3 ms·

Can you clarify the abusive part? In your scenario, Alice already decided not to buy anything from AcmeShop. Even if AcmeShop advertised on Facebook it wouldn

Can you clarify the abusive part? In your scenario, Alice already decided not to buy anything from AcmeShop. Even if AcmeShop advertised on Facebook it wouldn't have changed her behavior. She got a better deal on Facebook Marketplace. And she was already visiting Facebook and the Marketplace is already a single click. I don't see the abusive or predatory part. It seems like Facebook Marketplace just offered a superior used 3D printer for her. So what part am I missing?

olliebrkr 2y ago
It's one sided. Facebook have all the data for how AcmeShop's products are selling. They are free to use this information to undercut AcmeShop's products with data AcmeShop does not have on Facebook. Yes, it's a better deal on the face of it, but as soon as AcmeShop goes out of business, competition is gone and Facebook can charge whatever they want. And we all know from the US markets that low to no competition does not benefit the consumer in any way.
- threeseed 2y ago
  None of this makes any sense. Facebook Marketplace is a marketplace. They don't control the products that are being advertised. All they can control is the weighting of ads they run on certain products e.g. "AirPods are popular, increase ad spend to 20% of total". But they could do this by simply optimising for ROAS just like every other company does. If Facebook is sharing AcmeShop data with Marketplace, and it's a very big if, it would still be of almost no value.
  - dgroshev 2y ago
    They don't control the products that are being advertised, but they make personalised ads for Marketplace products more effective by using data they collect elsewhere. If the ads are more effective, Marketplace is better at shifting goods, undermining the competition because their competition is forced to share data with Facebook through Facebook's (not Marketplace's) market position.
- crazygringo 2y ago
  I'm still not following. Facebook isn't setting prices on Marketplace -- sellers like you and me are. We're not getting any data from AcmeShop. When you say "Yes, it's a better deal on the face of it", I don't know what "deal" you're talking about.
dgroshev 2y ago
> In your scenario, Alice already decided not to buy anything from AcmeShop. Not really, that's exactly what "remarketing" ads are for — companies track people's interest and remind them of their products. However, in this case, Facebook is double dipping by taking money from their paying customer (AcmeShop), and then using data they obtained whilst serving their paying customer to frontrun the customer. If you or I tried something like that with Facebook — say, taking salary from Facebook and also using data we accessed through our role to undermine Facebook's business — it'd clearly be both illegal and immoral. Somehow, with enough layers of indirection, for a lot of people the same play is acceptable when Facebook does it.
- crazygringo 2y ago
  But I see "remarketing" ads everywhere. Google does it too. How is Facebook showing remarketing ads for items on Facebook Marketplace, the ads paid for by a Marketplace seller who is boosting their item, any different from Google showing remarketing ads for items on eBay, paid for by an eBay seller? Because that same thing would be happening if AcmeShop were using Google Analytics. Or if Alice had just done a Google search, which might be how she found AcmeShop in the first place. Or are you arguing against remarketing ads entirely? I guess I'm just having a hard time seeing any harm here because Alice visited AcmeShop first and didn't buy anything. Like, if I run a shop stall that sells frobulators, and I see someone pass by a nearby stall that also sells frobulators, and they browse but don't buy one, and after they leave I wave to them, and they buy one from me because I have the exact model they wanted... I don't see anything illegal or immoral at all. The first store already had their chance! If Alice liked their items, she would have already bought from there, or gone back there when she was ready to buy.
  - dgroshev 2y ago
    When Facebook is showing ads for items on Facebook Marketplace based on a customer visiting AcmeShop, for Facebook it's not "remarketing". It's only "remarketing" when AcmeShop does it. For Facebook, it's just targeting based on data they obtained during providing a paid service to AcmeShop. The customer didn't express interest but then abandon their purchase from Facebook yet. Google doing the same thing is hardly a good excuse. In your analogy, you don't just "see". You're employed by a nearby stall because you're one of the few plumbers in the town, so you're in that shop a lot, but you're also making photos of their customers and then use those photos to find them on the street and advertise your frobulators. You really don't see anything weird about this scenario? Besides, if a shop has only one chance ever, what are remarketing ads (marketed by Facebook to businesses) for?

olliebrkr 2y ago

It's one sided. Facebook have all the data for how AcmeShop's products are selling. They are free to use this information to undercut AcmeShop's products with data AcmeShop does not have on Facebook. Yes, it's a better deal on the face of it, but as soon as AcmeShop goes out of business, competition is gone and Facebook can charge whatever they want. And we all know from the US markets that low to no competition does not benefit the consumer in any way.

threeseed 2y ago
None of this makes any sense. Facebook Marketplace is a marketplace. They don't control the products that are being advertised. All they can control is the weighting of ads they run on certain products e.g. "AirPods are popular, increase ad spend to 20% of total". But they could do this by simply optimising for ROAS just like every other company does. If Facebook is sharing AcmeShop data with Marketplace, and it's a very big if, it would still be of almost no value.
- dgroshev 2y ago
  They don't control the products that are being advertised, but they make personalised ads for Marketplace products more effective by using data they collect elsewhere. If the ads are more effective, Marketplace is better at shifting goods, undermining the competition because their competition is forced to share data with Facebook through Facebook's (not Marketplace's) market position.
crazygringo 2y ago
I'm still not following. Facebook isn't setting prices on Marketplace -- sellers like you and me are. We're not getting any data from AcmeShop. When you say "Yes, it's a better deal on the face of it", I don't know what "deal" you're talking about.

dgroshev 2y ago

> In your scenario, Alice already decided not to buy anything from AcmeShop. Not really, that's exactly what "remarketing" ads are for — companies track people's interest and remind them of their products. However, in this case, Facebook is double dipping by taking money from their paying customer (AcmeShop), and then using data they obtained whilst serving their paying customer to frontrun the customer. If you or I tried something like that with Facebook — say, taking salary from Facebook and also using data we accessed through our role to undermine Facebook's business — it'd clearly be both illegal and immoral. Somehow, with enough layers of indirection, for a lot of people the same play is acceptable when Facebook does it.

crazygringo 2y ago
But I see "remarketing" ads everywhere. Google does it too. How is Facebook showing remarketing ads for items on Facebook Marketplace, the ads paid for by a Marketplace seller who is boosting their item, any different from Google showing remarketing ads for items on eBay, paid for by an eBay seller? Because that same thing would be happening if AcmeShop were using Google Analytics. Or if Alice had just done a Google search, which might be how she found AcmeShop in the first place. Or are you arguing against remarketing ads entirely? I guess I'm just having a hard time seeing any harm here because Alice visited AcmeShop first and didn't buy anything. Like, if I run a shop stall that sells frobulators, and I see someone pass by a nearby stall that also sells frobulators, and they browse but don't buy one, and after they leave I wave to them, and they buy one from me because I have the exact model they wanted... I don't see anything illegal or immoral at all. The first store already had their chance! If Alice liked their items, she would have already bought from there, or gone back there when she was ready to buy.
- dgroshev 2y ago
  When Facebook is showing ads for items on Facebook Marketplace based on a customer visiting AcmeShop, for Facebook it's not "remarketing". It's only "remarketing" when AcmeShop does it. For Facebook, it's just targeting based on data they obtained during providing a paid service to AcmeShop. The customer didn't express interest but then abandon their purchase from Facebook yet. Google doing the same thing is hardly a good excuse. In your analogy, you don't just "see". You're employed by a nearby stall because you're one of the few plumbers in the town, so you're in that shop a lot, but you're also making photos of their customers and then use those photos to find them on the street and advertise your frobulators. You really don't see anything weird about this scenario? Besides, if a shop has only one chance ever, what are remarketing ads (marketed by Facebook to businesses) for?