Facebook May Ban Bad Businesses From Advertising (theverge.com) 111
Facebook will now let you file a complaint about businesses you've had a problem with if you bought something after clicking on one of their ads. If enough people complain about a business, it could lead to Facebook banning the company from running ads. The Verge reports: The new policy is rolling out globally starting today, and it's meant to help Facebook fight back against another type of advertising abuse on its platform. Facebook says it's trying to combat "bad shopping experiences," which can cost customers and make them frustrated with Facebook, too. Facebook is particularly interested in a few problem areas: shipping times, product quality, and customer service. This isn't just a matter of misleading advertising: if a company regularly provides bad service, products that don't meet buyers' expectations, or just frustrates consumers, they risk getting in trouble with the platform.
It appears that Facebook will send notifications to users to ask about their experience if it detects that they've purchased something after clicking on an ad. You'll also be able to find those companies and leave feedback on the Ads Activity page. Facebook says it will inform businesses about negative feedback and try to pinpoint problems that a large number of customers are having. If customer feedback doesn't improve after a warning, Facebook will eventually start to limit how many ads a company can run. If it continues long enough, they can be banned.
It appears that Facebook will send notifications to users to ask about their experience if it detects that they've purchased something after clicking on an ad. You'll also be able to find those companies and leave feedback on the Ads Activity page. Facebook says it will inform businesses about negative feedback and try to pinpoint problems that a large number of customers are having. If customer feedback doesn't improve after a warning, Facebook will eventually start to limit how many ads a company can run. If it continues long enough, they can be banned.
What could possibly go wrong? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: What could possibly go wrong? (Score:1)
Facebook bans themselves
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking this policy could be used in an activist-like manner to boycott certain, unfavorable companies, but that's funny about Facebook, for sure.
Re: (Score:1)
Yep...SJWs will organize and start slamming un-PC businesses en mass.
No different than the tactics used on Youtube videos and other social media platforms.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1. Carl's Junior
2. Enforce the laws we have.
Fixed.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I would like to file a complaint . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
. . . against Facebook, and their business practices about collecting and selling data about folks who are not associated with their business.
Maybe if enough people file complaints against Facebook, they will take some action against themselves.
Re:Yes, I would like to file a complaint . . . (Score:4, Insightful)
Facebook isn't completely stupid, but there's no way they're in a good enough position to evaluate these kinds of reports accurately or fairly. I suspect that some bad companies will get passes because they're well connected and know how to grease palms and some other legitimate companies that get broadsided by this won't be large enough for Facebook to care.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, let's ask the folks whose business model is predicated on advertising sales to police it up, instead of applying a bit of common sense.
There are abuses on both sides of the transaction; with deceptive advertisers taking advantage of the gullible, and uninformed purchasers blaming the seller for their own ignorance.
Why would you even purchase something from a one-shot advertiser on the Facebook? Research a product you're interested in on as many sites as possible, and understand in advance that th
Re:Yes, I would like to file a complaint . . . (Score:4, Interesting)
Why would you even purchase something from a one-shot advertiser on the Facebook? Research a product you're interested in on as many sites as possible, and understand in advance that the internet practice of purchasing something you cannot 1st hold in your hands is an inexact science.
While this makes perfect sense to you and me, I'm going to guess that neither of us use Facebook. We've already got people getting their news from Facebook, so I expect purchasing decisions are the least of our worries.
Re: (Score:1)
. . . against Facebook, and their business practices about collecting and selling data about folks who are not associated with their business.
Maybe if enough people file complaints against Facebook, they will take some action against themselves.
You would TRUST Fuckerberg to do that?
Don't be a dumb fuck.
when the walled garden violates net neutrality (Score:2)
if facebook becomes the internet, such as it's facebook essentials in India, then doesn't it also violate net neutrality when it picks winners and losers?
Re: (Score:2)
...selling data about folks who are not associated with their business.
Is there any evidence that they've sold data linked to names of non-users? That would be super-shady, but I haven't heard of them doing that.
Re: (Score:3)
The words you are looking for are: 'Shadow profile'.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm aware of shadow profiles. The question I'm asking is whether they've been caught associating shadow profiles with names and selling the data. I'm not aware of that happening.
Yo, dawg.. (Score:2)
Kill Facebook.
Re: (Score:2)
Cue future headline:
"Facebook bans bad businesses from advertising... and promptly disappears in a puff of logic."
Re: (Score:1)
Hmmm (Score:2)
Does Facebook ever advertise their business on Facebook?
Re: (Score:2)
Overall story: (Score:1)
Let the brigading begin! (Score:3, Insightful)
It's open season on businesses you disagree with. It worked for posts, comments and videos. Why not businesses? Report brigades, ho!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
All this is going to do is hide shady brick-and-morter businesses. The internet ones will just re-brand every 30 days (like the stores that sell counterfeit clothing, wedding dresses, and such do) and have a clean slate again.
While I will applaud the idea behind this, the actual effort will require more than just "banning a business" but banning an entire marketing douchnozzle company from being able to place any ads for ANY of their clients.
Re: (Score:2)
The internet ones will just re-brand every 30 days (like the stores that sell counterfeit clothing, wedding dresses, and such do) and have a clean slate again.
Don't forget Google changing its name to Alphabet.
Re: Let the brigading begin! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Buy something, then return and refund it. Double the damage to the business. That's how you review brigade on Valve's Steam for example.
Facebook admits defeat? (Score:1)
Rather odd for a company to boast powerful AI targed ads only to have users report "bad" ones no? Smells awfully fishy. Clicking on any kind of report would confirm you saw the ad. Rating your experience confirms you purchased either the product on the ad or some other product from the company, either way furthering what they know about you.
Re: They'll end up banning Microsoft because... (Score:1)
Nah, they will pay their way out if need be. We will see 'troll factories' selling their services to anyone needing to ban a competitor. Employment even if you're too sleazy for telemarketing. For surely, facebook is not going to check that you actually bought the product?
Re: (Score:1)
Another vector for sponsored activists like Hogg
Ok but how did the sponsored activists know which schools to attend to be mass shot at? Are they psychic too? And if so, is that part of the conspiracy?
Re:Prepare for more ideological abuse (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Hogg didn't get shot at, but he sure is happy to exploit the fact that other people were
So we should discourage active school shootings since it will prevent Hogg from exploiting casualties for political means?
Yes! But how could we do that? Hmm... Oh I know!
We can ban assault weapons! Or at least make it hard for crazy people to get their hands on them!
Re: (Score:2)
We can ban assault weapons! Or at least make it hard for crazy people to get their hands on them!
Well, you're in luck! Assault weapons are already incredibly difficult to obtain unless you're willing to do so criminally. No assault weapon made after the 1980's can be sold in the US (unless it's to the government). And for those that are on the market, they cost many thousands of dollars if they're still functional, and buyers have to go through a lengthy and very expensive government tax/licensing process that includes a nearly proctological background check including multiple personal references and
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
then why is the NRA opposed to a waiting period so that a sufficient background check can be done?
Who said they are? They fully support a rich, deep background check through the NICS system, and want it to be even more thorough than it already is. A customer looking to make a purchase has to wait while that background check is completed. In most cases, that's only a matter of minutes ... because, you know, we now have things like high-speed, integrated databases and banks of federal agents with access taking calls (a RECORD number of them, every month) as purchases are queued up. What the NRA is saying
Re: (Score:2)
You're right, someone should put a stop to that [bbc.com]. *sarcasm*
Re: (Score:2)
And since there are some very well funded groups trying to take away your civil rights, the NRA needs to spend money to push back against that never ending attack. Hogg and company, on the other hand, are seeking money and political power in order to
Re: (Score:2)
I quite like the size of my penis so I don't need a gun
Wow, that's a powerful penis! When was the last time you had a bunch of MS-13 guys with machetes in your back yard? Is your giant penis armored, or what? It must be remarkable if you know it's capable of preserving your life when someone's willing to kill you with actual weapons. Truly, amazing. Have you considered starring in a reality show of some sort? You'd make a fortune.
Re: (Score:2)
So you have no problem with sponsored acitvists, reputation-trashing campaigns against businesses, exploiting shootings in order to collect $ and logistical support, partisan fund raising and voting, and emotional leverage in general...
you only have a problem with them when they're used by opponents of things that you support.
Well that's certainly principled.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I vote to preserve my right to live, thank you. Magazine size limits - a.o.k. Requiring someone to be 21 to purchase a semiautomatic weapon - a.o.k. Requiring trigger locks - a.o.k.
I'm damn dangerous. And there's nothing that you can do about that.
Re: (Score:2)
I vote to preserve my right to live, thank you.
You already have that right. If a criminal seeks to deny you of that right, we already have substantial mechanisms in place to punish them. That same criminal could, with a twitch of the wrist while driving, run you down with a car, too. Or beat you to death, as happens wildly more often than any murder committed using a rifle of any kind, let alone ones that share cosmetic features with assault weapons.
Magazine limits? I suppose you're thinking that the murderer in Florida would have been less deadly w
Re: (Score:2)
It's a trap! (Score:1, Insightful)
What a wonderful way to trick users, errr, suckers into giving FB feedback on ads!
Many bad products are from stupid customers. (Score:5, Insightful)
I am not saying there are bad companies that produce crap. But if you look at Amazon bad reviews on products most of them are from people who got a product to solve a problem that there was no advertising to say it was even remotely going to solve.
This $400 dell laptop runs the most modern games kinda choppy. It is utter crap compared to my $3000 desktop system I made last year.
Or the people don’t understand the difference between a professional product vs a home product. Your linksys home router vs a Cisco switch for a data center. The home router is orders of magnitude cheaper and it has more features.
Or people getting an expensive camera with lenses that do not autofocus. For most average picture taker your phone will get better pictures. But for the professional photographer they can get real art from this complex phone.
People often will get the cheapest crap they can find expecting it to work like the premium version, or pay top dollar for an item that is meant for professionals that require sill and training to use.
Re: (Score:2)
you're thinking about this the wrong way. you can now get back at your old employer who fired you. just wage a campaign to get them booted from facebook ads. power back to the people..
if it detects that they've purchased something after clicking on an ad.
What i want to know is how they detect this.
Conversion tracking using js, pixels, etc... Nearly everyone does this using Facebook's tools so the best performing ads can run.
Re: (Score:2)
The first sentence in my argument "I am not saying there are bad companies that produce crap." If they are overselling (lying about) their product and services and giving misleading information then yes they should be responsible for customer backlash, because they are scamming people.
But if that Cheap Battery held 2000mAh but worked within reason for 2 years. While the one that costs twice as much held the 2000mAh for 4 years. And both were guaranteed for 2 years. You shouldn't fault the Cheap maker becaus
Re:Many bad products are from stupid customers. (Score:4, Insightful)
I think there are much worse examples. One of them would be people leaving a 1 star review because shipping was bad. I have yet to figure out in what way that is the fault of the product.
Re: (Score:2)
It will depend. If the company that makes the product is also the ones that ship it, then they are responsible for not properly caring for their product in transit.
I could make a top quality wooden sculpture. But if I decided to ship it in a box of nails and the customer gets it, they will be rightfully annoyed at my product.
Here we go,.... (Score:3)
Look at the business which recently had people coming through the door late in the evening, AFTER closing time, they let people through but eventually had to cut new customers off at a certain point in time.
Unfortunately, the next customer to try was a black woman,....
Do I need to explain the rest? Suffice to say, total social media mess, people fired, was any of this deliberate? Who knows? Based on the original posted story, Occam's razor says no.
Regardless. Customers can be idiots and cause unwarranted complaints and rating bombing to occur.
Re: (Score:2)
This shit is only going to get worse, unfortunately. I've thinking about moving to a red state. While I am not a white supremacist myself, I'm starting to believe they may have been right all along. There is a concerted push to demonize the white majority, especially the men, and bring in replacements more favorable to totalitarian socialism. I recently told my sister (*mostly* joking), "Looks like I'm going to end up a Klansman."
Red states have as many Klansmen as dreamers have totally productive straight A students who just want a better life. There's a few in both cases but both also get *far* more attention than their numbers warrant.
Re: (Score:2)
Dickhead, this article is less than 2 weeks old, heck it might even be a week. Some kind of coffee shop.
They weren't in the fucking habit of letting people in after closing time, they were in the habit of serving customers, busily and no one had time to walk to the door and flip the "closed, fuck off" sign - once they attempted to instigate said "closed, fuck off" rule a black woman got uppity about it and all hell ensued on social media.
Or... (Score:2)
They may not.
I'm not on facebook (Score:1)
Something tells me... (Score:2)
...companies like Comcast and AT&T will be excluded from this policy. Can't have the keepers of the internet fast lanes getting tetchy with their subjects.
BBB Integration? (Score:2)
If this were tied to something independent of Facebook and broadly agreed on, maybe it would work. Minimum BBB score required, for example. But if Facebook (or any of the tech giants) try to do this itself it really just invites further regulation. Commercial advertising is the primary mechanism by which the tech giants exert economic control, as between Facebook, Google/AdWords/DoubleClick, and Twitter they control something like 90% of the online advertising market.
I don't trust Silicon Valley with that k
Pecunia Non Olet (Score:2)
So I'll believe it when I see it.