3 ms·

> 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

> 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?
  - crazygringo 2y ago
    I think you've lost me. I thought you were suggesting this was remarketing, now you're saying it's just targeted advertising, are you saying targeted advertising is bad? Because AcmeShop is free to run targeted ads on Facebook too, whether remarketing or not. I genuinely don't understand what you think Facebook is doing wrong here in having a targeted ads platform at the same time as running Marketplace. I don't see how doing the two together is abusive or predatory in a way that is different from doing those things as separate corporations.
    - dgroshev 2y ago
      Alright, let's reframe this: - AcmeShop is paying Facebook money to run a targeted marketing campaign on Facebook - to do this, in practice AcmeShop is forced to share visit data with Facebook (this bit could be done differently, but for some reason that's how Facebook does it) - a customer goes to AcmeShop, doesn't make an immediate purchase, leaves - AcmeShop is paying Facebook to run a remarketing campaign for that customer, showing them the same product leading to AcmeShop - at the same time, Facebook is using information that they obtained in the process of providing paid services to AcmeShop to show goods on their marketplace platform to the customer. For Facebook, it's not "remarketing", it's just "marketing" at this point. Not only that, but they control which ads they are showing, and naturally with Marketplace-only placements Facebook has an advantage over AcmeShop (again, using information that they effectively forced AcmeShop to provide) Does this reframing make the problem of Facebook being both an ad seller, an ad manager, and offering the same service as their customers any clearer?
      - crazygringo 2y ago
        Thanks for explaining. I think I've identified the part in your argument I don't understand: > but they [Facebook] control which ads they are showing, and naturally with Marketplace-only placements Facebook has an advantage over AcmeShop My question is, why do you think Facebook won't simply sell the ad space to the highest bidder, whether it is AcmeShop or a Marketplace seller? Why do you think Facebook is giving an advantage to Marketplace ads? Do you have any evidence they are? Remember, Facebook doesn't even make money if you sell something locally and pay in cash. A big way that Marketplace makes money is through ads. But if AcmeShop is bidding more for ad space, then presumably Facebook will show the AcmeShop retargeting ad instead. If there is evidence that Facebook is showing lower-bidding Marketplace ads over higher-bidding AcmeShop ads in your Instagram feed, because of the fee it takes on shipped items that use Facebook Marketplace Payments, then yes I agree that would definitely be an abuse of power! And thank you for explaining that -- if that is what you're saying. But I think it has to be shown that Facebook is actually engaging in that kind of anti-competitive behavior. We can't just assume it. There's nothing inherently wrong with running the two businesses together. (Also, if by "Marketplace-only placements" you're referring to boosting listings within Marketplace as opposed to more general ads like on Facebook, there's nothing preventing AcmeShop from listing and boosting its items on Marketplace as well.)

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?
- crazygringo 2y ago
  I think you've lost me. I thought you were suggesting this was remarketing, now you're saying it's just targeted advertising, are you saying targeted advertising is bad? Because AcmeShop is free to run targeted ads on Facebook too, whether remarketing or not. I genuinely don't understand what you think Facebook is doing wrong here in having a targeted ads platform at the same time as running Marketplace. I don't see how doing the two together is abusive or predatory in a way that is different from doing those things as separate corporations.
  - dgroshev 2y ago
    Alright, let's reframe this: - AcmeShop is paying Facebook money to run a targeted marketing campaign on Facebook - to do this, in practice AcmeShop is forced to share visit data with Facebook (this bit could be done differently, but for some reason that's how Facebook does it) - a customer goes to AcmeShop, doesn't make an immediate purchase, leaves - AcmeShop is paying Facebook to run a remarketing campaign for that customer, showing them the same product leading to AcmeShop - at the same time, Facebook is using information that they obtained in the process of providing paid services to AcmeShop to show goods on their marketplace platform to the customer. For Facebook, it's not "remarketing", it's just "marketing" at this point. Not only that, but they control which ads they are showing, and naturally with Marketplace-only placements Facebook has an advantage over AcmeShop (again, using information that they effectively forced AcmeShop to provide) Does this reframing make the problem of Facebook being both an ad seller, an ad manager, and offering the same service as their customers any clearer?
    - crazygringo 2y ago
      Thanks for explaining. I think I've identified the part in your argument I don't understand: > but they [Facebook] control which ads they are showing, and naturally with Marketplace-only placements Facebook has an advantage over AcmeShop My question is, why do you think Facebook won't simply sell the ad space to the highest bidder, whether it is AcmeShop or a Marketplace seller? Why do you think Facebook is giving an advantage to Marketplace ads? Do you have any evidence they are? Remember, Facebook doesn't even make money if you sell something locally and pay in cash. A big way that Marketplace makes money is through ads. But if AcmeShop is bidding more for ad space, then presumably Facebook will show the AcmeShop retargeting ad instead. If there is evidence that Facebook is showing lower-bidding Marketplace ads over higher-bidding AcmeShop ads in your Instagram feed, because of the fee it takes on shipped items that use Facebook Marketplace Payments, then yes I agree that would definitely be an abuse of power! And thank you for explaining that -- if that is what you're saying. But I think it has to be shown that Facebook is actually engaging in that kind of anti-competitive behavior. We can't just assume it. There's nothing inherently wrong with running the two businesses together. (Also, if by "Marketplace-only placements" you're referring to boosting listings within Marketplace as opposed to more general ads like on Facebook, there's nothing preventing AcmeShop from listing and boosting its items on Marketplace as well.)