nopriorarrests

>If I can reach my audience through Facebook or Instagram, that’s more competition than Facebook properties alone.

I mean, if anything, competition will lower the price per contact with potential voter? What problem it will solve?

Tangentially related -- according to Eric Weinstein, Facebook also banned Zero Hedge so you can't share ZH stories anymore. (https://twitter.com/EricRWeinstein/status/110529167842277376...)

> It enables the rapid dissemination of societally-impactful information that may or may not be true.

This is the exact reason why Russia blocked (or at least tried to) block Telegram, and why Facebook is banned in China.

>we were loading the van at 11 am.

>he wouldn't have had as much help if he had asked his own -Irish- friends because they'd be too hangover to bother.

6pm might work with irish folks, though.

I mean, I love my friends but moving their furniture at, say, 9am on Saturday is just... not gonna work.

This is also not true.

I have a great deal of experience, and I've seen that you can generate final sale for some non-brand obscure SaaS platform (so no branding effect here at all) for like $30 per sale in Facebook, $90 in a good independent ad-tech platform, and $600 in a bad platform.

Facebook still totally kicks ass and absolutely can make money for you if your SaaS brings you $100 in a first year. (100-30=70 in incremental profit for you). Hell, even really good ad-tech platform (yes, they exist) can make you money, though less so (100-90=10 in a first year). Shitty platforms are money sink, though

They totally failed to monetize it for advertising purposes. Taking cases like $300 per single person location, paid by bounty hunter, is arguing in a bad faith, and has nothing to do with ad-tech.

Well, that was true back in 70's and this true now. If some brick-and-mortar business knew a lot about you (like your bank) -- it still knows a lot about you.

Ad-tech is different by boasting that they do know a lot about you, while in fact they have no clue.

Absolutely. They suck, they just suck less. With FB, you can _at least_ try to advertise to "small business owners in CA" and get a few leads for your SaaS.

Good luck doing it with independent ad-tech and their "data".

>I don't know why someone would posit this falsehood.

lol

>You are going to sell it to EVERYONE.

Exactly. And you know what you end up with? I checked lingerie website yesterday to buy a present for my girlfriend, this data was sold, now I'm a women in some DMP. I've bought a bottle of Talisker, now i'm wealthy man in the same DMP (even if I can only afford Talisker one time per year!!!). I've also bought some drugs for my grandfather, and now i'm +70 audience and I'm getting "senior discounts" ads while not being even 35 years old.

This is the problem with data platforms. Take data from everyone, mix it, and you have /dev/random. It's totally fine to milk advertisers for their money (which original article is all about), and not fine for anything else.

Advertisers finally start to understand it. And this is why GOOG and FB are getting all the money and ad-tech is slowly dying.

EDIT: And since -- as you correctly noted -- everyone is incentivised to sell ALL data to EVERYONE -- this is how you end up with a pool full of piss instead of water. Because everyone sold everything to this pool.

True, but being old and slow telco businesses they totally failed to monetize it.

Verizon bought AOl, HuffPost, Techcrunch and plenty of other media to build an advertising giant by pairing data with sites audience -- and took 4.6 BILLION WRITEDOWN on the whole venture [1] because failed to make it work.

[1] https://www.recode.net/2018/12/11/18136127/verizon-aol-yahoo...

EDIT: oh and AT&T will learn the same lesson with their recent 800M AppNexus aquisition. Just give it time.

I work in ad-tech.

In fact, this is almost tautologically true. If you have:

-- good data

-- on large enough scale

you are not going to sell it. You going to take advertiser dollars and match their ads against right audience, while safeguarding this data as your main know-how. Go and buy "barbell training fans in FL, US" and "women interested in fashion in CA, US" from facebook. Sorry, not for sale.

If instead you decide to "sell the data" it means that you can't really make it work for advertisers. Or, in other words, said data is mostly useless.

Well, yes, let's say that your flashlight app requested your location data and you agreed. You were in a park during dawn and you were looking for the stairs.

And there were like 2 ads shown to you during this 50 seconds period, while you were in the dark and not looking at your phone but using it as a duh, flashlight. And then you stopped the app to save your battery.

Do you really think some advertiser benefited by using this data?

And what "independent" ad-tech is dealing with is millions of cases above. Consistency is important. FB and GOOG have consistent data, collected over days and years, properly matched, correctly aggregated. All others are dealing with flashlight crap.

so much true. people are worried about their data being sold to advertisers, while the little dirty secret of the ad-tech industry is that nobody has any data, tbh.

facebook and google do, but they are not selling it. and the rest of ad-tech loves to boast about their "data" on every conference while all they have is /dev/random output, more or less.

Tesla formally said in 2013 that Musk's personal Twitter account was one of the ways "we announce material information to the public about our company, products and services and other issues."

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1318605/000119312513...

For additional information, please follow Elon Musk’s and Tesla’s Twitter accounts: twitter.com/elonmusk and twitter.com/TeslaMotors

I don't have an answer.

But what I can tell is that video I linked above... I'll give 99% probability easily, that this video was made for purpose, with sexual context in mind, most probably by some adult person, not another kid, and it is not "just kid having fun", and it's not "family video".

This is softcore erotica with 12-14 y.o. girl, and it was made to be a softcore erotica. There is literally zero other reasons to shoot video like this.

Lets be specific. My first question -- so, 12 y.o. girl being dressed in police uniform and acting like in an opening of a cheesy porn movie is your definition of "just kids having fun"?

>I only saw harmless videos of kids having fun when I looked at his own examples.

Have you seen this -- https://youtu.be/M78rlxEMBxk?t=364 ?

>but what else do you do here?

I don't have an answer, but considering the size of Disney and Nestle cumulative marketing budget, youtube engineers will be hard pressed to do something.

In this case we will have to ban children movies (Harry Potter?) and TV channels, which sounds too harsh.

As long as child is not performing some sexually suggestive stuff on youtube video ("popsicle challenge", wtf) it is OK, probably.

This is an interesting example to look at! I've searched "Jussie Smollett" on guardian.com, and here are the results: https://i.imgur.com/GDRMj2Q.png. Hmmm.

I've also went news.google.com, and "jussie smollett hoax" gave me about 5,750,000 results. Interesting.

Also, I can't help but notice that NYT article about new developments in Jussie Smollett case is called "Jussie Smollett Timeline: Mystery Deepens as Police Review Case".

Why people do not trust mainstream media the way they used to?

Mystery deepens, indeed.

>Cannibals, aliens and clandestine lizard overlords: thanks to algorithms, such ideas threaten the future of Europe

Great subtitle. Is it ok to consider it a conspiracy theory? (no sarcasm)

Will this disqualify Softbank Vision Fund, which is partially funded by Saudi Arabia?

Germany is also quite homogeneous. When Thomas is not accepted for free higher education but Paul and Herman are, it's all right and nobody is angry.

It may not work for more diverse countries, such as US.

For football, you have English Premier League games, La Liga games, Italian Premier League games, etc, etc...

And at least EPL is watched all across the Europe, from Spain to Russia. For multinational advertisers, football is a boon, esports is not in a same league (pun intended).

>I think eSports, particularly DOTA2's TI is far, far more relevant to young men than Football

Come on?! I don't know about US, but good old football (not an american kind) is like 100x times more imporant in Europe than any eSport.

Yesterday Manchester City - Chelsea game ended up 6:0, and #MCICHE tag was trending on twitter worldwide (and it is only England Premier League, not even Soccer World Cup!)

Please wake me up once some eSport event will be a worldwide trending topic on twitter.

>you aren't dealing with human lives

except pedestrians and other drivers. so, in fact you do.

Well, consider that softbank-sponsored startup will outspend all the competitors on client acquisition, and can bleed the competitors dry by providing services below cost. Do you _really_ want to invest in startup which is competing against some entity sponsored by softbank?

I mean, softbank investment is competitive advantage in itself, just because of it's sheer amount.

>1. Nothing. Which is what makes this seem soooo shady, and both parties refusing to give even a surface exuse.

i think the fact that Reddit is losing money and needs cash infusion counts as surface exuse.

tbh, I don't understand two things.

1. What stops china from flooding reddit with "ending the stupid tariffs against china" users now, without 150M investment?

2. How effective this will be anyway? I mean, it's not like White House looks into /r/politics for a foreign policy tips? This is rather weird way to influence policy, when you have such tools as, say, lobbying.

>This is the fundamental economics of high-cost, short-term credit.

Exactly. People see 300% APR and think about it like it's applied to their premium credit card, the financial product they are familiar most, and get into rage without trying to run the numbers first.