Facebook Fallout...

alfadriver said:

Heck, the whole accusation that they are throttling conservative speech is banned for local TV stations, as long as it represents who are running for an election.  There's a requirement that ads are even from one side to the other.

Perhaps.  But I've noticed the ads I see on YouTube are heavily skewed to the Democratic side.  That said, it's hard to tell if that is because of some level of ad targeting on YT's side or simply the fact the Dem's are pouring more money into the upcoming elections than the GOP. Given the number of NRA ads I also see, I lean towards the latter. Oddly enough, I don't really notice political ads at all on FB other than the drivel posts shared by left and right leaning friends.

Ian F said:

alfadriver said:

Heck, the whole accusation that they are throttling conservative speech is banned for local TV stations, as long as it represents who are running for an election.  There's a requirement that ads are even from one side to the other.

Perhaps.  But I've noticed the ads I see on YouTube are heavily skewed to the Democratic side.  That said, it's hard to tell if that is because of some level of ad targeting on YT's side or simply the fact the Dem's are pouring more money into the upcoming elections than the GOP. Given the number of NRA ads I also see, I lean towards the latter. Oddly enough, I don't really notice political ads at all on FB other than the drivel posts shared by left and right leaning friends.

I may be a flaming liberal, and appreciate the more liberal ads, but I think that's an example of WHY internet ad companies need to act more like how are TV channels are required to act.  It should be balanced.  Apply TV, radio, and print rules to social media, and enforce it- things will be a lot better.

Let alone put in some guards for personal data.

(I don't see the ads for Yt- as Google has an ad blocker to block their own sites...  kinda nice)

Maybe I'm not clued into exactly what happened, but this hoopla just seems to be the older users on FB coming to the sudden realization that what they input into the algorithm is used to make someone else money and getting bent out of shape about it.  Most every time I hear someone complain about targeted ads, its because they put their whole life on the platform and like the page of every business they go to and provide all the details.  I put the bare minimum of info on my profile and I only get ads for car parts.

Agrees to terms of service. 

Upset about the terms of service. 

I don't know why you guys care anyway, if you're worried about it, don't use it. Hell that smartphone on your desk is tracking you and listening to you at all times anyway (yes, even in Airplane Mode). Trying to find the new story I watched a few weeks ago that showed this.

In reply to z31maniac :

Agreed.  I saw an article where the guy downloaded 5.5 GB of data from Google about himself and it included precise GPS locations and times of where he was.  Not to mention I've had a couple of times that Ive seen sponsored posts for things I've discussed even though I never searched for it from any connected device and I don't allow apps to connect to the microphone on my phone.

I teased somebody for driving an old Grand am recently on a private forum - one that doesn't come up if you google it, and the next day on FB a Grand am owners page came up as recommended.

That surprised me.

As has been said in the previous thread I can't see how it's a sustainable business. I don't see how the advertising can possibly be that valuable. On the other hand I  think I'm about as immune to advertising as it gets.  When I read how many people get their news on FB I had to look to find it. I didn't even know it was there.

FB is only doing what the traditional media has been doing for years, they're just a lot better at it. I'm not unhappy that they're devastating the  media unfortunately I think it's being replaced by something that's probably even worse.

I don't think ads are the main stream of revenue on FB.  I think its the analytic data (anonymous of course) they can provide.

Which is used for what puprose?

minivan_racer said:

I don't think ads are the main stream of revenue on FB.  I think its the analytic data (anonymous of course) they can provide.

Based on what?  So far, industry analysts along with FB themselves have basically stated their revenue is from ads - ads they can highly target towards a customer's potential consumer based on the information FB gleans from their data mining. It is not really in FB's best interest to actually sell that data. Beyond the whole potential privacy issues, it wouldn't make business sense to sell that data (which would be somewhat obsolete after a short time anyway). They can make more money keeping it to themselves and selling ads based on their ability to use their data.

The whole privacy problem has come from 3rd party apps spread around using FB, which FB didn't really monitor very well.

Fortunately, it seems none of my friends used the particular apps in question that is the center of this debacle.  Some survey called "This Is Your Digital Life" which sold the data they collected to Cambridge Analytica.

At it's most benign, as a way for brands to figure out demographics.  I would equate it to nielsen data on TV.   Facebook is a private company and every user signed an agreement and has been notified of changes to that agreement, in order to have FREE access to the platform to create and consume content and communicate with others.  You are exchanging demographic information about your internet habits for usage of the platform.  Nielsen pays families to install boxes on their TV systems to collect demographic information about their viewing habits in exchange for money.

Now, are their checks in place on Nielsen data, that isn't in place on FB (and other internet companies)?  Maybe.  Is the data collected much deeper than Nielsen data?  For sure.

I just don't see why my tax money is being wasted for a bunch of people from the least technologically educated generation to ask asinine questions and posture like they have the people's best interest at heart.  I'm of the opinion that if the gov't gets involved we all lose.

minivan_racer said:

I don't think ads are the main stream of revenue on FB.  I think its the analytic data (anonymous of course) they can provide.

The analytic data feed the ad service.  Perhaps the ads show up someplace other than FB, but they all serve the same purpose- as FB makes nothing- they are only a media company just like NBC, CBS, or your local newspaper.  

z31maniac said:

Agrees to terms of service. 

Upset about the terms of service. 

 

I don't know why you guys care anyway, if you're worried about it, don't use it. Hell that smartphone on your desk is tracking you and listening to you at all times anyway (yes, even in Airplane Mode). Trying to find the new story I watched a few weeks ago that showed this.

The whole reason I brought it up- regulation for the social media industry is now inevitable.  

GRM/CM are a very small part of social media as part of their publishing company. 

Therefore, the new rules WILL impact this site.  So I want to make sure that the smaller players like Motorsports Marketing don't get handed rules that FB makes which will put them out of business- thus giving a bigger monopoly to FB.  

Everyone here seems to accept that this is "1984"- which is odd.  But I doubt anyone here would like to see this message board go away due to FB's monopoly.  

It's also odd that the greater consensus is that it's the consumer's fault that they accept companies monitoring them.  When most consumers don't likely know how much they are accepting.

In reply to Ian F :

Then they are running on the venture capital money.  The ads are too cheap to run right now to make enough money IMO.

In reply to alfadriver :

If I accept the terms of the agreement without reading and thoroughly understanding what their impact on my personal life are, then it is at least mostly my fault.

Why was it not a problem when Facebook themselves violated campaign finance law in 2012 and directly gave the data to a campaign with employees quoted as saying "we're only doing this because we're on your side", but it's a problem now that a legally hired data collection firm legally purchased much of the same data to do much the same thing with?

RevRico said:

Why was it not a problem when Facebook themselves violated campaign finance law in 2012 and directly gave the data to a campaign with employees quoted as saying "we're only doing this because we're on your side", but it's a problem now that a legally hired data collection firm legally purchased much of the same data to do much the same thing with?

It was a problem then.  Which is why it's more of a problem now. FB said they would fix it, and they didn't.  

Now we see FB being more manipulated by outside companies, because of data leaks- which is bad, too.

minivan_racer said:

In reply to Ian F :

Then they are running on the venture capital money.  The ads are too cheap to run right now to make enough money IMO.

 

In reply to alfadriver :

If I accept the terms of the agreement without reading and thoroughly understanding what their impact on my personal life are, then it is at least mostly my fault.

What if FB violates their own terms of service? Which is what is going on... Is that still your fault?

alfadriver said:

z31maniac said:

Agrees to terms of service. 

Upset about the terms of service. 

 

I don't know why you guys care anyway, if you're worried about it, don't use it. Hell that smartphone on your desk is tracking you and listening to you at all times anyway (yes, even in Airplane Mode). Trying to find the new story I watched a few weeks ago that showed this.

The whole reason I brought it up- regulation for the social media industry is now inevitable.  

GRM/CM are a very small part of social media as part of their publishing company. 

Therefore, the new rules WILL impact this site.  So I want to make sure that the smaller players like Motorsports Marketing don't get handed rules that FB makes which will put them out of business- thus giving a bigger monopoly to FB.  

Everyone here seems to accept that this is "1984"- which is odd.  But I doubt anyone here would like to see this message board go away due to FB's monopoly.  

It's also odd that the greater consensus is that it's the consumer's fault that they accept companies monitoring them.  When most consumers don't likely know how much they are accepting.

Well I disagree on anything relating to Facebook and the handling of data security having an impact on this site and many others like it. 

"1984?"

You don't have to use social media. You don't have to own a cell phone. You don't have to use the internet. These are all choices you can make. 

We give privacy and anonymity for convenience. But we don't have to.  

minivan_racer said:

In reply to Ian F :

Then they are running on the venture capital money.  The ads are too cheap to run right now to make enough money IMO.

Facebook business model absolutely generates revenue based on ads. They're the second largest digital ad provider (Link goes to ReCode) in the world behind Google with controlling roughly 20% of the ad market with revenue of 39.942 Billion dollars last year from ads. (Link goes directly from their investor report which, by law, must be accurate.)

Facebook had a net income of 15.934 billion dollars last year all but 711 million dollars of it was from ads.

Both Facebook and Google are embroiled in a duopoly investigation (link goes to Fortune) currently as the two entities control better than 60% of the ad market.

In reply to z31maniac :

Since you don't run a small website that has a custom message board, you don't have to worry.  

"1984" is a pretty classic story that we are living right now.

Sure, you don't have to have a cell phone, use the internet, etc.  Nor do you have to have a decent job.  I have a cell phone and internet because of work- any my only choice to not have them is to not have a job.  Not exactly a good choice one has to make.  But you don't think that there should be any responsibility that BOTH parties follow the rules?  And that some of the more deceptive rules may be a little less than clear?

Ok. 

Still, Motorsports Marketing should worry about it, they are part of it.

In reply to alfadriver :

I'm interested to see where the legislation goes as I haven't seen a copy of it yet. I don't have an issue with sites collecting metrics on their users. Age, interests, gender, et. al is pretty useful information for tailoring your message and selling ad space. It's the follow around the web creating after I stop using your service that's the problem for me personally. Every chance I get to containerize or block Facebook, Linkedin, Google plus, etc is taken because of it.

The legislation will have to be pretty narrowly tailored to avoid widespread second order consequences. Sadly, after FOSTA, it's pretty clear Congress doesn't have even the slightest grasp on how to legislate for the digital space so I'll continue to watch the EFF and other organizations to ensure that I chime in to my congress critters whenever possible. Too bad I don't have a pet one, I hear they're shockingly cheap.

minivan_racer said:

If I accept the terms of the agreement without reading and thoroughly understanding what their impact on my personal life are, then it is at least mostly my fault.

I think this is a bit ignorant. 

When a company invests millions of dollars to create terms of service agreements that are DESIGNED to discourage people from reading them, and the company can PROVE the fact that no one reads the terms (because they know the length of time users are on the service agreement page), it's unreasonable to blame the users for acting EXACTLY the way the system was designed to make them act. 

It's misleading by design. That's not the user's fault   

And I think that's a bit ignorant.

You still make the choice whether to read it or not and you choose not to for the sake of convenience. They know you're lazy, but lazy is still a choice.

minivan_racer said:

 

I just don't see why my tax money is being wasted for a bunch of people from the least technologically educated generation to ask asinine questions and posture like they have the people's best interest at heart.  I'm of the opinion that if the gov't gets involved we all lose.

Wow. 

I was once part of the MOST technologically educated generation ever. I am now the same age as the average Representative.  I know this is hard to accept (because I was once you), but you will also be irrelevant one day. 

May I  suggest you run for office?  We could sure use some help down there.  

Generational divisive internet bitching is not very helpful. 

Suprf1y said:

And I think that's a bit ignorant.

You still make the choice whether to read it or not and you choose not to for the sake of convenience. They know you're lazy, but lazy is still a choice.

So, when Pavlov's dogs salivate, it's the dog's fault, right?

Manipulation is not the same thing as disclosure. 

Its not a matter of reading. It's a matter of understanding something that was designed to be hard to understand. 

SVreX said

So, when Pavlov's dogs salivate, it's the dog's fault, right?

LOL

Nice try