent spat of apologetic answers to the news of Apple banning the "Amphetamine" app in that you defend a behemoth banning something or someone on vague grounds - a discussion on this type of Stockholm syndrome can be found here [1]. My response on to how to handle the shenanigans of these corporate megaliths - by shunning them [2] - was voted down so I have to assume that this is not seen as a viable option either. Is the general opinion here really that we are to simply give in to the whims of these companies? The argument here is that shared.com distributes "mediocre and crappy content". If that is the bar by which companies are to be measured Facebook itself would never be able to meet it. I sense a need for a new Ralph Nader, someone who has the clout to take on these companies and put them in their place. That place is not in the halls of power, it is not at the dining table of lawmakers, in the ear of regulators. Their place is on the market where they are to compete with other companies, where developers and users use their power of choice to keep them from attaining too much power as they currently clearly have. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25618066 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25618066 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25606807 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25606807

Gibbon1 6y ago
> Is the general opinion here really that we are to simply give in to the whims of these companies? Ans: I can't pay for the $2M house I bought in Noe Valley on a normal salary.
- Yetanfou 6y ago
  That is just a matter of priorities. That $2M house in Noe Valley is a $500K house elsewhere as many ex-Californians have already found out. Yes, that'd imply moving elsewhere which creates another stack of priorities to sort out, some of which actually would point towards moving as well - where do you want your potential or actual children to grow up, etc. Still, sometimes there is a need to give up some temporary comfort to preserve a longer-term comfort.

maxehmookau 6y ago

I was with you until this statement: > Facebook decided they don't want to be a part of this type of content distribution Facebook's entire business model is built around the proliferation of "crap" content.

BikiniPrince 6y ago

Well let’s be fair here. They made that conscious decision after running away with the money. After the first few mil wouldn’t you understand your partner a little better? At 57 it’s a rocky divorce and you know full well who you were sleeping with.

ipsum2 6y ago
To be fair, it's a business transaction. I can sell you $50 million widgets, and decide to not sell you any more for (almost) any reason.
- tpoacher 6y ago
  Depends on the product and your reason for refusing to sell to a particular customer/group who is not against your TOS. This is not like there was a contract and you decide not to extend. It sounds more like "I dont sell to gays anymore and I don't have to explain myself to you". Not cool. Especially if you rely on that product for your business. Even if your business is something like Shared.com.
- Grustaf 6y ago
  Yeah but this is not really the same. You spend money on advertising to build up your brand, your followers are your capital. Facebook took money for ads, that did indeed build up the follower capital, but then suddenly they didn't just stop accepting ads (which would have been fine), they destroyed the capital by removing their page. At least that's how I understand what happened.
valuearb 6y ago
Divorces often happen when one parties standards change.

bosswipe 6y ago

> Facebook decided ... How do you know that?

rkachowski 6y ago

How can you know Facebook decided anything? It could just as easily been an algorithmic error.

Retric 6y ago
Algorithms don’t close 57 Million dollar advertising accounts without some oversight.
- bigiain 6y ago
  Not even “move fast and break things” evolved algorithms? (I suspect you are right though, and this is more likely to be a “hot or not” type arbitrary decision from a management team developed around superficial face value judgements and zero empathy... Apple ended up with a “Jobs culture”, Facebook reflects Zuckerberg...)
- smaryjerry 6y ago
  That is pure speculation. Algorithms are all completely individual and a catch all term for basically anything done in software automatically. Whether the algorithm factors in advertising dollars or not is a complete unknown.

IThinkImOKAY 6y ago

>Your Page has been unpublished They even give them a reason. How is: >they kicked me and my pages off without warning or explanation truthful?

btilly 6y ago
What reason are you talking about? The only message that I can find which might qualify is, *“Due to repeated Page violations, you can’t post to any Pages eligible for monetization.” That doesn't explain what the violations might have been. And in the dashboard where they were supposed to see said violations, no pages were marked as having any violations. Which boils down to, "Due to repeated violations that we won't tell you about..." Yeah, in their position I wouldn't consider that an explanation either.
Grustaf 6y ago
They explicitly said they will not provide any reasons, for "security reasons".

jimnotgym 6y ago

And who are Facebook to decide what is crap? Since they claim to be somewhat of a public utility surely everyone within the bounds of the law should be able to post what they want. Facebook are, of course, not a publisher, yet they are now the editor? Sounds to me they are whatever they want to be, depending on the audience.

Imnimo 6y ago

Wow, you were right about crap content. I'd never heard of shared.com, but the articles on that site are complete garbage. I really don't understand how that sort of thing can generate enough money to spend millions of dollars on ads.

supernovae 6y ago
arbitration. Spend less on FB ads than what you earn shoving ads into the users browser. That's the real thing here, FB knows they can get crap content and earn more than 54 million lost in advertising it to 3rd party.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
JVillella 6y ago
This is very common content marketing content. These articles are not intended to educate the reader, they're written to get high search rankings, and high click throughs.
- Imnimo 6y ago
  So is the business that I buy an ad on Facebook, someone clicks on it, I then show them a bunch of ads, and I get paid enough for those ads to recoup the money I spent on my Facebook ad, and then some? Kind of genius, in a way.
  - rightbyte 6y ago
    Ye I believe so. They have like a picture of Britney Spear and an drug addict with the text "You can't believe how the celebtrity looks now" but no Britney if you click the article. I have seen it on Forbes looking over a shoulder without adblock. I guess they do click scams via bots too?
  - NoodleIncident 6y ago
    I always wondered who's actually making the money, when so many ads inside free mobile games are for other free mobile games. Someone has to actually buy something at some point! I wish there was a global tracker for services that make money through ads, that reported the percent of ads that are for other services in the same category. All that data is secret though, probably.

sfblah 6y ago

Ok, but if an advertiser spends $57M across many years generating likes on the platform and doesn't change its business practices materially across that timespan, it seems like they might be entitled to a refund when the pages are shut down.

criddell 6y ago
Why? They paid for a service and received it. If your ISP decides to pull out of your area and sends you a notice that your account will be closed at the end of the month, would you expect to be reimbursed for the years of service you paid for?

slenk 6y ago

> Shared.com is in the business of producing and distributing crap content. Isn't that essentially FB's goal too? Albeit crap content that hits your brain's pleasure center

wesleywt 6y ago

If it was Facebook's policy to remove what hackernews determines to be "crap content" then this should be communicated to the users so that they can adjust their behavior. They did not change their policies nor was the account flagged as being outside the TOS.

tyingq 6y ago

"Facebook decided they don't want to be a part of this type of content distribution" I still see lots of these types of ads on Facebook, just from different publishers. Are they broadly going after it?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

Technically 6y ago

> Shared.com is in the business of producing and distributing crap content. What the hell is a non-crap ad?

Triv888 6y ago

> Shared.com is in the business of producing and distributing crap content. They must have pissed off Zuck some other way because I don't think that he cares about that.

SergeAx 6y ago

At first glance, Facebook's content is a way crappier. Did you check "Recommended videos" section recently?

LdSGSgvupDV 6y ago

There are lots of crap game ad, crap video ad, and crap fan page ad. I would be glad if fb banned them all, especially crap mobile game ad.

xnx 6y ago

There's a lot not to like about Facebook and Uber, but they both replace systems that were much less reputable (i.e. ad networks that delivered all manner of deceptive and malicious ads, or taxi operators that were low quality and dangerous).