3 ms·

> They are simply letting third party advertisers advertise. I don't think it's quite that simple. Facebook controls the juxtaposition of ads with content, and

> They are simply letting third party advertisers advertise. I don't think it's quite that simple. Facebook controls the juxtaposition of ads with content, and with each other. This can reinforce the power of the individual ads, or attenuate it. In this case, it's pretty clearly creating a "caravan" of ads because that's more effective than letting each stand alone. Disclaimer: I used to work at Facebook, but I was in storage. It gave me no particular insight into how the ad system works. This is just based on general knowledge of how human psychology and ML work.

filoleg 6y ago
>Facebook controls the juxtaposition of ads with content, and with each other. This can reinforce the power of the individual ads, or attenuate it. In this case, it's pretty clearly creating a "caravan" of ads because that's more effective than letting each stand alone. Oh, totally agreed on this one. FB fully controls the layout and where ads are displayed. When I said that FB doesn't control things, I meant that they don't control and decide which ads get shown to you, it is all down to what advertisers advertise, and whether you fall under those specific target audiences.
- gnu8 6y ago
  So what is the argument here? Facebook should manipulate their advertising marketplace to prevent this? You can buy ads to sell your gun supplies and body armor but when it comes to targeting the ads, you can't choose the demographic groups that are buying this stuff up like it is going out of style? I think Facebook is awful, but this how their business works. I can't see them going out of their way to not serve their customers and not make money, outside of public outcry or government regulation forcing them to.
  - notacoward 6y ago
    > So what is the argument here? I'm not sure GP is suggesting anything, and I know I'm not. These are just observations about how things actually work. The fact that certain groups of users get "bombarded" with ads for certain categories does not indicate intent or interference, as some here have suggested. It just means the system is doing what it's designed to do, which is to optimize the effectiveness and efficiency of serving billions of ads to billions of people.
  - filoleg 6y ago
    Oh, I think you misunderstood, I am fully in agreement with you here, I wasn't proposing a change. I was just answering to a comment to clarify an earlier point. The specifics I mentioned are not something that I am proposing as a target for a change, because, as you said, this is how their ad business works, and it seems pretty fair.
    - gnu8 6y ago
      Sorry, that was an awkward way to phrase that. I was addressing the thread as a whole, not your specific comment. What I mean is that this is the predictable and proven behavior of Facebook, so is this a target for change now that we don't like this particular result? Or should Facebook be somehow regulated to prevent this type of behavior generally?

filoleg 6y ago

>Facebook controls the juxtaposition of ads with content, and with each other. This can reinforce the power of the individual ads, or attenuate it. In this case, it's pretty clearly creating a "caravan" of ads because that's more effective than letting each stand alone. Oh, totally agreed on this one. FB fully controls the layout and where ads are displayed. When I said that FB doesn't control things, I meant that they don't control and decide which ads get shown to you, it is all down to what advertisers advertise, and whether you fall under those specific target audiences.

gnu8 6y ago
So what is the argument here? Facebook should manipulate their advertising marketplace to prevent this? You can buy ads to sell your gun supplies and body armor but when it comes to targeting the ads, you can't choose the demographic groups that are buying this stuff up like it is going out of style? I think Facebook is awful, but this how their business works. I can't see them going out of their way to not serve their customers and not make money, outside of public outcry or government regulation forcing them to.
- notacoward 6y ago
  > So what is the argument here? I'm not sure GP is suggesting anything, and I know I'm not. These are just observations about how things actually work. The fact that certain groups of users get "bombarded" with ads for certain categories does not indicate intent or interference, as some here have suggested. It just means the system is doing what it's designed to do, which is to optimize the effectiveness and efficiency of serving billions of ads to billions of people.
- filoleg 6y ago
  Oh, I think you misunderstood, I am fully in agreement with you here, I wasn't proposing a change. I was just answering to a comment to clarify an earlier point. The specifics I mentioned are not something that I am proposing as a target for a change, because, as you said, this is how their ad business works, and it seems pretty fair.
  - gnu8 6y ago
    Sorry, that was an awkward way to phrase that. I was addressing the thread as a whole, not your specific comment. What I mean is that this is the predictable and proven behavior of Facebook, so is this a target for change now that we don't like this particular result? Or should Facebook be somehow regulated to prevent this type of behavior generally?