4 ms·

I think calling them "fake" users is incorrect and misleading. The majority, as the article states, are real people with two or more accounts. Two accounts rep

I think calling them "fake" users is incorrect and misleading. The majority, as the article states, are real people with two or more accounts. Two accounts represents an easy way to separate your personal and professional lives. Instead of fretting over the privacy settings of each picture, setting up lists, using the complicated and changing processes for managing privacy on FB, the "easy" way is to create two separate personas. And there is nothing wrong with this. Performers needed to do this, since Facebook "Pages" and "subscribing without friending" are relatively new. And plenty of people who feel the need to be Facebook friends with people from work who don't want them seeing their personal lives and high school photos. And people hiding from ex-husbands and stalkers and other privacy-aware people who want to be on FB, publically findable, but keep a lot of stuff truly hidden. There are a lot of people who value their privacy and doesn't provide real birthdays (Jan 1 1900), real pictures, real interests and likes, announce who their relatives are, and relationship statuses... are they fake? The system has to account for people who need two accounts or incomplete accounts. I don't see how this harms Facebook in any way, or why the BBC needs to portray this as if there's a massive problem. Spam accounts and bots... that's another thing entirely.

tatsuke95 14y ago
>"I don't see how this harms Facebook in any way" When an advertiser buys a Facebook ad, he is able to narrow down the target audience based on demographic information. Facebook then tells the advertiser the "reach" of that ad. So, if I want to advertise to Males between the ages of 18 and 24, from the UK, who like Ford, Facebook will tell me how many people my ad can reach. That's what you pay for. As an advertiser I will have historical advertising figures to calculate the ROI on this ad. But what happens when many of the accounts I'm "reaching" aren't really male, aren't really between the ages of 18 and 24, aren't really from the UK and are owned by people who don't really like Ford? My ROI is skewed. I'm wasting money. It bears repeating: as a Facebook user, you are not the customer. The advertiser is the customer. Users are not harmed by fake accounts, but advertisers are. If your cat Fluffy has an account, and is listed as a male, someone, somewhere is paying to advertise to him. Same goes for Bobone, Bobtwo, Bobthree and all the other accounts you've created to "add friends" in Farmville. That's how Facebook is harmed by this.
- Spooky23 14y ago
  They need to accept that there is some ambiguity. I subscribe to the local newspaper in my hometown, which is 500 miles away. Should the guy buying ads selling cords of firewood be pissed off because my subscription is not the norm? (a local resident in this case)
  - tatsuke95 14y ago
    You say "they" like this is some outside entity. It isn't. It's me, and others on these forums. And I can't really accept ambiguity. If Facebook tells me I'm reaching 1,000,000 people, I better be reaching 1,000,000 people. If that number is really 930,000, and Facebook knows that the number is 930,000, they better be damn sure to tell me so I can calculate the correct ad-spend. As an advertiser, this figure shouldn't be ambiguous. That's kind of ridiculous. But Facebook is in a catch-22: if they do tell me that figure, it's going to result in lower spends (and thus lower revenues) because their value comes from the massive audience. Remember, this started as "There is no fake account problem". Now it's, "Almost 10% of our accounts are fake". How big is the problem?
    - Spooky23 14y ago
      If you have an expectation that there will be little or no variance in a population of 1,000,000 people your expectations are not realistic. If you bought a billboard, would you get angry if a car drove past with a sleeping passenger? Ambiguity is a given -- is Facebook defrauding you if I say I live in Manhattan, but for 3 months I'm at my summer home in Lake George, NY, 200 miles away? You probably wouldn't be happy if you were a summer venue in Manhattan paying to reach people like me. That isn't fraud. As an advertiser, you need to do your own homework and adjust the relative effectiveness of Facebook vs. other mediums.
      - tatsuke95 14y ago
        >"If you bought a billboard, would you get angry if a car drove past with a sleeping passenger?" I can calculate, with precision, the traffic that drives by that sign every day. >"As an advertiser, you need to do your own homework and adjust the relative effectiveness of Facebook vs. other mediums." Yeah, I do my homework and decide that I'm not going to advertise with Facebook anymore, because I can't determine whether my ads are reaching the audience that I've balanced my spend around. That's what is happening. Right now. You initially stated: "I don't see how this harms Facebook in any way". I'm explainly how Facebook is affected. Yes, I agree that advertisers will have to compensate. They are. But returns will be squeezed and that compensation will be downward. That hurts Facebook.

tatsuke95 14y ago

>"I don't see how this harms Facebook in any way" When an advertiser buys a Facebook ad, he is able to narrow down the target audience based on demographic information. Facebook then tells the advertiser the "reach" of that ad. So, if I want to advertise to Males between the ages of 18 and 24, from the UK, who like Ford, Facebook will tell me how many people my ad can reach. That's what you pay for. As an advertiser I will have historical advertising figures to calculate the ROI on this ad. But what happens when many of the accounts I'm "reaching" aren't really male, aren't really between the ages of 18 and 24, aren't really from the UK and are owned by people who don't really like Ford? My ROI is skewed. I'm wasting money. It bears repeating: as a Facebook user, you are not the customer. The advertiser is the customer. Users are not harmed by fake accounts, but advertisers are. If your cat Fluffy has an account, and is listed as a male, someone, somewhere is paying to advertise to him. Same goes for Bobone, Bobtwo, Bobthree and all the other accounts you've created to "add friends" in Farmville. That's how Facebook is harmed by this.

Spooky23 14y ago
They need to accept that there is some ambiguity. I subscribe to the local newspaper in my hometown, which is 500 miles away. Should the guy buying ads selling cords of firewood be pissed off because my subscription is not the norm? (a local resident in this case)
- tatsuke95 14y ago
  You say "they" like this is some outside entity. It isn't. It's me, and others on these forums. And I can't really accept ambiguity. If Facebook tells me I'm reaching 1,000,000 people, I better be reaching 1,000,000 people. If that number is really 930,000, and Facebook knows that the number is 930,000, they better be damn sure to tell me so I can calculate the correct ad-spend. As an advertiser, this figure shouldn't be ambiguous. That's kind of ridiculous. But Facebook is in a catch-22: if they do tell me that figure, it's going to result in lower spends (and thus lower revenues) because their value comes from the massive audience. Remember, this started as "There is no fake account problem". Now it's, "Almost 10% of our accounts are fake". How big is the problem?
  - Spooky23 14y ago
    If you have an expectation that there will be little or no variance in a population of 1,000,000 people your expectations are not realistic. If you bought a billboard, would you get angry if a car drove past with a sleeping passenger? Ambiguity is a given -- is Facebook defrauding you if I say I live in Manhattan, but for 3 months I'm at my summer home in Lake George, NY, 200 miles away? You probably wouldn't be happy if you were a summer venue in Manhattan paying to reach people like me. That isn't fraud. As an advertiser, you need to do your own homework and adjust the relative effectiveness of Facebook vs. other mediums.
    - tatsuke95 14y ago
      >"If you bought a billboard, would you get angry if a car drove past with a sleeping passenger?" I can calculate, with precision, the traffic that drives by that sign every day. >"As an advertiser, you need to do your own homework and adjust the relative effectiveness of Facebook vs. other mediums." Yeah, I do my homework and decide that I'm not going to advertise with Facebook anymore, because I can't determine whether my ads are reaching the audience that I've balanced my spend around. That's what is happening. Right now. You initially stated: "I don't see how this harms Facebook in any way". I'm explainly how Facebook is affected. Yes, I agree that advertisers will have to compensate. They are. But returns will be squeezed and that compensation will be downward. That hurts Facebook.