Facebook Analytics will no longer be available | Hacker News Reader

Facebook Analytics will no longer be available

facebook.com

214 pointsoblib104 comments

https://www.adexchanger.com/analytics/facebook-analytics-wil...

The above seems to go into guesses as to why it's going away. A lot more informative than the original link.

As that article states it was potentially a useful source for age and gender demographic data. Google Analytics has this as well but I’d assume more people have given more precise data about their age and gender to Facebook than they have to Google.

I wonder if this boils down to - who has provided more labeled photos of themselves?

I would have thought the opposite - that more people would have given accurate info about age and gender to Google than Facebook. After all, your search results on Google, YouTube etc, your premium subscriptions to YouTube or Google drive etc all provide accurate info to Google.

Btw by saying this, I don’t mean to say I trust Google more than FB. I trust neither and prefer DuckDuckGo.

Do you trust DuckDuckGo?

More than goog or FB? Held yeah.

FB is like. Creepy stalker sways hiding upside every window and spying on you when it’s completely unrelated to your relationship with FB.

Goog is more like the gestapo eavesdropping on every phone call you have and visit to the library you make

DuckDuckGo is like asking a stranger for directions who’s going to forget they ever met you in a few minutes.

What reason do I have to assume that DuckDuckGo is not collecting data about me? How can I be sure they're going to forget we ever met after a few minutes?

The fact that their entire business and privacy policy is built on that idea? Trust isn't a binary thing. You can trust someone but still, rightfully, be concerned that what they're saying may not be 100% accurate.

But if you have to choose who to trust more between two established companies, with one stating 'We don't collect your personal information, here's why you should care.' and another saying 'When you use our services, you’re trusting us with your information'. And the latter proceeds to hit you with a 50+ page doc explaining how they track essentially every interaction you make on their services, or services that use them, which would you trust more?

My question was whether or not we should trust DuckDuckGo, not whether DuckDuckGo is more trustworthy than some alternatives, and not whether they collect less user-specific data than some alternatives.

My thinking is that there isn't much reason to trust them. I disagree that their business is built on them being trustworthy. Their business is built on people believing them trustworthy. This may act as a disincentive to act in an untrustworthy manner, but it is simply another factor for their cost-benefit analyses. Most companies benefit from appearing trustworthy, such as banks, but the unfortunate reality is that this doesn't mean that they will actually work in your best interest.

Even if they are just faux-trustworthy, that certainly limits their room for maneuver. Facebook basically says "so what" and issues a non-apology later. DDG's whole reason to exist is predicated on their behavior.

> My question was whether or not we should trust DuckDuckGo, not whether DuckDuckGo is more trustworthy than some alternatives, and not whether they collect less user-specific data than some alternatives.

Your question would be answered far better by reading their privacy policies and help site[0] to get an idea of everything they do to preserve your privacy, rather than asking on Hackernews. Of course, if you don't believe what the company is saying, I'm not sure what a rando on HN can say to convince you otherwise?

[0] https://help.duckduckgo.com/duckduckgo-help-pages/privacy/no...

Don't assume it, then. That said, the scope of what the can do with the collected data is pretty much limited to selling it to a broker, unlike Google which can and does do incredible things with their corpus of collected data over the years.

Unless there is a better option, I know which one I feel safer using.

>Unless there is a better option, I know which one I feel safer using.

There is one option you might not be considering: reducing one's use of internet search engines.

It's a fair option, and I do what I can do reduce it, like searching on the sites I want to pull data from (I usually know this beforehand). But the internet is a rather large place, and there is only so much navigation one can do without resorting to a search engine.

Does the data precision on an individual level matter? As long as it's slightly better than random and the confusion matrix is known, then accurate aggregate statistics can be generated for any site that has more than a handful of users.

Its never been clear to me why Facebook would have better ad targeting data then Google. Facebook has only ever had a passive view of its products, whereas Google has an active one - people go to Google and declare their desires and intents. Who cares about age and demographics when someone will tell you exactly what they're currently looking for?

Because you can sell them something other than the one thing they are looking for.

Contrived example: I search for "buying new SUV" so clearly you should show me new car ads and car buying articles and reviews. But if I am a mid-30s married person, you might also try to sell me car seats for the babies I demographically am likely to have or want to have soon. OTOH, if am an older 60s retired widow, you may want to advertise warranty and car maintenance plans for my peace of mind about taking care of the car.

Actually it's a little more nuanced than that, because I could be mid-30s and married but choosing to be childfree, or I could be a 65 year old widow and former car mechanic who is more than capable of taking care of my own vehicle. So collecting the demographic data is about building a gradient of probabilities, things that are ranked in likelihood of value/relevance, and using that information to inform the demand side of advertisers deciding how much to bid for my eyeballs.

Sure if that was how Google worked - but Google would also have found you searching for "what to expect from pregnancy?" and "tax implications of a spouse dying", or "developments in car maintenance".

Facebook finds out what you think to share, Google finds out what you're doing and generally the path you took to get there.

Google News has always uncannily followed by current job's tertiary areas, for example.

Facebook also tracks you with the “like” button on 3rd party website. They know which page you have browsed and for how long

What do you think Google Analytics does?

It's more explicit now. Most sites add the Facebook Pixel as they want to track conversions on their site. Most brands have this on their site. Facebook can do all of the analysis that Google can with that, such as knowing how many people add something to their cart, checkout, etc.

The power is in combining that data, like one of the grandparent comments mentioned. They will know if you buy a SUV (since the dealer uploads the data as an offline conversion) and that you're browsing baby clothes on Walmart/Target. Now you're a "new or expecting parent".

Some of these interest categories are not that explicit but the lookalike audiences are. That's a whole other post :)

Not that I disagree with what you said, but maybe you can think about it this way (again, contrived oversimplification):

- Google are the experts/masters of knowing "what you want", expressed via your search intents

- Facebook are the experts/masters of knowing "who you are" (including demographics, as well as family/friends/connections, interests/hobbies/personality, etc.)

Google can guess at the same type of "who" information that Facebook owns (e.g. gender inference), and vice versa Facebook can guess at the type of info that Google owns (e.g. search/purchase intent), but both have distinct relative advantages over the other, which is why there is still competition in this space (the GP comment was questioning, why hasn't Google just "won", why is FB even in the picture, etc.).

As an advertiser that specializes in targeting niche audiences, for anything except search itself, Facebook has amazingly better targeting than Google. Google display and Youtube targeting for ads is just so bad. Not sure how its possible.

It turns out people don't really search for most of the things that are out there to sell - cola, soap, milk, chocolate, candy, fuel. Yes some people do search and research these things but compared to the number of people who buy these categories (aka category penetration), the # of people searching is vanishingly few.

It turns out that in other categories, a LOT of people search for things but very few buy them. About 1.5 million luxury cars are sold in the US in any given year but you could bet the number of searchers would be in tens to hundreds of millions.

So the Google data works for some businesses which are in the Goldilocks zone when it comes to search behaviour (ie. It's a product that just the people who wamt to buy will actively research before buying) but for many other businesses - especially the ones with giant marketing budgets, search is just hygiene cost, not a business driver - ie. spend enough so your competitors don't appear as the first results in search ranking.

At the scale of many businesses (especially the ones in the first paragraph), broad demographic segments (and yes TV!) turns out to be a very efficient way to build a brand and yes you can also selectively augment with other data based marketing.

For other businesses (think niche cosmetics brand) paid word of mouth (aka influencer marketing) and pushing the paid word of mouth content to more people who are likely to be have the same interests (eg. Follow fashion bloggers) turns out to be hugely efficient and relevant and that's something Facebook excels at.

Not an expert on the topic, but Facebook allows for very localized/granular targeting. I'm sure that somebody could identity individuals with the data they expose.

A bit dated and probably things have changed... but yes.

http://ghostinfluence.com/the-ultimate-retaliation-pranking-...

I keep wondering whether such tools should be even legal. Where is the line between making sure you show your advert to people most likely interested in your product and straight up manipulating people into buying something they don't need?

In the past, if you sold let's say car parts, you would then naturally buy advert on a car forum, hoping that people interested in cars would click your ad and see what you have to offer.

Now you that such forums are mostly gone, you have the whole science of nudging people into buying something using your personal data harvested in questionable ways, various funnel strategies and so on. Why is this socially acceptable?

While I'm a vocal critic of both Facebook and Google, do they really make people buy things they don't need by manipulating?

Anecdotally, most of the marketing material and discounts that people around me get and then use to make a purchasing decision came from email. Not Google or Facebook shoving shit in their face, plain old email. Are you going to call for a ban on email?

The times I've been convinced to check out a product were only because either a.) their product was really good in the ad and b.) the ad was really good. For example, I still show that Honda R button ad to people who haven't seen it. And even though that ad was still brilliant, as I type this, my Google query (to reconfirm) was "Hyundai R button ad". That's right - that unique and famous YouTube ad that I still remember from 2015 was still not enough for me to even remember the name of the company, much less the name of the product!

Most ads are obnoxious and/or boring, and simply exasperating when they interrupt you in between, but nowhere near manipulative. Facebook and Google's major flaw is not in the advertising model but in the way they amplify voices of like minded people who are otherwise irrelevant personae.

This is a completely different beast. I am subscribed to a couple of companies that from time to time send me email about promotions they have and sometimes I buy those products.

Or the impossible dream advert advert Honda basically won car adverts with that one.

I always took it as name recognition/playing the long game.

I'm not currently looking to buy a car. When I do there will be 10ish years of product placement in movies, banners, radio and TV commercials, magazine ads, youtube ads, good press, and bad press that I've been 'ignoring' that will undoubtedly play somehow into the purchasing decision.

Exactly, it has always been about brand building. Which is why I find Amazon and Deliveroo tiresome. These guys just replaced TV and newspapers in the ad business.

> manipulating people into buying something they don't need?

This shows you have very little idea how advertising business works. There’s a lot of bad and shady stuff, sure, but that’s extremely naive oversimplification. It’s like saying that software engineering exists to steal jobs from people and give them to machines instead.

People who work in telemarketing or bulk mail or spam all make similar arguments, but I don't buy it.

There are narrow cases where advertising can be societally beneficial, but this is not the case the vast majority of the time.

It’s not about arguments, it’s about educating yourself on the topic before making definitive conclusions.

Bringing up telemarketing and spam when we talk about advertising is as relevant as bringing ransomware as an argument against encryption.

What do you think the difference is between telemarketing and other forms of advertising that makes comparing them an expression of total ignorance, worthy of gratuitous insults?

The premise of both is forcing people’s attention to focus on an unsolicited message as a way of manipulating them into doing something they would not otherwise do or buy something they would not otherwise buy.

Spreading those manipulative messages through phone calls or paper mail does not seem to be fundamentally different than spreading them through interstitial television clips, magazine pages, billboards, spam emails, or website popups. All of these delivery mechanisms are ugly, unpleasant, and typically exploitative.

Personally I find e.g. Facebook and Google’s panopticon-driven advertising empires to be more ethically problematic than many kinds of telemarketing and junk mail. Facebook in particular has caused more concrete harm in the world than any telemarketing firm.

Why is me telling you about a product I’ve created, or service I offer exploitative? Are 100% of products you use in your life, products and services that you’d know about their existence and value they can provide to you without any form of advertising?

If my aunt opens a hair salon and buys ads to get potential customers to come and try her service making world a worse place?

What if I build new app, that helps to solve child sleeping problems for new parents - i should just hope they stumble upon it by accident, and God forbids try to advertise to new parents?

I’m not arguing there isn’t lots of crap in advertising market, or that big tech ads don’t have problems. But ads are much more complex, and it serves much more use cases than typical “let’s kill all ads with fire” person on HN is aware of. For big chunk of them their only expertise in ads ecosystem is installing Adblock.

You dodged the question. What do you think the fundamental difference is between your aunt leaving doorknob flyers, cold-calling neighbors at dinnertime, sending spam emails, buying TV ad slots in the local news program, putting up a billboard on the highway, or buying targeted facebook ads?

Do you think there is a fundamental difference between your aunt’s salon and someone selling candy to kids, encouraging people to ask their doctor about a named pharmaceutical, describing a casino’s slot machines, soliciting donations to a megachurch, talking up penny stocks, presenting jingoistic propaganda, making unfounded accusations about a political rival, or describing a phone sex hotline? Where do you draw the line between advertising that you consider beneficial (or ethical) vs. not?

Of course there’s fundamental difference between all those things you’re describing, and you’re arguing in dishonest way if you pretend not to see it.

I’m not arguing there aren’t bad uses of advertising, or bad channels to do it. I’m arguing this is very complex space that you cannot just simplify to few anecdotes and claim that based on it proves it’s detrimental to society and should be destroyed. There’s no point in continuing this conversation, bye.

Your answer to the question was another dodge + more gratuitous insults. So I guess we can all agree we are done here.

Telemarketing and spam are advertising. It's all the same game as digital advertising, just different mediums.

Your hostility to the idea that advertising is a net societal ill reminds me of the quote, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

I’m not arguing they aren’t form of advertising. Same as ransomware is a form of encryption. Should we ban encryption, because it’s being used for bad things as well?

I’m also not hostile to an idea that advertising maybe net negative. I’d love to see a study that shows that. But I’m very septic about someone bringing that idea as a given truth, while they lack even most basic knowledge about advertising.

I think you started a mini flame war by over-reacting to that phrase. The original commenter acknowledged from the get-go that there is a difference between advertising that benefits people and that which doesn't. But you've selectively quoted them and repeatedly insisted that not all advertising is bad, even though they never claimed it is. You made things worse by repeatedly calling people ignorant, which just doesn't help to cultivate constructive discussion.

>Why is this socially acceptable?

Because most people don't know that it's happening, and of the people that do, most don't care.

How is this different to how advertising has been done for hundreds of years, e.g. newspapers or a billboard on a public street?

Aren't they "manipulating people into buying something they don't need"?

Today advertising looks something like this:

- You go to a shop and ask for information about what kind of tires they have

- A spotter sees you and phones the ad company that you were seen at such and such store asking for tires

- The ad company already knows where you do usually walk and what time

- They send agents with tires on billboards who follow you on the way to work and back and whenever you look they try to shove a banner in front of your eyes, sometimes even slowing you down as you try to walk past them

I am pretty sure if they did exactly the same as they do online, but offline, that would be illegal (stalking for starters)

The vast majority of advertising is not a socially productive activity.

There is a narrow use case that can be productive when informing a buyer of the existence of something they actually need, but this is not the case 90+% of the time.

I didn't even know that FB had a competing tool to Google Analytics/Mixpanel.

Anyone comment on whether this is widely used?

I don’t know if this is related to their app SDK, but many apps use that (including e.g. Google’s own Waze) and that SDK collects analytics in its common Config (and lets you register your own events IIRC).

We used it a lot some years ago when we built a chatbot for FB Messenger. It was a great surprise. FB analytics was very hidden, but once you got there their product was quite good. Simple to use and gave us 95% of everything we needed to know.

The problem was that you obviously needed to use it with Facebook. As we started building a FB chatbot, that was not an issue, but for any other product it didn't make sense.

We considered:

- Mixpanel was way too expensive for us.

- Google analytics is definitely not a product analytics tool.

- Game Analytics was a good tool, but too much focused on games.

Analytics tools can be very expensive and there weren't many good free alternatives that we were aware of.

> - Google analytics is definitely not a product analytics tool.

Can you elaborate on this please? I'm really not used to analytics tools, but GA does look like one to me.

Product analytics tool, is not the same as a web traffic analytics tool. Maybe that is what he meant.

It's basically a spam engine. I had to stop using GA because Google, the billion dollar company with a million software engineers, couldn't figure out how to filter out spam from their product.

It's true.

Out of the box and just installed onto a site the data is garbage.

It provides more value to Google than it does the owner of a site.

Google Analytics is all about web analytics, so you can see traffic sources, visitors, pageviews, custom events, conversion funnels, etc. Primarily your analysis is going to be around traffic sources and how individual pages are performing.

Product analytics tools are a little different in that they’re much more event based and allow for contact/account hierarchies. Ie you can group (and thus track) separate users under a single business entity. They’re also much more feature based, so you’ll primarily be looking at how features are used as opposed to app screens.

Basically GA is more of a traffic measuring tool. It doesn't do perfect attribution of events and join them easily for you to build up a picture of the journey the customer takes.

Take for example something like Amplitude which lets you instrument and measure conversion or journey that a user takes across your product.

Did you try Piwik, a free open source self-hostable analytics suite?

> Piwik

Now renamed as Matomo.

I think these days PostHog is a good alternative for Mixpanel

Here's a link to the article if you want to avoid all the innocuous trackers

https://outline.com/Mvrn9u

So instead you will just be tracked by Google Analytics ;)

https://archive.is/qQinN

So I just checked this from my PC and indeed uBlock Origin had blocked 3 google-analytics.com links. TIL I suppose.

Unfortunately I cannot edit the OP anymore so I'll provide the original text in this comment

Facebook Analytics is Going Away

Facebook Analytics will no longer be available after June 30, 2021. Until then, you will still be able to access reports, export charts and tables, and explore insights. To export data into a CSV file from Facebook Analytics on your desktop, click the arrow in the top-right corner of each chart or table.

Other business tools can help you understand your advertising, presences, and activities on Facebook and Instagram, including:

-Facebook Business Suite allows you to manage your Facebook and Instagram business accounts and can show you detailed insights about your audience, content and trends. (This tool may not be available to you yet.)

-Events Manager can help you set up and manage Facebook Business Tools like the Facebook pixel and Conversions API, and reports actions taken on your website, in your app and in your physical store.

The last paragraph in outline.com privacy policy is basically them laughing at you for spending time reading the whole thing.

> Although most changes are likely to be minor, Outline may change its Privacy Policy from time to time, and in Outline’s sole discretion. Outline encourages visitors to check this page for changes to its Privacy Policy. Your continued use of this site after any change in this Privacy Policy will constitute your acceptance of such change.

Implied consent is not a legal basis for data collection.

To concur:

I'm not sure "we unilaterally changed the contract without notice and you agreed because you happened to use the product that day" would hold up in any court, for any reason.

A contract requires a "meeting of the minds", which is impossible if one party doesn't even tell the other: you can't agree to a contract you didn't know you were even agreeing to.

I don't believe those terms would hold up anywhere (and this is why sites will tell you, over and over, when the terms and conditions change).

Wow, literal Darth Vader line there.

It's also illegal under the GPDR. You require positive consent to privacy policies.

Pretty sure this or similar applies to policies of most web services, sadly.

how about a link that does a better job of that?

https://web.archive.org/web/20210406073805/https://www.faceb...

heh, except for analytics.archive.org

Pretty sparse notification. They don't give a reason at all.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com