Not so much that video is worthless as that video advertisers pay anywhere from 50-90% less to buy video adspace, with much stronger restrictions*, compared to print or TV ads. If they want video to be profitable they have to pressure advertisers and stop relying on adsense services that approach it from the complete other end of the table.
*Like, they can say they won't pay unless the viewer redirects to their site or views the entire ad, both of which are ridiculous requirements that other media forms don't have to deal with. Also rehosting, and Facebook specifically, cut into profits by a fair margin, which shouldn't be.
So that’s why so many articles were turned into videos for what at the time seemed like no reason at all.
Cool. Awesome. Far out.
I remember that Cracked suddenly started doing a lot of videos with tiny view counts compared to their popular humor listicles, and then went bust. Related?
So that’s why so many articles were turned into videos for what at the time seemed like no reason at all.
Cool. Awesome. Far out.
I remember that Cracked suddenly started doing a lot of videos with tiny view counts compared to their popular humor listicles, and then went bust. Related?
That wasn't them running out of money, it was the new owner's fuckery.
I'd actually be okay with selling an amount of my information provided that they informed you who was buying it, what it contains, and allowed you to limit its use. If Facebook was still Facebook, but acted more like a broker that made the majority of the money from the sale, I'd probably feel a bit better about it.
I'd actually be okay with selling an amount of my information provided that they informed you who was buying it, what it contains, and allowed you to limit its use. If Facebook was still Facebook, but acted more like a broker that made the majority of the money from the sale, I'd probably feel a bit better about it.
What's cool about companies collecting personal data on you is that even if you do consent to them collecting it, when that company goes bankrupt and sells off its assets, that means somebody can buy your personal data and use it without your consent, and you won't even know who is using it!
I'd actually be okay with selling an amount of my information provided that they informed you who was buying it, what it contains, and allowed you to limit its use. If Facebook was still Facebook, but acted more like a broker that made the majority of the money from the sale, I'd probably feel a bit better about it.
That's basically filling surveys for money, which was all the rage 15 years ago
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I'd actually be okay with selling an amount of my information provided that they informed you who was buying it, what it contains, and allowed you to limit its use. If Facebook was still Facebook, but acted more like a broker that made the majority of the money from the sale, I'd probably feel a bit better about it.
Getting companies to pay you so they could sell you something is a hell of a con. Maniac come to life!
I'd actually be okay with selling an amount of my information provided that they informed you who was buying it, what it contains, and allowed you to limit its use. If Facebook was still Facebook, but acted more like a broker that made the majority of the money from the sale, I'd probably feel a bit better about it.
What's cool about companies collecting personal data on you is that even if you do consent to them collecting it, when that company goes bankrupt and sells off its assets, that means somebody can buy your personal data and use it without your consent, and you won't even know who is using it!
Which is why they should act as a broker for your data and not like they own your data.
I'd actually be okay with selling an amount of my information provided that they informed you who was buying it, what it contains, and allowed you to limit its use. If Facebook was still Facebook, but acted more like a broker that made the majority of the money from the sale, I'd probably feel a bit better about it.
What's cool about companies collecting personal data on you is that even if you do consent to them collecting it, when that company goes bankrupt and sells off its assets, that means somebody can buy your personal data and use it without your consent, and you won't even know who is using it!
Which is why they should act as a broker for your data and not like they own your data.
Ah no, see, it's the consumer who never owns anything these days. You just pay money for the privilege of access to a license, which can be revoked at any time for any reason without refund.
I still buy mainly physical media because you can't come to my house and take it away from me for no reason.
This was Facebook’s actual error: It divided total time spent watching a video not by the total number of users who spent any time watching the video (a group that would have included people “quickly scrolling past muted auto-playing video advertisements”), but instead by only the number of users who watched a video for three seconds or more. The result: “A highly misleading result that favored Facebook.”
+4
Options
Zilla36021st Century. |She/Her|Trans* Woman In Aviators Firing A Bazooka. ⚛️Registered Userregular
Ms. Sandberg was angry. Looking into the Russian activity without approval, she said, had left the company exposed legally. Other executives asked Mr. Stamos why they had not been told sooner.
Still, Ms. Sandberg and Mr. Zuckerberg decided to expand on Mr. Stamos’s work, creating a group called Project P, for “propaganda,” to study false news on the site, according to people involved in the discussions. By January 2017, the group knew that Mr. Stamos’s original team had only scratched the surface of Russian activity on Facebook, and pressed to issue a public paper about their findings.
But Mr. Kaplan and other Facebook executives objected. Washington was already reeling from an official finding by American intelligence agencies that Vladimir V. Putin, the Russian president, had personally ordered an influence campaign aimed at helping elect Mr. Trump.
If Facebook implicated Russia further, Mr. Kaplan said, Republicans would accuse the company of siding with Democrats. And if Facebook pulled down the Russians’ fake pages, regular Facebook users might also react with outrage at having been deceived: His own mother-in-law, Mr. Kaplan said, had followed a Facebook page created by Russian trolls.
Ms. Sandberg sided with Mr. Kaplan, recalled four people involved. Mr. Zuckerberg — who spent much of 2017 on a national “listening tour,” feeding cows in Wisconsin and eating dinner with Somali refugees in Minnesota — did not participate in the conversations about the public paper. When it was published that April, the word “Russia” never appeared.
While Mr. Zuckerberg conducted a public apology tour in the last year, Ms. Sandberg has overseen an aggressive lobbying campaign to combat Facebook’s critics, shift public anger toward rival companies and ward off damaging regulation. Facebook employed a Republican opposition-research firm to discredit activist protesters, in part by linking them to the liberal financier George Soros. It also tapped its business relationships, persuading a Jewish civil rights group to cast some criticism of the company as anti-Semitic.
Facebook also continued to look for ways to deflect criticism to rivals. In June, after The Times reported on Facebook’s previously undisclosed deals to share user data with device makers — partnerships Facebook had failed to disclose to lawmakers — executives ordered up focus groups in Washington.
In separate sessions with liberals and conservatives, about a dozen at a time, Facebook previewed messages to lawmakers. Among the approaches it tested was bringing YouTube and other social media platforms into the controversy, while arguing that Google struck similar data-sharing deals.
In at least one instance, the company also relied on Mr. Schumer, the New York senator and Senate Democratic leader. He has long worked to advance Silicon Valley’s interests on issues such as commercial drone regulations and patent reform. During the 2016 election cycle, he raised more money from Facebook employees than any other member of Congress, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Mr. Schumer also has a personal connection to Facebook: His daughter Alison joined the firm out of college and is now a marketing manager in Facebook’s New York office, according to her LinkedIn profile.
In July, as Facebook’s troubles threatened to cost the company billions of dollars in market value, Mr. Schumer confronted Mr. Warner, by then Facebook’s most insistent inquisitor in Congress.
Back off, he told Mr. Warner, according to a Facebook employee briefed on Mr. Schumer’s intervention. Mr. Warner should be looking for ways to work with Facebook, Mr. Schumer advised, not harm it. Facebook lobbyists were kept abreast of Mr. Schumer’s efforts to protect the company, according to the employee.
TL;DR: Facebook were a bunch of cowards who engaged in a ton of influence peddling in Washington and lying to the public to protect their asses.
In a letter to the UK's Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the company declined to say why Zuckerberg couldn't attend, but said it remains "happy to cooperate" with the inquiry. The letter also laid out some of the efforts Facebook has made over the last year in areas like fighting fake news and striving for transparency in political ads.
Damian Collins, chair of the committee, is leading the charge and noted that the social network's response is "hugely disappointing."
While Mr. Zuckerberg conducted a public apology tour in the last year, Ms. Sandberg has overseen an aggressive lobbying campaign to combat Facebook’s critics, shift public anger toward rival companies and ward off damaging regulation. Facebook employed a Republican opposition-research firm to discredit activist protesters, in part by linking them to the liberal financier George Soros. It also tapped its business relationships, persuading a Jewish civil rights group to cast some criticism of the company as anti-Semitic.
Am I reading the this correctly that someone Facebook was paying started (or at least participated in) the Soros paid protestors bullshit?
If Facebook implicated Russia further, Mr. Kaplan said, Republicans would accuse the company of siding with Democrats. And if Facebook pulled down the Russians’ fake pages, regular Facebook users might also react with outrage at having been deceived: His own mother-in-law, Mr. Kaplan said, had followed a Facebook page created by Russian trolls.
I’ve noticed when tracking back my crazy mother-in-laws bullshit posts that Facebook won’t let you report the original posts that are fabricated information (I just can’t bring myself to use the real term anymore when I’m trying to be taken seriously), only the subsequent reposts. This kind of explains the shitty reason for that.
It was done at the highest levels. Sandberg needs to be fired, or barring that, resign - when you sign off on a nakedly anti-Semitic propaganda campaign because you are too thin skinned to handle a deserved upbraiding, you don't deserve to have a job.
The Times investigation is a damning portrait of a company in crisis and puts Zuckerberg’s testimony before Congress in a harsher light. He repeatedly highlighted the work that the company was doing to combat data breaches, the spread of fake news, and electoral influence. In reality, he was paying a firm to push the exact kind of conspiracy theory that Facebook has been criticized of propagating. The depth of Zuckerberg’s insincerity is all too clear: He’s only interested in doing the bare minimum, and his company has proven incapable of self-regulation. Congress was slow to realize as much back in April, but it no longer has any excuse for not bringing the full weight of the law against one of America’s most arrogant, unaccountable monopolies.
At this point, Facebook can not be trusted whatsoever to deal with this honestly.
Facebook‘s recently-fired PR firm allegedly floated a story to journalists that Apple News was biased against Republicans. The company, Definers Public Affairs, made headlines this week after a bombshell New York Times report revealed that it was employed by Facebook to dig up dirt on critics and competitors. One of these competitors, according to documents obtained by CNN, was Apple News.
According to CNN, the company pitched a story titled “Apple News Curators’ Political Donations” to at least one reporter this summer. The firm, seemingly, was attempting to make a case that human editors suppress conservative viewpoints on the app, and it could prove this allegation based on a history of their political donations.
“30 individuals have been identified as working for Apple in media curation roles or specifically at Apple News,” the document read. “Five of these individuals have contributed to Democratic candidates or causes.” There was little additional evidence to back the claim, nor was there proof that the people listed were Apple News employees rather than others with similar names.
The evidence was not very compelling, according to CNN.
In a statement released this morning, the company said:
To be clear: Definers was not hired by Facebook as an opposition research firm. That might be the sexy story for media outlets because several of us have spent years doing research and communications for high-stakes political campaigns, but that was not the scope of the work we had for Facebook.
In fact, Definers’ main services for Facebook were basic media monitoring and public relations around public policy issues facing the company. We ran a large-scale news alert service keeping hundreds of Facebook staff informed on news stories about the company and its policy challenges.
For its part, Facebook executives Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg denied knowing that the company had even hired Definers.
Facebook‘s recently-fired PR firm allegedly floated a story to journalists that Apple News was biased against Republicans. The company, Definers Public Affairs, made headlines this week after a bombshell New York Times report revealed that it was employed by Facebook to dig up dirt on critics and competitors. One of these competitors, according to documents obtained by CNN, was Apple News.
According to CNN, the company pitched a story titled “Apple News Curators’ Political Donations” to at least one reporter this summer. The firm, seemingly, was attempting to make a case that human editors suppress conservative viewpoints on the app, and it could prove this allegation based on a history of their political donations.
“30 individuals have been identified as working for Apple in media curation roles or specifically at Apple News,” the document read. “Five of these individuals have contributed to Democratic candidates or causes.” There was little additional evidence to back the claim, nor was there proof that the people listed were Apple News employees rather than others with similar names.
The evidence was not very compelling, according to CNN.
In a statement released this morning, the company said:
To be clear: Definers was not hired by Facebook as an opposition research firm. That might be the sexy story for media outlets because several of us have spent years doing research and communications for high-stakes political campaigns, but that was not the scope of the work we had for Facebook.
In fact, Definers’ main services for Facebook were basic media monitoring and public relations around public policy issues facing the company. We ran a large-scale news alert service keeping hundreds of Facebook staff informed on news stories about the company and its policy challenges.
For its part, Facebook executives Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg denied knowing that the company had even hired Definers.
Facebook is a threat to news media.
I mean, it was already before they took steps to actively spread propaganda in an effort to keep their stock from dropping further...
+8
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Apparently the Soros part of this wasn't a conspiracy theory, Soros was funding the group in question, which Definers simply told to some reporters who were asking about the funding. That sounds a lot less bad than what these articles have been implying. Soros as an anti-Semitic boogeyman is a terrible thing, but he does actually fund some stuff and I don't think it's automatically wrong to point out when he is actually doing so.
Apparently the Soros part of this wasn't a conspiracy theory, Soros was funding the group in question, which Definers simply told to some reporters who were asking about the funding. That sounds a lot less bad than what these articles have been implying. Soros as an anti-Semitic boogeyman is a terrible thing, but he does actually fund some stuff and I don't think it's automatically wrong to point out when he is actually doing so.
Engaging in Anti-Semitism is wrong, no matter what. It was clear that they were bringing up his involvement in order to dismiss the group outright, which in turn is built on Anti-Semitism.
In short, these geese no longer merit the benefit of the doubt.
Me: "Facebook is doing a lot of shady things."
Also Me: "Facebook and Messenger are the primary ways I keep in contact with many of my friends."
I assume "Me" includes A LOT of "Me's".
EDIT: Like, if Facebook vanished tomorrow that would be like losing dozens of people from my daily life. I (usually) enjoy seeing what people are up to.
Posts
Apparently from a fraud suit which was unlocked today by this guy, who is CEO of Digital Content Next. Whatever that is.
Cool. Awesome. Far out.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
I fucking wish they were bottom of the barrel
*Like, they can say they won't pay unless the viewer redirects to their site or views the entire ad, both of which are ridiculous requirements that other media forms don't have to deal with. Also rehosting, and Facebook specifically, cut into profits by a fair margin, which shouldn't be.
I remember that Cracked suddenly started doing a lot of videos with tiny view counts compared to their popular humor listicles, and then went bust. Related?
That wasn't them running out of money, it was the new owner's fuckery.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Yeah but how do you pay for it? that was the problem with 1.0 wasn't it?
You execute step 3. PROFIT!
What's cool about companies collecting personal data on you is that even if you do consent to them collecting it, when that company goes bankrupt and sells off its assets, that means somebody can buy your personal data and use it without your consent, and you won't even know who is using it!
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
That's basically filling surveys for money, which was all the rage 15 years ago
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Getting companies to pay you so they could sell you something is a hell of a con. Maniac come to life!
Which is why they should act as a broker for your data and not like they own your data.
Let's call 3.0 a failure and skip straight to 4.0.
Ah no, see, it's the consumer who never owns anything these days. You just pay money for the privilege of access to a license, which can be revoked at any time for any reason without refund.
I still buy mainly physical media because you can't come to my house and take it away from me for no reason.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
If we're doing that we might as well skip to 5.
Call it Web V.
http://www.niemanlab.org/2018/10/did-facebooks-faulty-data-push-news-publishers-to-make-terrible-decisions-on-video/
Slap, (or more of a tickle) on the wrist.
That's like half a day's worth of coke man!
Come Overwatch with meeeee
New European legislation covers that, BUT, the CA leak is before said legislation went live, so sucks to suck.
The "good" news is that the next FB leak will probably enter on the new legislation.
Fines for companies should also include fines for the top of the org chart.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/facebook-dilemma/
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/14/technology/facebook-data-russia-election-racism.html TL;DR: Facebook were a bunch of cowards who engaged in a ton of influence peddling in Washington and lying to the public to protect their asses.
Facebook isn't on the side of democracy, here.
Wouldn't want to cause his daughter employment problems!
Am I reading the this correctly that someone Facebook was paying started (or at least participated in) the Soros paid protestors bullshit?
I’ve noticed when tracking back my crazy mother-in-laws bullshit posts that Facebook won’t let you report the original posts that are fabricated information (I just can’t bring myself to use the real term anymore when I’m trying to be taken seriously), only the subsequent reposts. This kind of explains the shitty reason for that.
At this point, Facebook can not be trusted whatsoever to deal with this honestly.
https://thenextweb.com/insider/2018/11/16/facebooks-former-pr-firm-seeded-fake-stories-about-bias-at-apple-news/ Facebook is a threat to news media.
I mean, it was already before they took steps to actively spread propaganda in an effort to keep their stock from dropping further...
Engaging in Anti-Semitism is wrong, no matter what. It was clear that they were bringing up his involvement in order to dismiss the group outright, which in turn is built on Anti-Semitism.
In short, these geese no longer merit the benefit of the doubt.
Also Me: "Facebook and Messenger are the primary ways I keep in contact with many of my friends."
I assume "Me" includes A LOT of "Me's".
EDIT: Like, if Facebook vanished tomorrow that would be like losing dozens of people from my daily life. I (usually) enjoy seeing what people are up to.