4 ms·
Their response focuses entirely on the issue of them charging them for a name change, and almost completely ignores the bot issue. I personally don't see that
by Lewton 14y ago
Their response focuses entirely on the issue of them charging them for a name change, and almost completely ignores the bot issue.
I personally don't see that as a big issue, it would make sense that they don't let pages change names willy-nilly. This response is peculiar
- fooey 14y agoyeah, makes you wonder if there's someone internally who's been scamming companies
- JonnieCache 14y agoIMO it's more likely to be that they know full well those bots are skewing the figures underpinning their valuation and their general popularity with investors. They're trying to quietly move the narrative away from that part by focusing on the naming issue.
- Kiro 14y agoOr they simply ignore insubstantial and groundless accusations. The name issue is much more important, but not a big deal.
- taligent 14y agoYou seem to forget that Zuckerberg owns majority voting stock. He could turn Facebook into a porn site and there isn't anything anybody can do about it. So when you understand this you will see how ridiculous this notion is that Facebook is complicit in scamming advertisers. Also do people not remember when this was (and still is) happening with Google ? It's like spam. You can manage it but never really get rid of it.
- Retric 14y agoIf he did change FB into a porn site the minority investors would sue and most likely win.
- JonnieCache 14y agoI'm... arguing against that notion (that FB is behind the bots.)