Facebook Banned Our SaaS Website
jitbit.com
jitbit.com
This is the real takeaway. Don't build sharecropper businesses that are dependent on someone else's platform. Facebook, YouTube, Apple, etc don't care about making your business viable. Don't depend on them.
The only way they go away is if we stop giving them money and attention.
Not sure if you mean user-content or 3rd party content (e.g. something from TV or some content producer and reposted in Facebook).
Demographics: Latin America
I've noticed that younger audiences tend to post low-effort meme pictures, sometimes TikTok reposts and selfies.
But older audiences seem to repost a lot of low-quality video content (that I only see there, really) such as religious stuff, cooking videos, "fails", etc.
I feel my IQ going down in real time as I scroll down on any of these wall/feeds.
Think about it. Is this really something that should be worth billions?
Billions of people mindlessly scrolling down. Reminds me of the people mindlessly staring at the Casino roulette machines pulling down the lever every 5 seconds in monotome fashion.
Craziest shit is this is not at all unethical. Nobody is being coerced into this.
You could make a case for banning it like gambling is banned in many jurisdictions, but passing such legislation would be a big tall order.
We really do have people in this world, who value their time and don't waste much time on those platforms and either prefer to pursue real-life experiences or education/career/wealth advancement.
Mark Zuckerberg became a billionaire because we give him our free time, meanwhile he had 18 hour coding sessions in college.
It’s just not a smart long-term strategy.
I had a 5-letter username that hackers would constantly try to take. They somewhat succeeded this summer by having my account deactivated. There is no real recourse on my end since Instagram/Facebook doesn't have customer support.
My real fear is that someone will try to impersonate me in the future.
I think you were looking for a support email. I think at facebook's scale its a bit difficult. I would recommend you to head over here https://www.facebook.com/help/1306725409382822 and someone will help you out. This page can be easily found in our Help and Support section
Only because facebook is greedy as fuck and prefers massive amount of unethical profits than actually providing a good service.
That's probably because you're not the customer.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25529479
[2] https://www.firstpayingusers.com
[3] The only exception were e-commerce companies, they were much more likely to rely solely on FB vs. SaaS Companies
If anyone knows how on earth we can actually get Facebook to respond, I'd be hugely in your debt. This issue has blocked us for 6 months in migrating over our primary traffic from www.ably.io to ably.com.
Contact me at matt at ably.com
At a certain scale, there has to be some regulatory oversight.
The 'we don't need actual employees' form G and FB is enough - they are excessively profitable, and some of this profit comes from assertively skimping on reality.
If there were true competition, it wouldn't be a problem but aside from arguments over monopoly, there is materially very little choice.
If AT&T or Verizon denied you telephone service ... there would be recourse.
Email is the last one, and already Google is starting to censor that one, too, by rewriting links in messages to go to google.com instead of the original email as sent.
It breaks PGP signatures, among other things.
There's no way I found to turn it off, and there was no announcement that they were starting.
I submitted it around the day it started (~2 months ago) but my submission was flagged.
Does anyone know what the mentioned infamous example is about?
But until then, apparently, they just do not care.
So sad to see a young company (10 years is still young) being so old in the way they care of one only thing : cash
$500 is pretty cheap compared to other proprietary vendors.
I suppose because Trump is against section 230, and everything Trump does is automatically bad.
Because Section 230 is one of the 5 pillar of Sillicon Valley big-tech impunity-while-at-the-same-time-manipulating-content dogma. Criticizing section 230 is akin to blasphemy, no less. [reference to a well-known intolerant religion totally intended].
Section 230 protects against liability for not removing user provided content. Removing user provided content was fine before 230 and 230 did not change that.
What section 230 did is make it so that for user provided content that appears on the site if someone has a beef with that content it is the user that provided it that bears responsibility, not the site that is hosting it for the user.