advertisement


Facebook vs World Governments

richgilb said:
With the their ad model now it is completely useless for me. If they allowed us to advertise in specialist groups it would work. As yet, they do not. I have not yet seen a reason why they do not allow it. At the moment they make us all pay to get likes and then we can target these people. Ridiculous. The kind of likes I got from paid advertising were garbage. In the meantime, while we go round the houses arsing about with the official FB ad campaigns, there is a group of 10,000 people that are all talking about one specific model of motorbike in one specific group of facebook, many of them owners. No brainer. Until they allow that kind of target advertising, I won't be spending a penny there.
Click to expand...

I suspect it all depends on how you use it. I know someone in the motorbike community who makes really cool helmets (Davida) and they seem to utilise Facebook very effectively. I suspect it works better for creatives than resellers though, but again it all depends on how one approaches it, e.g. HiFi Hanger seem to have a decent presence.

My problem with it is I haven’t figured out why pfm needs it or how best to use it. I already run a social media platform, so I’m not sure what use an account on another is to me, and in fact it may hinder me to move any content to areas that I can’t monetise. FWIW I have never advertised pfm in any context (I’ve never needed to, it grew by word of mouth/being the right thing at the right time) so I don’t really know how to do it! I don’t want to either as I don’t want it to grow into something I can’t personally easily manage. It is a sensible size at present; fast moving and financially viable (just!), but not so big I need to employ anyone.
 
Tony L said:
I suspect it all depends on how you use it. I know someone in the motorbike community who makes really cool helmets (Davida) and they seem to utilise Facebook very effectively. I suspect it works better for creatives than resellers though, but again it all depends on how one approaches it, e.g. HiFi Hanger seem to have a decent presence.

My problem with it is I haven’t figured out why pfm needs it or how best to use it. I already run a social media platform, so I’m not sure what use an account on another is to me, and in fact it may hinder me to move any content to areas that I can’t monetise. FWIW I have never advertised pfm in any context (I’ve never needed to, it grew by word of mouth/being the right thing at the right time) so I don’t really know how to do it! I don’t want to either as I don’t want it to grow into something I can’t personally easily manage. It is a sensible size at present; fast moving and financially viable (just!), but not so big I need to employ anyone.
Click to expand...
High innovation and gimmicks with videos seem to be the ones that work. I am impressed Davida can make it work but his product is much broader so the general ad campaigns will work better. All bikers wear helmets.
 
richgilb said:
High innovation and gimmicks with videos seem to be the ones that work. I am impressed Davida can make it work but his product is much broader so the general ad campaigns will work better. All bikers wear helmets.
Click to expand...

I think with all of this stuff you have to have a ‘content provider’ mindset rather than just try to shill your wears. Create stuff people actually want to read. That is certainly the sort of thing I follow on Facebook.

Same with YouTube, the stuff that is interesting is the stuff that is interesting, regardless of whether its shilling product or not. A superb example is the music store Andertons; they produce yards and yards of really high-quality and often funny content that musos watch regardless of whether they are interested in the specific product being showcased. Its effectively ‘Top Gear’ for guitarists, but everything showcased available for sale. That channel really is an object lesson in how to promote/sell in the 21st century.
 
Arkless Electronics said:
https://www.theguardian.com/technol...exempts-political-ads-ban-making-false-claims
Click to expand...

I just wish they’d ban political advertising entirely. Just get rid of all of it. It is inevitably false advertising as all politicians lie or at best entirely fail to deliver pledges. It is as bad as religion in most respects. I’m happy to be shown ads for audio kit, studio FX etc, but I really do not want to see Farage, Momentum or whatever popping up on my feed, let alone shit like Britain First (I think they are now thankfully banned, but I have seen it in the past).
 
Tony L said:
I just wish they’d ban political advertising entirely. Just get rid of all of it. It is inevitably false advertising as all politicians lie or at best entirely fail to deliver pledges. It is as bad as religion in most respects. I’m happy to be shown ads for audio kit, studio FX etc, but I really do not want to see Farage, Momentum or whatever popping up on my feed, let alone shit like Britain First (I think they are now thankfully banned, but I have seen it in the past).
Click to expand...

It's the bald faced "not only will we accept political advertising for profit but we will do it in the full knowledge they are lying to you and we couldn't give a toss" attitude that gets me!

Mind you IMHO the stuff I said earlier that has been pretty much ignored by all and sundry makes this look like a storm in a tea cup!

It's quite beyond me that so many are not bothered by "big brother" watching them and to the extent that they can recognise you automatically in a crowd and track you and your vehicle wherever you go... and it seems I'm the only one who gives a sh1t! It's a mad mad world!
 
Tony L said:
I think with all of this stuff you have to have a ‘content provider’ mindset rather than just try to shill your wears. Create stuff people actually want to read. That is certainly the sort of thing I follow on Facebook.

Same with YouTube, the stuff that is interesting is the stuff that is interesting, regardless of whether its shilling product or not. A superb example is the music store Andertons; they produce yards and yards of really high-quality and often funny content that musos watch regardless of whether they are interested in the specific product being showcased. Its effectively ‘Top Gear’ for guitarists, but everything showcased available for sale. That channel really is an object lesson in how to promote/sell in the 21st century.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Not just a mindset, deep pockets for that too. I'd love to buy bikes, dress them up in stuff for sale and talk shit on youtube for a living. Alas....
 
Arkless Electronics said:
It's quite beyond me that so many are not bothered by "big brother" watching them and to the extent that they can recognise you automatically in a crowd and track you and your vehicle wherever you go... and it seems I'm the only one who gives a sh1t! It's a mad mad world!
Click to expand...

I’m really not that paranoid, at least I wasn’t pre-Brexit when we still had the protection of EU human rights legislation etc. I am certainly not comfortable living in a country without a written constitution and bill of rights, let alone as a “subject” to a bloody monarch. Seriously, 21st century?! Screw that.

By saying that, and assuming the above societal stability, I have no issue with surveillance technology whatsoever, in fact I welcome it. If some junkie shithead breaks into my home and steals my stuff I hope to hell they are captured on CCTV, likewise if some idiot knocks me off my bike, mugs me, abducts a child, carries out racist or homophobic hate-crimes or whatever. There is no denying this technology has saved countless lives and stuck a load of bottom-feeding shit in jail. Good on it!
 
Tony L said:
I’m really not that paranoid, at least I wasn’t pre-Brexit when we still had the protection of EU human rights legislation etc. I am certainly not comfortable living in a country without a written constitution and bill of rights, let alone as a “subject” to a bloody monarch. Seriously, 21st century?! Screw that.

By saying that, and assuming the above societal stability, I have no issue with surveillance technology whatsoever, in fact I welcome it. If some junkie shithead breaks into my home and steals my stuff I hope to hell they are captured on CCTV, likewise if some idiot knocks me off my bike, mugs me, abducts a child, carries out racist or homophobic hate-crimes or whatever. There is no denying this technology has saved countless lives and stuck a load of bottom-feeding shit in jail. Good on it!
Click to expand...

Each to their own. I'd prefer to see all crime and terrorism double than see the surveillance continue! And I'd have those who say "if you've nothing to hide you've nothing to worry about" thrown to alligators!
 
Facebook citing privacy while mining people's data for rather a long time. Difficult to pick a side on this one
 
vuk said:
i agree with you. the opposite is an authoritarian position, even though none of them would ever accept that label.
Click to expand...

Authoritarianism is in the eye of the beholder, e.g. I see your left-wing desire to crush any business that grows beyond a arbitrary size of your choosing or to seize intellectual property rights after a short period etc as the extremist end of authoritarianism and way beyond simple crime prevention. I’d truly hate to live in such an oppressive and restrictive environment. I also suspect that were you to ever witness life in rather more edgy and less wealthy areas your viewpoint towards CCTV etc may change somewhat.
 
vuk said:
not sure what you are suggesting, but i certainly don;t want google and facebook making any kind of censorship decisions. .
Click to expand...

The real issues are ones of transparency and accountability. The problem is that they allow - without our scrutiny - hidden third parties to propagandise *targetted* individuals without anyone else being able to see who is being fed what propaganda. And in UK election terms - outwith the UK election laws governing spending on propaganda.

The same may well be happening in other areas.

There is also an imbalance in the way 'IPR' is applied. We have to pay the companies to use *their* IPR and they dictate the terms. Big example being music via purchase or streaming. But they can collect info *we* let them have without us having any say beyond their 'take it or leave it, we're the only game in town' stance. That also needs rectifying.

In practice, of course, 'censorship' of some kinds should happen. Even the companies agree this having been dragged into admitting it. e.g. kiddie porn. But again this feeds back to the top point. If we can't scrutinise what they do, we can't even decide what needs to be done in any detail, and they need not care provided their money rolls in.
 
Tony L said:
Which is all the information needed to make my point about there being no market for some dour left-wing Facebook clone.
Click to expand...

You take for granted that is all it could or can be. Basic error No1 is to assume that the future will always be just like now, only faster. Things change. Question is: what changes do we want, and which ones do we wish to avoid? Answer that and we can know the direction in which to move.

Leaving it to 'the market' in the absence of any scrutiny, transparency, or regulation just leads to monopoly/trust *forcing* us into a quasi-static state, until that situation breaks down because in essence it feeds on itself. That's the root cause of the 'crash' a decade ago, and why it will happen again because the 'crash' was 'solved' by pumping up the same balloon!
 
Arkless Electronics said:
Thanks I'll do that Jim:)
Click to expand...

For some time now PE has been running semi-routine items on what the 'social media' etc net companies *do* as distinct from what they *say*. Some of it coming from admissions forced out of them by US Congress investigations where they were forced to attend/answer. Unlike the UK where the people refuse to turn up, because they can get away with it.

I've been telling people for ages that if they don't read PE they probably have no idea what's *really* going on. Want to know who funds BloJo and his chums? Want to know how many of them are 'shorting' Brexit - i.e. arranging to make a big profit if it is a disaster? Read PE. Want to know where the money really goes in the NHS? What to know about the patents the net companies have taken out for things like using 'net connected devices' to listen to the sounds in your home so they can tell media companies what you are lstening to/watching? etc, etc, etc...
 
There's just no stopping exploitative human behavior. People want an orgy of free entertainment at their fingertips; the internet wants an orgy of advertising and marketing demographics at their fingertips, and governments want an orgy of ways to police and tax at theirs. I say let's enjoy ourselves and death to us all!
 
Jim Audiomisc said:
Leaving it to 'the market' in the absence of any scrutiny, transparency, or regulation just leads to monopoly/trust *forcing* us into a quasi-static state, until that situation breaks down because in essence it feeds on itself. That's the root cause of the 'crash' a decade ago, and why it will happen again because the 'crash' was 'solved' by pumping up the same balloon!
Click to expand...

There is an alternative argument once one considers the role of social media in oppressive authoritarian states such as Russia, Iran, Hong Kong, China, in fact just about everywhere. I’m very close to including a post-Brexit UK and the USA in that list too. I’d prefer to have pure global commercial pressure and end-user choice dictate matters rather than a nation state one may well be at direct odds with. To put it another way I trust certainly trust my email in the hands of say Tim Cook or even, if I really must, Mark Zuckerberg, than I do Jack Straw, David Blunkett, Theresa May, Priti Patel or any equivalently authoritarian home secretary. Most of these would actually turn off the internet if they had the choice! I am more than happy to pay the price of free access with advertising, as, clearly, are most people.

There is also obviously nothing stopping you having your own mail server etc, in fact I have one (not that I use it, I actually trust Apple’s security more!). There is nothing stopping anyone setting up competing alternatives to anything. We have both done exactly that. I just don’t have any ill-will towards those who really do create world-changing technology. I wish I’d thought of Facebook myself, I’ve likely been online longer than Zuckerberg so I have no excuse (I’ve been here longer than the www, as I’m certain you have)!
 
Tony L said:
There is an alternative argument once one considers the role of social media in oppressive authoritarian states such as Russia, Iran, Hong Kong, China, in fact just about everywhere. I’m very close to including a post-Brexit UK and the USA in that list too. I’d prefer to have pure commercial pressure and end-user choice dictate matters rather than a nation state one may well be at direct odds with. To put it another way I trust certainly trust my email in the hands of say Tim Cook or even, if I really must, Mark Zuckerberg, than I do Jack Straw, David Blunkett, Theresa May, Priti Patel or any equivalently authoritarian home secretary.

(I’ve been here longer than the www, as I’m certain you have)!
Click to expand...

My maxim for all the above is "Don't trust - verify!" i.e. transparency and scrutiny to enable accountability. I certainly don't trust the big net company owners any more than I do politicians. The record shows they'd sell data to pretty much anyone who pays enough - *including* politicians you or I would loath.

And come the next election we can vote out politicians who've been caught out - unless, of course, the targetted and out-of-our-sight propaganda fouls up democractic accountability... now why does that sound familiar these days?... We can't vote to change who runs FarceBook.

Yes, I've been on the net since 'pine' etc. I recall when a 56k modem was 'wow'. And 'Janet' was the big UK network. Now it's '60MB is OK'... :)
 
Arkless Electronics said:
Each to their own. I'd prefer to see all crime and terrorism double than see the surveillance continue! And I'd have those who say "if you've nothing to hide you've nothing to worry about" thrown to alligators!
Click to expand...
Just so I am clear, you would rather MORE human beings killed, raped, tortured etc. than have governments use surveillance?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top