Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed
Advertisers Will Be Back To Facebook ‘Soon Enough’, Zuckerberg Assures Employees (bbc.com) 55
Facebook is not the problem. (Score:1, Insightful)
People who use Facebook are.- by Z80a ( 971949 )
Yes, human beings in general.
The greatest brute force machine in this world, meant to try everything, so the right thing is tried and spread, regardless of the challenge.
A powerful machine of creating that unfortunately leaves a trail of pollution and thomas the tank engine porn on it’s way. - You mistyped virtue signaling advertisers.
- Yes, and it’s so nice of them to let us know who they are and what they believe.
Re:Facebook is not the problem. (Score:4, Insightful)
by guruevi ( 827432 ) on Thursday July 02, 2020 @02:57PM (#60254970)You can safely assume that anyone who calls someone who disagrees with them a lazy bigot has nothing productive to provide to society.
- I vote in every election even though in the state I am in, I usually get drowned out. But I still vote and in some cases, enough of people like me actually changed things.
The same goes for advertisers. If they want to advertise on a platform that gives a megaphone to fringe people that would not have had one not too long ago.
Freedom of Speech also give me a right to punish those who enable speech I do not like. It is called CAPITALISM.
And it also gives people more of a voice than others. And more rights tha
More money, more voice.
Yes, that is why election ballots are much more valuable than dollar bills. Nobody has the advantage.
“Nobody has the advantage.”
Psst… “History” would like to have a word with you.
Someone always has an advantage… and it is usually people you will never know about… well until you cross them and find out how fast your rights dry up like a cup of water spilled in the desert.
Money & Power are the same, you have either you have both, they do not exist without each other. People do things for money, and that gives those with money power. Power gets money because that is just how it goes.
Everyone bitch
They only have the advantage you give them
- Better than virtue signalling billionaires [imgur.com].
I use Facebook all the time. I’m friends with some close friends and family, and a few groups about architecture and computers. I don’t get any political posts at all. No news. Nothing. If someone posts something political I unfollow or ignore them. The groups I’m on have a strict no politics rule. Facebook works great for me. I share pictures of my kids, and see my family’s kid pictures as well. Sometimes some funny dog or cat movies. It’s great.
Facebook is, generally, pretty good at doing what you tell it
Let’s install a huge banner the street in front of your house where everyone can write how awful, terrible, despicable person you and your family are; that you do not deserve to live in their city and must go back to living in the forest were you belong, etc.
Now, please, let me know WHO is the one who CAN STOP this nonse FASTER?
Will you try to change the mind of thousand of criminals and imbelices OR you will ask the company that owns the banner to remove it?
Now, please, let me know WHO is the one who CAN STOP this nonse FASTER?
On Facebook, you can, by simply blocking it. That’s why your analogy stinks
This satire piece sums it up nicely https://babylonbee.com/news/tw… [babylonbee.com]
Watch out! They will accuse you of victim blaming.
“My guess is that all these advertisers will be back on the platform soon enough” the Facebook chief executive [Zuckerberg] has said
I thought that puppet would’ve been screaming in pain, what with a hand so for up its ass.
A problem for Facebook might arise if the advertisers look at their revenue and if it doesn’t go down for not advertising on Facebook, they’ll kiss Zuck and his toy machine goodbye.
Of course! (Score:1, Flamebait)
Last year, the analytics company Pathmatics carried out a study into which companies were spending the most on Facebook ads seen in the country. They included: Tesco Microsoft Proctor & Gamble BT Vodafone American Express
AMEX wants all those Boogaloo…bugaleu, boogabooga…whatever*…people to sign up for their cards and use them to buy their assault guns and crates of
.223 and 5.56 NATO are quite different and should not be mixed, unless your gun is built for this.
However I do agree, those people playing dress up soldier at CHAZ/CHOP prancing around with their overpriced 5.56 NATO they got from the local warlord’s trunk of his Tesla, shooting and killing 3 people and wounding many others, are losers.
I rather like their faux “tactical” outfits. Black material and big pockets are very chic with that crowd, a he-boy backdrop for one of the most important things in their lives, i.e., waving their automatic weapons around to impress their fellow gun nutz. They get extra points for not wearing a face mask down at the Imagine-You-Are-Somebody Bar and Grill.
Those companies are about to find out, it will be a nice acid test for their marketing departments: Hey, we stopped advertising and sales remained constant…get Boomer from marketing up here to explain why we still have that department.
We’re not going to change our policies or approach on anything because of a threat to a small percent of our revenue.
This isn’t a threat without merit. It isn’t like he’s talking about a competitor who is eating into his revenue stream. He’s talking about hate speech on his platform. Let’s reword it:
“We’re not going to change our policies or approach on hate speech because a small percentage of our advertisers oppose it on our platform.”
He’s a monopoly, and he knows he can do whatever the fuck he wants and nothing will happen to him. Don’t think he’s a monopoly? Sure, go and talk on your own platform with nobody on it and let me know if that seems pointless. He’s as much of a monopoly as the telcos were 50 years ago and we broke them up.
- . Don’t think he’s a monopoly? Sure, go and talk on your own platform with nobody on it and let me know if that seems pointless.
That’s not right. Go ADVERTISE on another platform. You can, by FB/IG has the most eyeballs for right now.
I would think that Google/Youtube still have more eyeballs.
- Perfectly said, Lazarus. It’s been pretty clear for a long while that both Jack from Twitter and Fucker Zuckerberg are very sympathetic towards neo-nazis, neo-confederates, and violent terrorist movements like the “3-percent” and “patriot militia” groups deeply steeped in white supremacist histories and rhetoric.
I can’t argue the Facebook isn’t a monopoly, but these companies that are stopping advertising aren’t exactly small fry either. My problem is how do you define hate speech? One persons opinion is another persons hate speech. For example Black lives matter – good, White lives matter – bad. If you are a white person barely making ends meet, you may very well feel that society doesn’t value your life, or vice versa. Note: I do think being black means you have significant disadvantages, but it doesn’t mean that
There’s something else going on (Score:4, Insightful)
by Issue313 ( 2840599 ) on Thursday July 02, 2020 @02:39PM (#60254886)I don’t believe these big companies suddenly developed a social conscience and decided to boycott facebook. And I don’t believe Zuckerberg is principled. And facebook has never displayed any interest in free speech. There is something else going on that has caused this rift, that is obvious. The real reason is not the stated reason here.Re:There’s something else going on (Score:5, Insightful)
by _xeno_ ( 155264 ) on Thursday July 02, 2020 @02:47PM (#60254920) Homepage JournalAgreed.
I’m pretty sure the advertisers have looked at their metrics and basically concluded that Facebook advertising (and social media advertising in general) doesn’t get them anything. And so they’re taking this opportunity to stop wasting money on advertising that’s not useful while at the same time doing a bit of corporate virtue signaling to their customers who care about that kind of thing.
I’m not so sure they will be back. Facebook does this thing now where it’ll ask you if you remember seeing an ad from a given company. I never do. Even if I’m using their official client that doesn’t permit ad blocking. Granted I basically only use Facebook to see pictures of family, but I’m very curious how effective Facebook advertising truly is. I bet major advertisers have determined that it isn’t that effective at all, and that’s the real reason they’re all taking this opportunity to “pause” spending.
And, worse for Facebook, this may just be a test – see how sales change when advertising is “paused.” If there’s no change – now they know. Facebook is worthless.
And, worse for Facebook, this may just be a test – see how sales change when advertising is “paused.” If there’s no change – now they know. Facebook is worthless.
I think you’re right. I think they’ll find out that pouring advertising money into Facebook isn’t nearly as worthwhile as the Facebook ad reps claimed it was.
“We spent $5 million on ads and only got $30K back…hmmm.”
Doubtful, they never would have spent that money to begin with if that was the case. If things weren’t performing as expected they would have slowly lowered their advertising spend over a period of time.
Marketing departments pretty carefully monitor marketing campaigns to know where they money is getting a response and will quickly pull dollars from places that aren’t getting the response that they want to see.
This is being driven by politics. It’s the one and only thing that has more weight than the advert
Agreed.
I’m pretty sure the advertisers have looked at their metrics and basically concluded that Facebook advertising (and social media advertising in general) doesn’t get them anything. And so they’re taking this opportunity to stop wasting money on advertising that’s not useful while at the same time doing a bit of corporate virtue signaling to their customers who care about that kind of thing.
Agreed. And these companies are getting free advertising via the press coverage of their pause in Facebook ad buys.
I’m not so sure they will be back.
Facebook expects these ad buyers to return. If these ad buyers are riding current public opinion and press coverage, then what happens when that coverage eventually wanes and is replaced by the next important topic? These companies have ad budgets. Is there a viable Facebook alternative for ads? If not, then Zuckerberg is likely right. For most ad buyers, the driving issue is about money
I’ve been boycotting Facebook for years. My home network is boycotting Facebook at the router level.
How did you do that? (Score:5, Funny)
by mykepredko ( 40154 ) on Thursday July 02, 2020 @02:59PM (#60254976) HomepageI’ve been boycotting Facebook for years. My home network is boycotting Facebook at the router level.
If I did that, my wife would be boycotting me at a much lower level.
There is something else going on that has caused this rift, that is obvious. The real reason is not the stated reason here.
Advertisers want to keep their ads from showing up next to posts of Monty Python, and they have been pushing Facebook to give them this kind of power for a while. They want to be able to do “brand management.” In terms of Facebook, that means Mercedes doesn’t want their ad to show up next to an ad for a Toyota. They don’t want their ad to show up next to “poor” things, they want it to show up next to “high class” things, and “luxurious” things. On broadcast TV, ads are segregated this way.
I want to make
They don’t want to be “cancelled” by the twitter brigade. You better say you agree with BLM or hate Trump otherwise silence will get you labeled as racist. Which nowadays is the new McCarthy communist label. Companies are scared of the million twitter morons. Because one asshole trending on twitter is the same as a million actual complaints.
Of course not. This is obviously a coordinated effort to force greater censorship of Facebook content for political purposes. You don’t get that many companies all agreeing to perform a given action at a given time all by coincidence. It’s simply not credible.
- there’s a down turn in everybody’s advert budgets due to the virus and general economic collapse. Plus it’s an election year so there’s competition for ad space increasing rates. At no point in time did any of these companies leave Facebook out of principles. They’ll be back.
If the advertisers run measurements and determine that Facebook advertising is ineffective (which I suspect is the case a lot of the time), they won’t be back.
But it has nothing to do with ethics. Just pure business.
- by mykepredko ( 40154 ) on Thursday July 02, 2020 @02:57PM (#60254968) Homepage
Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.
It seems like assuming advertisers will come back simply because FB is the largest platform is a real display of hubris that may not be borne out by reality.
FaceBook (and Zuckerberg in particular) are really on the wrong side of things here – to make matters worse, they’re not acting aggressively enough to address the issue and it’s going to be a good while before flagship brands (Lego, Coca Cola, etc.) come back and during this time these brands will be trying out other platforms.
This is where Zuckerberg needs a board that can tell him what to do, I don’t think he has the maturity/life experience to recognize that he’s doing lasting damage to FB.
- by q4Fry ( 1322209 )
This is where Zuckerberg needs a board that can tell him what to do, I don’t think he has the maturity/life experience to recognize that he’s doing lasting damage to FB.
He apparently doesn’t recognize he’s done “lasting damage” to people in meatspace, either.
Since when is caving into an angry internet mob being on the wrong side? It boils down to people disliking Trump so much they want him silenced from their social media platforms. They can’t stand the fact he uses THEIR platform. I don’t have to follow any of Trump’s social media accounts because every Democrat and media outlet does it for me. Literally every tweet Trump makes is a headline. You don’t think he realizes that?
As I understand it, the issue has relatively little to do with Trump, more that white supremacist and other hate groups use FB with impunity and can advertise on FB to help recruit new members.
If you RFTA, you’ll see that Trump isn’t even mentioned.
- by NicknameUnavailable ( 4134147 ) on Thursday July 02, 2020 @03:08PM (#60255004)It’s as simple as that, just has been the case with every other social media platform which has caved to similar demands to oppress free speech for a subset of their population: it drives away everyone not in that population then they have to double-down repeatedly to maintain a bunch of shitheads who believe they can bitch and moan and threaten boycotts to control the company more than the people running it. The internet was made for communication, that’s literally all it does. The first amendment doesn’t apply to just spoken words.
The first amendment does not apply at all since that is the government restricting speech.
Also, reddit did go after their extreme groups and participation went UP. It turns out that having these extremists around actually lowers the overall level of speech. In the same way that holding your meeting in a sewer ensures nobody else is going to come.
There is quite well studied at this point. Banning hate and extremists from a platform almost always results in more participation and letting it run rampant usuall
Says everyone else.
Not sorry, Zuckerberg. We know you’re a “functioning” psychopath.
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
- 940 commentsCloudflare Terminates 8chan
- 800 commentsStack Exchange Removes Moderator For Preferred Pronouns Policy
- 725 commentsRichard Stallman Resigns From MIT
- 627 comments8chan Goes Dark After Hardware Provider Discontinues Service
- 626 commentsTrolls Are Swarming Young Climate Activists Online
Slashdot Top Deals
- Get more comments
- 55 of 55 loaded
Gee, Toto, I don’t think we’re in Kansas anymore.
