3 ms·

There may be clickfarms that have their interests (accidentally) aligned with FB's in specific cases, which would mean FB has no interest in cracking down on th

There may be clickfarms that have their interests (accidentally) aligned with FB's in specific cases, which would mean FB has no interest in cracking down on them. And I wouldn't put it past FB to even indirectly operate such clickfarms if this means they can offer some support for the overinflated promises they make to advertisers.

nindalf 6y ago
You misunderstand me. You speak of Facebook as a large amorphous blob. But think of it in terms of people working on these problems. Why should the fake accounts team care about the metrics of the ads team? They will be rewarded based number of fake accounts caught, presumably. Not ad spend. So why would they not do their jobs?
- buran77 6y ago
  > Why should the fake accounts team care about the metrics of the ads team? Ok, now I understand what you meant. In this case it's because the strategy comes from high up and (putting plausible deniability of individuals like FB's CEO aside) the manager of the "fake accounts" team got some instructions from above to focus "here" not "there", and this just happens to be in the best interest of the "ads" team. The employees themselves may be individuals but they're there working for the vision of the company and CEO (because it's usually the CEO who sets the course and is aware of all these directives). They're not doing it for the other team, they're doing it because whoever set the strategy decided it's in the best interest of the company.
  - nindalf 6y ago
    > focus "here" not "there" What does this mean? Are they removing fake accounts or not?
    - buran77 6y ago
      Both? We don't live in a binary world my friend. They are removing some fake accounts and not others. I have worked in plenty of companies who were doing such a selective job (I'd say all companies do this when it comes to defending their interests) to know this isn't at all far fetched. Some departments are routinely instructed to turn a blind eye to the actions of some but not others. Sexual harassment is one topic that rubs me the wrong way since I worked (and quit from) companies who were pursuing these cases only if they were below a certain level in the hierarchy. Above that it was "blind eye" all around.
- cool_dude85 6y ago
  So, the fake accounts team does its job and identifies a huge group of accounts that it alleges are fake. It goes up the chain and nope, we won't shut them down, this isn't clear-cut, we need more evidence, etc.
  - nindalf 6y ago
    Right right. But according to public statements, the fake accounts team detects and takes action on tens of millions of fake accounts a day. So ... maybe such a directive doesn't exist?
    - buran77 6y ago
      You started with a presumably correct statistic but then drew the wrong conclusion. The police catches thousands of criminals daily. So there must be no corruption whatsoever at higher levels or else, presumably, the police would catch them.
- bagacrap 6y ago
  You could easily imagine that team being understaffed because of decisions made at the organizational level.

nindalf 6y ago

You misunderstand me. You speak of Facebook as a large amorphous blob. But think of it in terms of people working on these problems. Why should the fake accounts team care about the metrics of the ads team? They will be rewarded based number of fake accounts caught, presumably. Not ad spend. So why would they not do their jobs?

buran77 6y ago
> Why should the fake accounts team care about the metrics of the ads team? Ok, now I understand what you meant. In this case it's because the strategy comes from high up and (putting plausible deniability of individuals like FB's CEO aside) the manager of the "fake accounts" team got some instructions from above to focus "here" not "there", and this just happens to be in the best interest of the "ads" team. The employees themselves may be individuals but they're there working for the vision of the company and CEO (because it's usually the CEO who sets the course and is aware of all these directives). They're not doing it for the other team, they're doing it because whoever set the strategy decided it's in the best interest of the company.
- nindalf 6y ago
  > focus "here" not "there" What does this mean? Are they removing fake accounts or not?
  - buran77 6y ago
    Both? We don't live in a binary world my friend. They are removing some fake accounts and not others. I have worked in plenty of companies who were doing such a selective job (I'd say all companies do this when it comes to defending their interests) to know this isn't at all far fetched. Some departments are routinely instructed to turn a blind eye to the actions of some but not others. Sexual harassment is one topic that rubs me the wrong way since I worked (and quit from) companies who were pursuing these cases only if they were below a certain level in the hierarchy. Above that it was "blind eye" all around.
cool_dude85 6y ago
So, the fake accounts team does its job and identifies a huge group of accounts that it alleges are fake. It goes up the chain and nope, we won't shut them down, this isn't clear-cut, we need more evidence, etc.
- nindalf 6y ago
  Right right. But according to public statements, the fake accounts team detects and takes action on tens of millions of fake accounts a day. So ... maybe such a directive doesn't exist?
  - buran77 6y ago
    You started with a presumably correct statistic but then drew the wrong conclusion. The police catches thousands of criminals daily. So there must be no corruption whatsoever at higher levels or else, presumably, the police would catch them.
bagacrap 6y ago
You could easily imagine that team being understaffed because of decisions made at the organizational level.