←back to thread

Facebook reported fake numbers to advertisers

(news.yahoo.com)
618 points elorant | 4 comments | 19 Feb 21 14:34 UTC | HN request time: 0.418s | source
Show context
cm2012 ◴[19 Feb 21 16:12 UTC] No.26194612[source]▶
The genre of people who don't work in advertising complaining about how Facebook is bad for advertising is a true HN favorite.

We get it, you don't like FB. That's fine. As an advertiser who knows that FB is far and above every other attention based ad platform (in effectiveness, transparency, scale, etc.), its like listening to nails on a chalkboard to read 90% of the comments in threads like these.

replies(8): >>26194736 #>>26195373 #>>26196510 #>>26196969 #>>26198453 #>>26198950 #>>26203003 #>>26203628 #
1. whatshisface ◴[19 Feb 21 17:20 UTC] No.26195373[source]▶
You should write a counter blog post explaining the case, and evidence, for Facebook being a good platform. Then we could have a real debate instead of flowing along with the counterzeitgeist.
replies(2): >>26196514 #>>26198255 #
2. cm2012 ◴[19 Feb 21 18:52 UTC] No.26196514[source]▶
There are many counter posts. They will never, ever be upvoted on Hacker News.
replies(1): >>26196934 #
3. eslaught ◴[19 Feb 21 19:25 UTC] No.26196934[source]▶
Then show us some instead of waving your hands.

For what it's worth, I have no real stake in ads one way or the other, but I would upvote a post if it was backed by solid data.

4. hiq ◴[19 Feb 21 21:29 UTC] No.26198255[source]▶
> for Facebook being a good platform

That's not what OP claimed. OP claimed:

> FB is far and above every other attention based ad platform (in effectiveness, transparency, scale, etc.)

So OP didn't say FB was good in absolute terms, but that it's better than anything else. That's quite different, especially in the context of HN, where we talk a lot about FB, but not so much about other ad platforms.