4 ms·

They need to argue that, because otherwise it would eat into their bottom line to the point of unprofitability. You can't run a service for billions of people w

They need to argue that, because otherwise it would eat into their bottom line to the point of unprofitability. You can't run a service for billions of people with less than 100k employees that also has an editor review everything.

pc86 4y ago
Billions of people are not buying Facebook ads.
giantg2 4y ago
If it's unable to comply with the law and stay profitable, then maybe they should go out of business.
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  Or change their business model.
- ThePadawan 4y ago
  Fully agree! See also "loud pipes save lives".
- TremendousJudge 4y ago
  Yeah, I completely agree. I wasn't trying to imply that I condone their behavior.
dogleash 4y ago
That's a terrible argument as the thing to be reviewed (advertisement (not "everything")) is directly connected to a revenue stream and the level of time spent on reviews scales with the amount of income.
InitialLastName 4y ago
"We can't follow legal requirements at this scale" isn't an excuse we should be accepting from companies that want to continue operating.
hazeii 4y ago
How do they charge per advert? If I was paying someone hundreds - or thousands - of dollars, I'd certainly expect some degree of personal service.
- whimsicalism 4y ago
  The "personal service" is that they have created an entire social media platform just to serve your ads.
sixothree 4y ago
If they can afford to buy personal information about its users, they can afford basic compliance.
gloryjulio 4y ago
I am curious about how other similar platforms handle this problem (like youtube) handles this kind of problems. If someone could provide some insight it would be great
- TremendousJudge 4y ago
  They are all the same way, maybe even worse. Google is notoriously allergic to having real people in any step of a workflow, even for paying customers. Twitter is currently going through its own battle with the fact that a huge chunk of the userbase isn't even real. Amazon product quality is going down due to lack of manual quality checking of their sellers. And so on. The culprit is always the same: real people don't scale to the expectations of shareholders, so everything gets automated, and then some very real people show up and exploit the system.
TomSwirly 4y ago
You: "If they complied with the law, then they wouldn't be profitable." It seems your conclusion is, "Therefore they should be above the law." No, that isn't how it works. They *must* comply with the law, and if they cannot be profitable when they are not a criminal entity, then they should go out of business.

pc86 4y ago

Billions of people are not buying Facebook ads.

giantg2 4y ago

If it's unable to comply with the law and stay profitable, then maybe they should go out of business.

AnimalMuppet 4y ago
Or change their business model.
ThePadawan 4y ago
Fully agree! See also "loud pipes save lives".
TremendousJudge 4y ago
Yeah, I completely agree. I wasn't trying to imply that I condone their behavior.

dogleash 4y ago

That's a terrible argument as the thing to be reviewed (advertisement (not "everything")) is directly connected to a revenue stream and the level of time spent on reviews scales with the amount of income.

InitialLastName 4y ago

"We can't follow legal requirements at this scale" isn't an excuse we should be accepting from companies that want to continue operating.

hazeii 4y ago

How do they charge per advert? If I was paying someone hundreds - or thousands - of dollars, I'd certainly expect some degree of personal service.

whimsicalism 4y ago
The "personal service" is that they have created an entire social media platform just to serve your ads.

sixothree 4y ago

If they can afford to buy personal information about its users, they can afford basic compliance.

gloryjulio 4y ago

I am curious about how other similar platforms handle this problem (like youtube) handles this kind of problems. If someone could provide some insight it would be great

TremendousJudge 4y ago
They are all the same way, maybe even worse. Google is notoriously allergic to having real people in any step of a workflow, even for paying customers. Twitter is currently going through its own battle with the fact that a huge chunk of the userbase isn't even real. Amazon product quality is going down due to lack of manual quality checking of their sellers. And so on. The culprit is always the same: real people don't scale to the expectations of shareholders, so everything gets automated, and then some very real people show up and exploit the system.

TomSwirly 4y ago

You: "If they complied with the law, then they wouldn't be profitable." It seems your conclusion is, "Therefore they should be above the law." No, that isn't how it works. They *must* comply with the law, and if they cannot be profitable when they are not a criminal entity, then they should go out of business.