[HN Gopher] The cost of the "new way to message on instagram" (2...
___________________________________________________________________
The cost of the "new way to message on instagram" (2020)
Author : gmays
Score : 102 points
Date : 2021-07-07 15:53 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.eff.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.eff.org)
| JustVestedSeeYa wrote:
| Here's a choice ... don't use it.
| ducttapecrown wrote:
| I really like the new Instagram and Facebook messengers because
| of how rich they are: you can send text, audio, pictures and
| video, and links get nice previews. You can control how long your
| messages stay around, and you can react to messages with the full
| emoji set.
| croes wrote:
| >Facebook made promises to keep the two services operating
| separately, and Facebook broke those promises just two years
| later, with similarly unclear notice to users
|
| When will we learn? These are businesses. A promise is worthless,
| the only thing that matters are contracts.
| wnevets wrote:
| > the only thing that matters are contracts.
|
| even those don't matter. The only thing that actually matters
| are the consequences.
| judge2020 wrote:
| I think these sister comments are missing the point that
| contracts in general lead to consequences - that's what OP
| means by 'the only thing that matters are contracts', as in
| you can't trust their promise unless they actually sign a
| contract that says they won't do <x>. This has nothing to do
| with the EULA.
| wnevets wrote:
| Once again even that doesn't mean anything. Companies will
| absolutely weight the benefit of breaking a contract
| against not breaking it. If the company decides it is worth
| it, they will.
| croes wrote:
| If they break a contract you can sue, that leads to
| consequences.
| wnevets wrote:
| which are usually less than amount of profit generated.
| danuker wrote:
| Except the contract says "we may need to update these Terms
| from time to time to accurately reflect our services and
| practices.".
|
| Do you have the same liberty to change the terms? No. You
| are free to stop using the service.
| hansel_der wrote:
| not all consequences are equal thou
| colpabar wrote:
| When every EULA in existence contains a "despite everything
| we just said, we can actually just do whatever we want if
| we decide we want to" clause, why would you expect a
| contract to be binding in any meaningful way? Companies
| this big simply won't enter contracts that could
| potentially cause real damage if broken.
|
| And good look suing a company with billions of dollars.
| Even with a strong case and good lawyers, they will drag
| out the process and all the court costs will make it
| impossible to finish, unless you also have billions of
| dollars.
| [deleted]
| danuker wrote:
| And the consequences are quite asymmetric.
|
| If you rub a Big Tech company the wrong way, they will
| disable your account and dramatically alter your online life.
|
| But if they pull the floor from under your feet, you have no
| practical recourse, maybe a complaint on Hacker News.
| spicybright wrote:
| You can complain to a developer in the company you follow
| on twitter. It's a perfect system! /s
| ampdepolymerase wrote:
| And if your politics do not agree with Hacker News, then
| expect pontification about how the first amendment only
| applies to governments and not large corporations with
| massive network effects.
| eigen wrote:
| the first amendment to the US Constitution says:
|
| > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
| of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
| abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
| right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
| petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
|
| can you explain how this should apply to "large
| corporations with massive network effects." would the
| other sections of the first amendment apply to private
| corps such that they couldn't deny medical coverage based
| on the corporation's religious views?
| netr0ute wrote:
| If corporations effectively become governments, then the
| amendment should apply.
| junipertea wrote:
| If corporations become governments, they can make their
| own laws?
| netr0ute wrote:
| They already do, just hidden under the guise of lobbying
| and marketing.
| clucas wrote:
| What are the criteria for determining if a corporation is
| "effectively a government"?
| netr0ute wrote:
| Maybe if their revenue exceeds those of many governments.
| desine wrote:
| I was a fan of social media at it's birth. Like many, I saw an
| ability to stay in touch with old acquaintances with less effort
| and intrusion. We didn't have to interrupt each other with a
| phone call, or worry about replying to a text in a reasonable
| amount of time. People would post updates, interact with the
| updates, and thus in a sense interact with each other's
| personalities manifested in these posts/comments/likes. It was
| convenient, and I feel, beneficial.
|
| Then came "the algorithms", capitalist refinement of the
| experience to increase user attention and interaction. Or more
| accurately, addiction. This is where I had to quit, a couple
| years ago. The updated algorithms (instead of linear time
| representation of posts) did cause me to care too much. There was
| too frequently new content to see, from things I didn't even care
| about. Cool videos from GoPro, RedBull, etc. Weeks old updates
| from forgotten friends sprinkled in to make it personal. Much of
| the time I used to spend in my head, in a good way, such as in
| line at a grocery store, or waiting for a project to compile, I
| was now refreshing feeds. My mind operated more in the realm of
| social media than in it's own existence.
|
| Now we get to the consolidation. All of your social media, even
| your "private" chats on WhatsApp, tied to one profile. One
| centralized database of your life, quickly queryable, cleaned,
| sorted, and available to advertisers and governments alike. One
| part of me actually likes this change from Facebook. At least
| they're being honest about their data being merged. But it's
| another optimization designed to generate revenue, do not believe
| otherwise. It's one more step towards the apex of profitability.
| I don't know what the results of this step will be, but I'll
| probably be bitter about it, and make another rambling comment in
| a couple of years.
| annadane wrote:
| This is a perfectly legitimate comment, but I would go one step
| further: throw Mark Zuckerberg in jail. While it may seem to be
| an industry wide practice I believe that he is above and beyond
| the most predatory and cynical of the practitioners of these
| things. Remember how Facebook lied to advertisers about video
| metrics for 2 years? Other companies will look at fb's success
| and say 'hey, I have to do that too'. Not realizing the only
| way they're successful is because they have a wanton disregard
| for any decency whatsoever
| minikites wrote:
| It's abundantly clear that markets aren't self-regulating. We
| need government regulation to counteract harmful actions of
| businesses.
| zo1 wrote:
| If you peel back the layers and sequence of causation, I think
| you'll always find that there is some government intervention
| that has a hand in these "market" failures. Unfortunately, I
| don't think capitalism can function properly in an environment
| that has government fiddling, which is what we're seeing. And I
| say that as a full free-market advocate.
|
| Either way, government is too blame. Both for _not_ regulating
| these bad things away, and also for having some hand in causing
| them N-levels back (you just can 't see or prove this one
| easily). It's a nice sweet spot for governments and their
| officials and advocates, because they can always absolve
| themselves by blaming the free-market in one way or another.
| They do too much or do the wrong regulation, causing something
| "bad" in the market, and boom they blame "the market".
| Likewise, they put some half-assed regulations that don't do
| much and yet again they blame "not enough regulation". The
| entire thing is ridiculously circular and self-reinforcing.
| Almost as if it's been designed for argumentative deadlock.
| sodality2 wrote:
| Not self regulating in a way that benefits the average user,
| sure. It is absolutely self regulating in a way that benefits
| corporations.
| strogonoff wrote:
| Imagine a parallel universe where social network's interests
| and the interests of its users were actually aligned--all
| because paid social was seen as the norm from get go. Fully
| featured APIs? Multi-platform third-party messaging clients?
| Ethical privacy policies? Once the end user is able to vote
| with their money, so many possibilities suddenly open.
|
| The status quo is much more preferable to social networks and
| their shareholders, of course. Charging advertisers arbitrary
| amounts based on eyeball count no one can actually verify,
| while not having to worry about losing paying customers due
| to ignoring requests of locked-in users, is a nice position
| to be in.
|
| To the point about market regulation, IMO there may be a
| place for a limited, surgically precise yet not targeting any
| specific companies intervention (for example, "you are
| obligated to provide an API covering the entirety of your GUI
| features if you serve more than N users") that would, a few
| causal links down the line, break such shockingly
| dysfunctional customer-provider relationships, normalize paid
| social and let the market do its thing.
| olah_1 wrote:
| I wonder if a solution is a "login with facebook/instagram"
| option on messengers like Matrix / Element.
|
| So it could be as frictionless as possible to get people on it
| and then everyone has a matrix ID as well.
| kevincox wrote:
| It would be nice to set up these Silos in Matrix identity
| servers so that you can find your friends. This currently works
| with email and phone but adding facebook, instagram, snapshat,
| twitter... would be a nice step forward.
| sneak wrote:
| No, because you can't disable Facebook Messenger if you have a
| Facebook account, and people will still message you there.
|
| The Facebook accounts must be deleted as part of any solution.
| swiley wrote:
| Alternatively set your status to "email me" and just never go
| to facebook again.
|
| That worked for me but that was 5 years ago.
| ASalazarMX wrote:
| I guess it's google accounts then. No one uses their
| messengers because they keep changing names.
| annadane wrote:
| Yet another lie from Mark Zuckerberg. "No, we won't merge
| <company we just bought>. Promise." He's not trustworthy at all,
| he's such a slimeball
| tqi wrote:
| Reading the article, it's unclear to me what the cost actually
| is?
| catcher wrote:
| It seems like Facebook is trying to prevent anti-trust
| regulatory action by making it harder to split up / distinguish
| its core products. Although I'm unsure of how effective that
| would be.
| mrkramer wrote:
| Zuck already merged Facebook's and Instagram's database so
| good luck splitting them.
|
| I hope free market economy prevails or in another words
| lawsuits fail. They should've learnt their lesson with
| Microsoft(antitrust is waste of taxpayers' money).
| cycomanic wrote:
| Standard oil? Antitrust is only a waste of taxpayers' money
| if there's no real willingness to go after the offenders.
| mrkramer wrote:
| What happened to Microsoft? Microsoft still controls
| 70-90% market share of computer operating system
| industry. Amazon, Google, Facebook and Apple achieved
| dominant market position through legal and fair market
| competition.
| throwaway3699 wrote:
| People stopped caring about Windows being dominant years
| ago. Mac and Linux became competitive for those who
| wanted it, mobile ate the world, and Windows only
| dominates in Office and gaming, neither of which are
| apparently worth fighting over.
| mrkramer wrote:
| >Windows only dominates in Office and gaming, neither of
| which are apparently worth fighting over.
|
| Everyone and everything is worth fighting over.
| throwaway3699 wrote:
| Agree personally, I just mean the general population
| doesn't care anymore.
| munk-a wrote:
| I think that's less an indictment of anti-trust lawsuits
| being effective and more of an indictment of either a
| lack of knowledge or willful ignorance around how
| connected the economy was becoming via computers.
|
| Microsoft, Amazon, Google and Facebook are all companies
| that are beyond a reasonable scale - there are far too
| many eggs in those baskets for long term economic health.
| Those companies are making GD, Raytheon and Lockheed look
| like kids playing in a sandbox.
| mrkramer wrote:
| >Those companies are making GD, Raytheon and Lockheed
| look like kids playing in a sandbox.
|
| Maybe because >Microsoft, Amazon, Google and Facebook are
| extremely useful consumer technology companies. I don't
| know about you but I won't be buying fighter aircraft
| anytime soon.
| munk-a wrote:
| Boeing gets about 28.6 Billion from the US government
| each year[1] given the US population of around 400
| million you're giving them (if we spread the cost evenly)
| about seventy five dollars every year. Once upon a time
| this was a large sum of money - now-a-days it's probably
| less than most folks spend on spotify and definitely less
| folks spend on coffee in a non-pandemic year.
|
| 1. https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2020/01
| /02/ho...
| croes wrote:
| That thing in your pocket you use to browse the web and
| make phone calls is a computer too, so Windows isn't the
| dominating operating system. And IE isn't the number one
| browser anymore, so this worked out.
| mrkramer wrote:
| I was alluding to PC operating system industry but
| whatever. Yea it worked out really well Microsoft is only
| worth $2 trillion.
|
| And try to work from home or remote work on your
| smartphone and not on your PC or laptop and tell me how
| productive you are. Or try to get any serious task done
| on smartphone except taking photos, browsing the web and
| writing notes.
| DerpyBaby123 wrote:
| Let me summarize through quotes:
|
| >This is not an update, but a new messaging system from which
| you can't switch back.
|
| > These are simply features presented to artificially devalue
| one of the systems, distract from the real changes, and
| manipulate users into changing to a different system.
|
| > this change will eventually link to your real name.
| tqi wrote:
| Hm well the first two aren't really costs, are they?
|
| The third is a conjecture, and as I understand it this is
| only being offered to people who already have linked their
| Facebook and Instagram accounts?
| reaperducer wrote:
| I'm not sure the third part is conjecture. The EFF has an
| entire article about it:
| https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/12/changes-facebooks-
| real...
| tqi wrote:
| Ah sorry, I was being unclear.
|
| Facebook definitely has a "real name" policy, but it
| isn't clear to me why a unified messaging experience
| means that your real name will now be shown to other
| users. That seems like a product decision, rather than an
| inevitability.
|
| As an aside, I don't like this feature and have not opted
| into it because I actually dislike interoperability. If
| there was a hypothetical way to get Twitter DM / IG
| Direct / Messenger / iMessages all in one unified inbox,
| I would never use it because I actually prefer to keep
| things in context. My persona and networks on the various
| platforms are different on purpose, and I like to keep it
| that way.
| spicybright wrote:
| Ditto with this. If my reddit account and SMS messages
| every intermixed, I would be a very very unhappy camper
| lol
| [deleted]
| DerpyBaby123 wrote:
| Yes, the first is a literal cost, you lose something you
| used to be able to use.
|
| The second is the cost of a degraded system of instagram
| messaging
| croes wrote:
| It costs you your choice.
| swiley wrote:
| The best thing you can do, not just for yourself but for those
| around you: Say no to smartphone apps.
| munk-a wrote:
| I said no to a smartphone entirely and it's been working out
| pretty well for me except that dumbphones are becoming such a
| specialty device that the quality has been dropping while
| prices have been steadily increasing.
| swiley wrote:
| Saying no to smartphones is certainly impressive but IMO you
| don't have to go that far, just say no to apps and web
| services that act like apps.
| Ashanmaril wrote:
| This article doesn't even mention how horrible the implementation
| is, too. It didn't merge your conversations with a person into a
| single thread across Facebook Messenger and Instagram. Instead it
| created 4 permutations of threads with a person.
|
| * Your Messenger + Friend's Messenger
|
| * Your Instagram + Friend's Instagram
|
| * Your Messenger + Friend's Instagram
|
| * Your Instagram + Friend's Messenger
|
| Each of these conversations will result in a new, separate
| thread, even if your Facebook and Instagram accounts are linked.
| It's such a mess.
| AnonHP wrote:
| Mods: This one needs 2020 in the title since the linked post is
| from November 2020.
|
| I'm not sure what actions anyone reading this can take now. They
| may have already succumbed to the relentless prompts and accepted
| the new messenger.
| avalys wrote:
| If you don't like it, you don't have to use Instagram and you
| don't have to use Facebook. These are completely non-essential
| services in every way.
| standardUser wrote:
| WhatsApp is the dominant/default form of communication in a lot
| of countries. It's as essential as telephone and postal
| service.
| doytch wrote:
| You're getting downvoted rather than replied to which is a
| bummer, because I understand your POV but have recently changed
| my stance on this.
|
| I used to be the standard kind of user of FB and Instagram who
| had friends and occasionally posted, etc. Then I realized it
| makes me feel like crap being on there and hated their business
| practices so stopped using it.
|
| Lately though, I've had a few experiences that made me rethink
| how optional it really is. I recently sold a car and FB
| Marketplace has /so many more people/ along with a higher
| degree of trust than Craigslist. I got a bunch of offers from
| FB and none from Craigslist despite the same listing.
|
| But even more significant is how businesses interact with the
| platforms. Because a bunch of people use FB/Insta, a lot of
| local businesses post new things or updates or specials there.
| Lately, new businesses are not even bothering with a website
| and just setting up an Insta. If I'm looking up what a store's
| hours were this past holiday weekend in the USA, then I know
| it's most likely going to be best to look it up on their Insta
| page. And just go ahead and see what the experience is to do
| that when you're not logged in!
|
| Sure it'd be GREAT if those businesses didn't do that, but the
| alternatives aren't great and I'm not going to pressure them
| into reforming social media when they're just trying to make
| money off of selling an ice cream cone; they've got it hard
| enough!
| scatters wrote:
| What's stopping you taking a purely transactional approach to
| using those sites? You can post on FB Marketplace or stay
| logged into Instagram without ever needing to scroll the
| feed, give out likes, or engage in pointless arguments. It's
| not like you get reputation points for engaging in all the
| toxic behaviors.
| doytch wrote:
| Nothing is, so that's exactly the approach I take with
| them! I recommend it! My response is to absolutist
| positions like "delete your account" and "well it's not a
| /necessity/ so they should be able to do whatever they
| want."
| spicybright wrote:
| Facebook marketplace is such a gold mine, it's so annoying.
|
| I had 3 pieces of lightly used Ikea furniture I wanted to get
| rid of. 2 weeks of craigslist with no bites. 2 _hours_ of
| facebook market place and I offloaded them easy.
|
| Completely anecdotal here, from within a small city. But
| people trust FB market place much more than CL for what
| that's worth.
| milkytron wrote:
| It is hard for those businesses, but I think we need to
| realize why they post their info on Instagram. It's because
| that's where their customers are. If more people are on
| there, they will cater to them on that platform (for the
| business). If people were to start using other services, the
| businesses would cater to them that way. If you'd rather
| businesses not post their info on whatever app, then don't
| use that app. That's the reason they do it.
|
| I've been without Facebook or Instagram for over 6 years,
| it's totally optional. I sell stuff on Nextdoor and the
| dozens of other buy/sell/trade apps. I connect with my family
| via text/calls/video or other apps. People don't want to be
| the first to get off of a platform and convince others, and
| then we get into this situation where we think it isn't
| optional.
| alpha_squared wrote:
| > These are completely non-essential services in every way.
|
| This perspective is completely neglecting that a significant
| portion of the developing world communicates almost exclusively
| via Facebook/WhatsApp. For communicating with people in those
| parts of the world, these services become essential in every
| way that matters.
| mdoms wrote:
| Not just the developing world. FB Messenger is practically
| the de facto standard in NZ and Australia too.
| bmarquez wrote:
| There are countries where mobile phone operators will give
| you free Facebook Messenger/Instagram (sometimes WhatsApp),
| but not Telegram or Signal...making the use of a Facebook
| product practically mandatory if you want to connect with
| certain people.
|
| Saw numerous banners when I visited the Philippines, here's
| an example: https://smart.com.ph/About/newsroom/full-
| news/2019/11/08/sma...
| silicon2401 wrote:
| At a certain point, arguments like this become out of date. You
| don't need cars, electricity, phones, email, citizenship, or
| even a name to survive. The only essential things are being
| able to forage/hunt, find running water. But as a civilized
| society we strive to raise the bar. At this point social media
| is an essential service, people just haven't caught up to it
| yet.
| qq4 wrote:
| Social media is far from an essential service. Name one
| aspect of it that you deem essential which cannot be taken
| care of elsewhere. I've managed along just fine without
| Facebook and the like, along with many other people.
| Essential does not mean convenient.
| RotaryTelephone wrote:
| Essential to whom? For example, I used to be a consumerist
| pig, but when I trimmed the fat by deleting YouTube, Reddit,
| FB Messenger, Whatsapp and Instagram off my phone, I suddenly
| felt like I could breathe again. Now I spend my time during
| the day doing the things I love (hobbies).
|
| P.S. I've kept HN because, you know... the last bastion of
| reasonable discourse.
| ComputerGuru wrote:
| Only tangentially related, but is social media a net positive
| for society? An argument could be made for any of those
| things you named alongside it which have now become modern
| essentials, but does social media belong in that list?
| Instead of democratizing access to social media maybe the
| answer is to cut off the tentacles these firms use to
| maintain their grip over our society?
| spicybright wrote:
| My personal opinion is it's a net negative. But it's also a
| hydra of an idea that people are hooked on.
|
| Cut the tentacles and they'll grow back with little issue.
| croes wrote:
| It's a little bit more complicated. Some companies only provide
| support through Facebook, WhatsApp etc. Even some governments
| use them as their main information channel. In the pandemic the
| only way to watch the live press conferences was on Facebook.
| Only ours later they were available on YouTube.
| annadane wrote:
| Jesus christ. Is this seriously the argument for everything
| now? You realize how useless saying that is?
| forgotmypw17 wrote:
| Only in the sense that staying in touch with people is non-
| essential...
| tristanc wrote:
| I feel like this comes up again and again. For some people
| Instagram or Facebook are sometimes the only way to communicate
| with new peers without introducing too much friction. In
| France, for example, most of my friends will exclusively use
| Instagram when connecting with new people.
| milkytron wrote:
| Are there no other options? Do your friends use them
| exclusively because they are sticky? Is there actually a
| feature that makes them unable to use other apps?
|
| I find a lot of times, people just don't want to change,
| regardless of whether they should. I was the first to delete
| my Facebook in my group of friends, and now they all have,
| and my family has mostly jumped ship as well.
|
| I'm sure your friends can use something else, they just
| choose not to.
| wsinks wrote:
| Right, they choose not to invest more time and thought into
| something else. That's why the pattern of the social media
| bait and switch is frustrating.
|
| The company made a promise. People bought that promise.
|
| Company changes the promise and puts a bow on it and
| dresses it up. Company only notes the promise in the fine
| print. But because it already has the power and because
| people don't want to be on alert 100% of the time (because
| that can actually kill you), the deception works.
|
| So you bring up a fallacy. The actual option here is "pay
| attention to every company you use to communicate all the
| time" or don't pay attention and accidentally agree to
| something not well advertised.
|
| Interesting fact, Facebook has an F rating on the BBB's
| website.
|
| Of course, the very first complaint on there is an
| interesting one that completely misconstrues the first
| amendment right, but again, that's just interesting.
|
| (https://www.bbb.org/us/ca/menlo-park/profile/social-media-
| ma...)
| croes wrote:
| Some companies and governments only communicate through
| social media.
| spicybright wrote:
| Of course they can use something else. The very vast
| majority just want to talk to each other, not spend energy
| moving as many people as they can to their preferred
| platform to do the same thing.
| theo-born wrote:
| The terms and conditions should state:
|
| I will provide you with all of my personal data for you to sell
| it. Check here _
|
| I will be spammed with ads for useless shit that I don't need.
| Check here _
|
| I will not sue you for performing any unethical or illicit
| practices Check here _
| [deleted]
| judge2020 wrote:
| > I will provide you with all of my personal data for you to
| sell it
|
| Reminder that Facebook and Google don't actually sell this
| information, you can't pay them for access to their ad
| database. You have to really loosen your definition of 'sell'
| if you want to include 'using data to target ads'.
| toast0 wrote:
| It's not directly selling the data, but when you target an
| ad, and a user takes an action on the ad (sometimes that's a
| click, sometimes it's just loading a beacon in the ad,
| sometimes the user may need to transact after a click), the
| advertise can correlate the targetting with the user.
|
| That's not exactly selling the data, but it's close.
| strulovich wrote:
| > I will be spammed with ads for useless shit that I don't
| need. Check here _
|
| Isn't this the exact opposite though? Your data being used for
| targeting will minimize bad ads that you see.
|
| (Facebook employee, never worked on ads or anything similar
| though)
| dfxm12 wrote:
| Not really. Whether the ads are targeted or not, you almost
| certainly don't need the shit they're selling & from that
| point of view, ads are, by default, bad.
| armchairhacker wrote:
| This is something which comes up a lot: people simultaneously
| complaining about invasive ad-tracking and all the ads they
| see suck.
|
| But it's the truth. e.g. I visit the website of some weird
| brand of coffee. Suddenly, I get spammed with ads about
| artisan coffee, even though I could care less. Both intrusive
| (you took data from somewhere way outside of your domain to
| guess something about me) and annoying (you guessed wrong).
|
| Moreover, this tends to happen very often for gambling, porn,
| weight loss, pregnancy, etc. all things which are very
| private, because they also happen to be stuff people spend a
| lot of money on. So I want to avoid those sites, not just
| because the government or insurance could use it against me,
| but because my ads will get even more annoying.
| neolog wrote:
| *couldn't care less
| machello13 wrote:
| you knew what he meant so what difference does it make?
| neutronicus wrote:
| I was getting engagement rings ads for _years_ after I made
| the purchase
| buu700 wrote:
| I don't use Facebook very often, but anecdotally I've gotten
| a decent number of solid ads for things I've ended up buying
| (mainly keto-friendly foods/snacks).
|
| I don't think I've ever bought something through a Google or
| reddit ad, or if I have it was a long time ago and/or with
| less frequency, and I use both of those much more actively
| than Facebook. reddit ads will sometimes capture my
| attention/engagement, though, whereas Google ads tend to be
| more like noise that I tune out.
| Nicksil wrote:
| >Isn't this the exact opposite though? Your data being used
| for targeting will minimize bad ads that you see.
|
| Perhaps if it did what it says on the tin, but it usually
| doesn't, so no.
|
| >(Facebook employee, never worked on ads or anything similar
| though)
|
| Facebook is ads.
| judge2020 wrote:
| > Facebook is ads.
|
| OP gets paid via ads, but does not work on the actual ad
| team and thus wouldn't know any actual inner workings of
| the targeting systems.
| suprfsat wrote:
| It is possible for Facebook to simultaneously vacuum up
| large amounts of personal data and still serve trash
| advertisements.
| neolog wrote:
| Not only possible, it's actually required by Facebook's
| business model. The set of things that people actually
| need to buy isn't large enough to support Facebook's
| scale.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-07-07 23:00 UTC)