3 ms·

Those things won't change, the charge will just be on top. And if they judge you broke a rule that will be an extra $50. But you can appeal for $200?

Nextgrid 4y ago
> And if they judge you broke a rule that will be an extra $50. But you can appeal for $200? The fact that money is involved would put them under legal scrutiny. It may not actually be a bad deal - the fee can be refunded if the appeal is legitimate (the fee is just to deter spammers) and if they still act maliciously you can take them to small claims court since there's now a defined monetary loss.
Nextgrid 4y ago
> the charge will just be on top. Disagreed - if ad- and engagement-based social media becomes a regulatory minefield then other monetization models suddenly become attractive. The final price will always only be limited by what the market is actually willing to bear.
- Clubber 4y ago
  What are the alternatives from a advertiser's perspective though? Put an ad in the paper? TV? Radio? Those just don't have the viewership anymore.
  - Nextgrid 4y ago
    > Put an ad in the paper? TV? Radio? Those just don't have the viewership anymore. Ultimately people have a specific amount of disposable income regardless of how much advertising you throw at them, so the market will rebalance. There might be less advertising overall, which is a good thing for many reasons but one of them would be that the advertising that remains becomes more effective. The mediums you mention currently don't have the viewership because all attention is consumed by social media - this may very well change. In addition, the issue only applies to the common definition of internet advertising. Advertisers can still produce first-party content just like any other user on the platform and people will like/follow/share it if it's useful or entertaining to them. Product placement will still work, and so on.

Nextgrid 4y ago

> And if they judge you broke a rule that will be an extra $50. But you can appeal for $200? The fact that money is involved would put them under legal scrutiny. It may not actually be a bad deal - the fee can be refunded if the appeal is legitimate (the fee is just to deter spammers) and if they still act maliciously you can take them to small claims court since there's now a defined monetary loss.

Nextgrid 4y ago

> the charge will just be on top. Disagreed - if ad- and engagement-based social media becomes a regulatory minefield then other monetization models suddenly become attractive. The final price will always only be limited by what the market is actually willing to bear.

Clubber 4y ago
What are the alternatives from a advertiser's perspective though? Put an ad in the paper? TV? Radio? Those just don't have the viewership anymore.
- Nextgrid 4y ago
  > Put an ad in the paper? TV? Radio? Those just don't have the viewership anymore. Ultimately people have a specific amount of disposable income regardless of how much advertising you throw at them, so the market will rebalance. There might be less advertising overall, which is a good thing for many reasons but one of them would be that the advertising that remains becomes more effective. The mediums you mention currently don't have the viewership because all attention is consumed by social media - this may very well change. In addition, the issue only applies to the common definition of internet advertising. Advertisers can still produce first-party content just like any other user on the platform and people will like/follow/share it if it's useful or entertaining to them. Product placement will still work, and so on.