
Zuckerberg: advertisers will be back to Facebook 'soon enough' - DarkContinent
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-53262860
======
the_unknown
And yes, he's absolutely correct. Some advertisers such as the big Canadian
banks aren't even hiding it now switching from announcing a boycott to a
limited-time withdrawal: "Participating brands will suspend all advertising on
the platform for the month of July."

[https://globalnews.ca/news/7129688/facebook-boycott-
canada-b...](https://globalnews.ca/news/7129688/facebook-boycott-canada-
banks/)

~~~
doopy-loopy2
FB should offer a "limited-time" discount for advertisers, subsidized by rate
hike when those boycotting return.

~~~
jhowell
Why would this be a good idea? It sounds like a "punishment."

~~~
cmdshiftf4
They're a private platform, they can do what they like?

~~~
Dylan16807
I think you got "should" and "can" mixed up.

------
someluccc
The cool thing about facebook’s highly targeted advertising is that it
balances the ad market in favor of niche players vs. generalists, which also
means they have a long long tail of millions of small buyers vs. a few huge
ones who used to dominate traditional media.

Old marketing was carpetbombing, which meant only those with B-52 sized
budgets could dominate. It was also deeply entwined with centralized high-
volume distribution models, aligning the interests of big manufactures and big
retailers.

Today’s marketing is precision bombing. You just need the right explosion in
the right place. Likewise, internet distribution enables the economics of
small manufacturers and small retailers (shopify/amz third-party).

Which is why big advertisers have done relatively poorly with internet ads.
Their prior campaigns worked, not so much because they or the product were
good, but because they could silence small competitors. Because retailers
could only carry a limited amount of products they would favor the big mfgs
who could provide bulk orders. Consumers just went for them because they had
no other choice.

Today small player’s can advertise to narrow niches where rates are low.
Likewise consumers can access products that better suit their specific
needs/wants. What this means is that FB doesn’t really need or depend on big
budget advertisers. Mark knows this.

~~~
dcolkitt
Another reason that Internet ads don't completely supplant traditional mass
marketing, is because a lot advertising is about creating a cultural consensus
around a product. Beer is the classic example.

Corona wants to create the image that it's the beer for cool, relaxed dudes.
We all know that there's nothing inherent to Corona that makes it the beer for
cool, relaxed dudes. But through mass advertising they've created a widely
shared cultural connotation for that brand. If I show up to a party with a
six-pack of Corona, I'm projecting a clear message to everyone there that I'm
a cool, relaxed dude. (Or at least style myself that way.) If I was going for
sophisticated, adventure-lover I might show up with Dos Equis instead. And
most everyone in America would understand.

For this type of marketing, hyper-targeted advertising defeats the purpose.
You don't just want to reach the target customers. You want everyone in the
broader culture to understand what your brand stands for. It's why mass reach
advertising, like Super Bowl commercials or Times Square billboards command
such hefty premiums. I watch a beer commercial at Super Bowl half time, and
not only do I know that I've seen that commercial. but I know everybody else
will too.

~~~
msla
> If I show up to a party with a six-pack of Corona, I'm projecting a clear
> message to everyone there that I'm a cool, relaxed dude. (Or at least style
> myself that way.) If I was going for sophisticated, adventure-lover I might
> show up with Dos Equis instead. And most everyone in America would
> understand.

Beer is a bad example these days because microbrews have taken over and the
consensus has become fractured: Moose Drool is big where I live, but it likely
doesn't exist where you are. Buying a macro means you're out-of-touch, no
matter what kinds of ads InBev is putting out for it these days.

~~~
hellisothers
I realize this is going way off topic but I’m seeing the opposite: I have
dozens of $20+ beer bottles in the basement and occasionally like a little
fresh IPA but by volume I drink way more Modelo or other lager. Doing anything
because everybody else is means... something, showing up with a case of miller
lite says you DGAF and the genuinely interesting people seem to notice.

------
ankit219
Facebook has a long tail of 8 million advertisers (according to their earnings
report).Some of the big ones leaving would mean that the relatively smaller
ones would get better returns on spend (due to fewer bidders and lower top
bid) and in turn spend more.

This does help the brands get a bit of free PR at Facebook's expense, given
that many of them would have been planning to reduce the spend anyway due to
Covid.

~~~
sharkmerry
By that same token, how big are the companies at the end of the tail? If large
corporations are cutting marketing budgets, small shops on tighter budgets
probably are as well

~~~
ankit219
Its the volume that makes up for that. Top 100 adverstisers on Facebook make
up less than 20% of the total advertising revenue. So, a lot of other
subscribers make up a major chunk, and if they increase spend even slightly
(given better ROI) Facebook will have a net gain.

Not every other guy would have a tighter budget. Companies like a gaming
company, a streaming platform, home delivery, edtech, telemedicine, D2C brands
to name a few are the ones which have increased their budget during these
times. Adding that to the fact they get better ROI on Facebook ads mean they
will end up spending more (and getting more value in return).

------
shoguning
My interpretation of what's going on:

CEOs finally have leverage against their marketing departments to do black-out
testing on social media ad spend. It's difficult to actually measure impact of
ad spending, and marketing teams spin results to their advantage.

They will observe what happens and re-introduce spending where it actually
works.

~~~
Aperocky
When a recession happen the first to go is marketing.

As a test, you would need to control other variables, the present economic
uncertainty basically rendered that impossible.

It's just the CEOs finding a convenient excuse to cut costs.

~~~
jjohansson
> When a recession happen the first to go is marketing.

As a marketer, I have found the opposite to be true for some industries. For
example, during 2007/2008 my digital marketing agency saw a big surge in
business from companies who saw marketing as a way to grow lagging demand.

~~~
Aperocky
I guess it also had to do with cost effectiveness. Digital marketing might
have been small but cheaper than paper/cable medias. Right now given the size
of Google and Facebook (and the fact that their whole revenue is basically
ads), it seems the advertising spend on them has become excessive and not cost
effective.

------
seebetter
Facebook is funny because I generally agree and disagree with everyone. But
people make their points so poorly, they have no sense of objectivity or
analytical ability, that I’m dismayed by all sides by the lack of a principled
approach.

90% of what people post about is a distraction and futile. I wish Facebook
could motivate and inform people to attend local government meetings. Instead,
it’s like an interactive tabloid magazine that we’re embedded in. We’re on the
shelf in a Rite-Aid living in a world of ridiculousness as corporations pass
by us and sell us stuff. 24 hours a day.

~~~
airstrike
More people need to read The Subtle Art of Not Giving a Fuck

[https://www.amazon.com/Subtle-Art-Not-Giving-
Counterintuitiv...](https://www.amazon.com/Subtle-Art-Not-Giving-
Counterintuitive/dp/0062457713)

~~~
catacombs
The book is terrible. Mark Manson is terrible. Yes, by all means people should
read, but not this. There is plenty of good literature, especially fiction,
that doles out the same advice but in more tactful manner, rather than the
writings of a guy's lifetime of good fortune.

~~~
airstrike
> The book is terrible. Mark Manson is terrible.

Ad hominem.

> There is plenty of good literature

Never claimed otherwise, and it's not a zero-sum game.

> especially fiction

Sure, but different strokes for different folks, and there's something to be
said about the directness of a self-help book vs. fiction.

> that doles out the same advice but in more tactful manner

His blunt voice is precisely why many find the book valuable. It cuts to the
chase. The title itself makes it clear that this is what you'll get, so
opening the book expecting otherwise would be nonsensical.

> rather the writings of a guy's lifetime of good fortune

His good fortune has no bearing on the value of his ideas. Again an ad
hominem.

------
legitster
I work in marketing. Advertising markets are pretty damned efficient. If a
bunch of advertisers pull out, rates come down, new advertisers come in.

There may be some affect, especially if big companies were spending
inefficiently to build "awareness". But at the end of the day, the market rate
for a click is the market rate. Someone will pay for it.

~~~
sfpoet
If that were true, then why aren't frequencies capped for most campaigns run
on-line?

~~~
legitster
I don't think I understand this question. Why doesn't Facebook limit the
number of impressions? I assume the premise is that fewer ads will be worth
more?

Again, the ad market is insanely efficient and competitive. Restricted supply
doesn't correlate with increased prices. If 1000 impressions is worth $20 to
me, and it costs $30 on Facebook, I can take my money elsewhere. I don't even
need to push a button, I have software that could automatically change my
budget minute to minute.

~~~
sfpoet
Let me explain it another way.

As a user, I often see the same ad 100s of times. Yes, 100s.

On most ad software, you can set it so that the user sees it maybe 3 times.

The fact that I see an ad 100s of times means that the ad market is
inefficient. Maybe the competition for that ad space is efficient, but from a
user POV, advertisers are wasting time and space.

~~~
legitster
Replying a bit late:

This is the difference between "Reach" (number of people who see the ad) and
"Impressions" (number of times an ad was shown). Advertisers have the ability
to optimize for either (or neither if they optimize for something else).

Usually this is based on some internal metrics they have, like a report that
correlates the number of impressions it takes someone to convert. Nobody will
buy a product based on a single impression, so some amount of repetition is
required. There are also industries with _really long_ sales cycles where
consumers may only make buying decisions once a year or less, so if you buy
ads, you need to do it over a long period of time.

That's not to say every advertiser is doing things logically or efficiently.
There are a lot of dumb strategies. Just like the stock market, it's full of
really dumb decisions, and it only seems sensible when you stand back and look
at it as a whole.

------
gruglife
It’s so true. At the end of the day, users haven’t abandoned FB and that’s
what advertisers care about.

~~~
MagnumPIG
Depends which users. A lot of teenagers are "mostly on Instagram" or "only use
it for Messenger". And teenagers are apparently an important population to
marketers.

I know FB owns Instagram but the point is, Facebook as a platform may be past
its prime in NA.

~~~
jehlakj
There’s even a meme: Facebook is for boomers.

Idk how much of that is true, but apps like Instagram and tiktok are
definitely talked about more these days

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Boomers have the money, though. And advertisers like people with money.

~~~
linuxftw
Smart advertisers, anyway.

The older folks make facebook sticky for the younger people too. It might not
be their first choice for social media, but they're on there cause extended
family are on there.

Some people quit facebook, most people don't. There's lots of groups, and now
you have market place. It's genuinely useful.

~~~
neutronicus
Yeah my wife and I (millennials) have both been "Facebook is for Boomers"
people in the past, but when I was into competitive card games all the events
were organized on Facebook, and now that we have a baby there are all kinds of
new parent groups that we use.

We still don't really think much of it as a social network but somehow while
we weren't looking it pretty much ate Craigslist, Meetup, and Local News so
now we're on the platform again. Like if someone has some baby formula they
don't need, we find out on Facebook. If somebody gets stabbed at the pizzeria
across the street, we find out on Facebook. If there's a card game tournament,
I (found) out on Facebook.

------
ucha
There is this very good article of Ben Thompson [1] predicting that Zuckerberg
won't budge:

1/ large advertisers represent a small portion of FB's ad revenue

2/ if large advertisers leave and price of ads fall, other "social media ad-
dependent businesses" will pick up the slack because they can measure very
well their advertising return on investment thus driving the price of ads back
up.

[1] [https://stratechery.com/2020/apple-and-
facebook/](https://stratechery.com/2020/apple-and-facebook/)

------
actuator
I am neither a FB user, employee or stockholder. FB has taken a lot of steps
which I would not support personally; but how likely would it be for FB's bad
policies to get more fanned by the old media(newspapers, news TV channels,
influential blogs) because they have an axe to grind here. FB essentially
disrupted the whole business model of old media and commoditizes old media
entities. FB acts as a middleman, eats up revenue share and weakens the brand-
user relationship, something no old media company will like.

------
pphysch
Of course they will. The calculus has been done; the marketing boost from
saying "we are pulling ads from Facebook (for X weeks)" apparently outweighs
the actual value of those weeks of passive Facebook ads. And then things will
be back to "business-as-usual" (although outrage marketing is business-as-
usual).

------
gbolcer3
He should just ban them for a year just to see what their reaction is.

~~~
lallysingh
Maybe let's wait to see how the anti-trust conversation goes first.

~~~
ThrustVectoring
If you're looking for anti-trust conversations, "let's all collaborate to stop
doing business with Facebook" looks a lot more like an illegal combination in
restraint of trade.

------
Barrin92
Of course he's right. If anything I'm surprised advertisers aren't cutting
back more given how much revenue they're probably losing during the pandemic.

Real change has to come from two sources. Firstly regulation, Facebook will
never "self-regulate" and this corporate activism is a joke. And secondly,
from employees who in sufficient numbers have at least some leverage.

~~~
goodrubyist
You do realize that regulating Facebook and other social media companies in
order to force them to limit speech on their platforms would expressly violate
the First Amendment? And, thank God for 1A, given the enormous amount of
interest people have in limiting speech.

~~~
gruez
>You do realize that regulating Facebook and other social media companies in
order to force them to limit speech on their platforms would expressly violate
the First Amendment?

Yet FCC is still around regulating speech on broadcast television.

~~~
shripadk
Because broadcast media is a publisher. Does Facebook want to call itself a
publisher? If it does then I am sure FCC will regulate Facebook too. Right now
all social media platforms are shielded by Section 230. They are platforms and
not liable to what is posted on their platforms. But, some social media
companies like Twitter have taken on the mantle of a publisher by mucking
around with the US President's tweets. This has now set a precedent. Tomorrow
Trump may or may not be in office. But Twitter will continue to exist. Will it
continue to edit/censor Presidents and Prime Ministers around the World? If
Twitter acquires those powers for itself without any regulatory oversight then
you have an unofficial Supranational Government: Social Media.

~~~
shuntress
They are _very_ clearly acting as publishers as well.

When you connect to twitter do you see the same monolithic platform that
everyone else sees before you each sort it as you please?

Of course not.

You see a specific-as-possible individual experience published just for you.

Edit: Twitter clearly needs and should have the ability to manage the content
they publish.

But they also clearly function like a platform in significant ways.

It does not make sense to try to argue that Twitter is either a platform or a
publisher and nothing in between

~~~
shripadk
> They are _very_ clearly acting as publishers as well.

Then they should be held liable for every post/tweet that goes on their
platform! Will they be willing to accept that liability like the media houses
do? You can sue the media house if it posts something that is false. You can't
sue Facebook for a post someone put on it. Facebook will call itself a
platform and deny taking liability for someone's post.

> It does not make sense to try to argue that Twitter is either a platform or
> a publisher and nothing in between

It does make sense. Your nature of business defines the regulations that apply
on you. I can't start a software business today and 3 years later arbitrarily
decide to convert it to a defense manufacturing company and still hope to
retain the same regulatory rules that apply for software companies. There are
regulatory policies for every company based on its nature of business. You are
creating a monster if you allow these social media companies to have all sorts
of policies without any regulatory oversight!

EDIT:

> You see a specific-as-possible individual experience published just for you.

Yes and it still is a platform because the functionality (personal
recommendations) is built into the platform as a feature right? It is a AI
tool that recommends a feed based on your likes and dislikes. Is this the same
as publishing? Nope. With publishing you have a process where posts are
edited, verified and then shown to the public. There is some notion of
"trust". So when I watch news I know that the news channel has not just
curated, but also verified and then is showing me the content that I can then
consume. That verification step is essential and is what separates a
"Publisher" from a "Platform". Twitter never "verified" the feed right? It
just curated it. As a platform it can only "moderate" based on its policies
that prohibit certain acts that are illegal by law: like sharing child
pornography or calling for violence or gambling. This is required by law and
that is where moderation tools come into play. Twitter, by
censoring/editing/attaching information to Trump's tweet is behaving as a
"publisher" by actually verifying the content of the tweet in question. It
does not fall under "moderation" as there is nothing there that is illegal for
them to moderate. The feed I consume through personal recommendations is
curated but still unverified. I still have to figure out for myself if the
post/tweet in question is correct or incorrect. The onus of verification rests
with me, the user. That is why it is a platform. The onus of verification in
case of media channels rest with the channel. Because they are operating on
the notion of "trust". That as a consumer of their content I have trust in
what they show me. I don't need to verify. That trust is broken if they start
lying. They can lie and spread fake news. But they will be held liable for it.
That is why they are a publisher and have to go through the headache of
verifying the news before it is broadcast to the public.

Twitter is like a post office. You send mails via post, you expect the postman
to deliver the post to the nearest post office, which sorts and aggregates
those posts and then pushes those posts to the relevant po box for dispatch.
Imagine if the post office started to open the mails and tamper with the
messaging. Would you be okay with it? The post office can only open posts if
they find something criminal and that also has to be done in a systematic
manner: An authority should be present while the post is being opened, every
step is to be recorded, the items within the post should be carefully handled
and recorded all the way up until the post is sealed. And then the authority
must sign off by saying that the post did not contain anything bad (like
drugs/weapons whatever that is declared illegal in that jurisdiction). That is
the only powers a post office has.

Now imagine if the post office started messing with the posts. Imagine if you
were running for election and you distribute flyers through postal mail. One
of the employees in the post office doesn't agree with your ideology and
decides to tamper with the flyer. Instead of modifying the flyer he attaches a
sticky note with his own comments so whoever reads the flyer will also read
the sticky note. Would this not be considered tampering with the messaging?
How is Twitter attaching a notice to Trump's tweet any different from this?
Only difference is that it is virtual and not physical?

~~~
shuntress
The post office (Twitter) is _already_ opening every envelope. That is how the
personalized feeds are created.

Do you think the post office should be able to check the content of your
message to determine whether to deliver it to you tomorrow, next week, now (if
the sender pays more)?

This is a much more complicated issue than a simple publisher-platform
determination. The only thing that is clear is that Twitter, Facebook, etc,
behave very much like both a platform and a publisher.

I do agree with you that new regulation is critical to help manage these
systems.

~~~
shripadk
> The post office (Twitter) is _already_ opening every envelope. That is how
> the personalized feeds are created.

Oh I meant humans opening the envelope, reading and manipulating the content.
Not just opening it. I should have been more clear. The feeds are still
created out of reading it but it is not being tampered with. A publisher does
still collect and read reports provided by the reporter. However, the decision
to publish is only based on verification of facts because the ultimate
liability rests with the publisher not the reporter. If the publisher still
goes ahead (some do) with fabricated news they can and will be held liable for
it. The reporter is not held liable for it. The max that can happen to the
reporter is getting fired from the media house.

But with Twitter, once it attaches it's opinion to the tweet, it is
essentially indulging in fact-checking. That is what a publisher does.

That is why I said that the key difference between a platform and a publisher
is the step of "verification". With a feed you are still being shown
unverified user generated content. The onus of verification rests on your
shoulders. But once Twitter decides to verify a tweet, the onus of
verification now lies on Twitter's shoulders.

> I do agree with you that new regulation is critical to help manage these
> systems.

Exactly. Either content is regulated or not regulated. Moderation I agree with
because those are clearly defined by law (like no calling for violence, racial
abuse, bomb threats, child pornography etc). But anything more than that needs
to be regulated. Else these social media companies will have too much power in
their hands. They can censor anything at will. I have seen many of my comments
in Youtube get deleted just for the mention of the word "China". I never get
an alert for it. Only after I refresh the page do I see that it has been
removed. And I live in a free country not bound by any dictatorial laws. So I
am sure that Youtube algorithms have some bias added into it. Censorship is so
prevalent now that people are gaming the Youtube algorithms by using words
like "Chyna". I remember during the initial days of the Coronavirus outbreak
Youtube was removing any mention of Coronavirus and restricting/demonetizing
any videos that spoke about the issue. So much so that even legitimate videos
got shadow banned. So many content creators started using the word "ramen" for
Coronavirus.

This sort of censorship is not good. This is not what internet was built for!

~~~
shuntress
Yes, YouTube's opaque system where you cannot easily tell what is the
algorithm, what is systemic moderation, and what is personal channel
moderation is a good example of why it's so important to have strong
regulation.

It will definitely not work to expect everyone to show exemplary good faith
behavior in public interest like Twitter. Even though they don't appear to be
doing enough to handle astroturfing.

------
wnevets
He is 100% correct. These advertisers have gotten millions of dollars in free
PR for the "boycott" but that last won't long for most of them.

~~~
bennettfeely
I really have a hard time believing consumer behavior is affected by these
boycotts. Is the average person running to spend more at Starbucks or Hershey
or Honda because they temporarily "stood up to Facebook"?

~~~
EForEndeavour
Analogously, does the average person run to spend more at Starbucks or Hershey
or Honda because they scrolled past the same ad 10 times in a single day in
their Instagram feed?

------
AngeloAnolin
FB executives knows the numbers, and knows how to play them out. They also
know how far reaching their platform is, and how well they are able to target
the intended customers of the businesses.

They have also proven time and again that their targeted ads generate the
results these businesses need. Pausing a month or two of ads does not hurt
their bottom line. They could simply take a hit on those months and when these
businesses go back, they could (again play the numbers) and charge more to
recoup those losses.

The FB platform has grown so big that they know even if they lose one big
business, the same could be replaced by 10 or 100 or even 1000 small
businesses which will allow them to simply get the same amount being paid by
the big companies.

------
zelphirkalt
Such a statement shows, that he still has learned nothing, specifically not
responsibility. For Zuckerberg it needs to financially hurt, in order to cause
ethical decisions.

Well, such kind of statement will hopefully also prolong the boykott, because
no one will want to seem like the beaten dog, beaten. ack into line. Hopefully
the boykott will even increase.

~~~
devalgo
>For Zuckerberg it needs to financially hurt, in order to cause ethical
decisions.

Hasn't he lost ~$6B in net worth because of this?

~~~
globular-toast
He hasn't really lost anything. Even if he was planning to liquidate all of
his stock right now, and assuming he could sell it all at the current market
rate, what do you think could really be bought for $6 billion? They are just
numbers at this level. He hasn't lost anything tangible.

~~~
devalgo
By that logic it's impossible for him to lose anything tangible so OP's
comment is pointless.

~~~
globular-toast
Not impossible, but very unlikely within the realms of the existing financial
systems. You can't control billionaires using the very systems that made them
billionaires.

------
ricardo81
And he has reason to be optimistic.

As per the UK's recent review into competition, 80% of online advertising
spend in the UK at least, is spent with Google and Facebook [0]

So, perhaps in his mind it hurts them more than it hurts Facebook

[0] [https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-regime-needed-to-
take...](https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-regime-needed-to-take-on-tech-
giants)

------
12xo
If Facebook was a bar, would you go there? Would you hang out there? I
wouldnt.

------
jb775
As long as companies like making money more than whatever cause they're
claiming to care about, Zuckerberg will be proven right.

------
will_pseudonym
Advertisers certainly will be back, because their public support for the cause
du jour is simply a rational decision to make money/avoid losing money. When
established corporations support your cause, you should be worried, because
what you think you're getting isn't what you're going to get, the status quo.

------
ma2rten
I don't know if Zuckerberg is right or not, but his retortic doesn't make it
more likely that they will back.

~~~
bigdict
rhetoric + retort = retortic

------
cik
Whilst companies have discussed pulling out of Facebook, for the most part
they're neither discussing, nor implementing exits from Instagram.

As Instagram makes up an increasing amount of Facebook's revenue, the reality
is that they're rather unconcerned. This is part of the cycle.

------
ThrustVectoring
[https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-
guidance/guide-a...](https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-
guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/dealings-competitors/group-boycotts)

This advocacy for a group boycott raises anti-trust concerns, IMO. While it is
not aimed at getting _price_ concessions, it is aimed at getting _other_
concessions in terms of the public perception of the context of the
advertisements bought. This is a material contractual term, and organizing a
group boycott to coerce concessions from Facebook to their business partners
seems problematic on anti-trust grounds.

------
forgotmypw17
Of course they will. All of the "boycotts" but one I've seen were until of the
month, and the way it's worded, they probably won't even stop using it, just
putting money into their account.

------
apexalpha
Look, I'm not going to lie: I'm not the biggest fan of Facebook and the way it
structured it's closed groups or how it allows posts to go 'viral'. I think
there's a lot of negativity that comes from 'viral' posts.

But does anyone realistically think you could put Facebook in charge of
moderating all content in the 500+ or so languages on there? With 3 billion
users?

It would mean the end of all open communications platforms that we've seen
since 2000s.

------
IndexPointer
My conspiracy theory mind tells me this is just brands doing a show of power
to end up paying less for ads. Plus scoring a PR win. The bad part is that it
encourages Facebook and others to do more aggressive automatic moderation,
which has low precision and deletes accounts of people merely mentioning
sensitive topics.

------
op03
Zuck is busy trying ensure his best employees aren't running for the hills.
Too late man too late. It's already happening.

~~~
sfpoet
Yeah, if recruiters are tagging the least interested in tech in my contacts,
then I know it's a ship going down. Acqui-hire is their only way to replenish
the talent pool, now.

~~~
djohnston
Are you saying fb is tagging non tech people for jobs?

~~~
sfpoet
I didn't want to be rude and say, "least talented people." Here I'm equating
least interested with least talented.

------
CogentHedgehog
Facebook is taking a firm stance NOW. But I imagine they will end up singing a
different tune if enough companies join the boycott to drop their ad revenues
by 20%.

Cuts in ad buys directly hurt their profits, because ad sellers (and data
collection firms) are their primary customers. Users are just a commodity that
enables Facebook to sell ads and harvest data.

------
RickJWagner
I think it's pretty plain this has to do with politics.

It's group-bullying of Facebook. But Zuck's right-- Facebook has a huge
audience, and they will keep using the platform. If some advertisers don't
want to pay, their competitors will.

I hate bullying. I hope Facebook profits out of all this.

------
baxtr
Of course they will. It's called performance marketing for a reason. You can
track your marketing invest down to the penny. Who cares if they're evil. I
believe that this is mostly a small little kindle that will burn out soon, and
not a huge wildfire for Facebook.

------
mhoad
On a related note I just saw someone on Twitter mentioning this report that
was just released that does a real deep dive into how the problems associated
with hate speech have played out on the ground in India. [1]

It's grim reading and I think it is a huge slap in the face to that ridiculous
corporate propaganda piece they released the other day saying that they don't
profit from hate speech.

I'd encourage people to have a read of this, I often see these Facebook
threads become extremely abstract and quickly becomes derailed about
principles of free speech and the conversation just runs around in circles.

Instead this is a very concrete instance of a problem that is really happening
and in concerning numbers around the world (i.e. the Rohingya genocide in
Myanmar) that is directly aided by Facebook.

I want to instead have the conversation about what should we do about this
particular problem and it's variations? Should brands factor these kinds of
problems into their marketing strategies?

[1]
[https://static1.squarespace.com/static/58347d04bebafbb1e66df...](https://static1.squarespace.com/static/58347d04bebafbb1e66df84c/t/5d018607143f4a000121707e/1560380939010/Facebook_India_Report_Equality_Labs.pdf)

~~~
higglydiggly
This is pretty explicitly the type of speech that doesn't need protection by
1A. The absolutism of it is really an ideal that practically achieved would
lead to some ugliness.

But I'm wondering how this extends to banning conservatives, conspiracy theory
pages, or even jokes? When is it going too far over the line, which is drawn
at different points for different people/groups?

Because my fear is the government doesn't crackdown like 1984, but the public
is convinced there is a much broader definition of wrongthink that people call
each other on, leading to less creative expression even if it's offensive
(with context) and essentially the same as CCP limitations of speech. For
instance I think we're mostly over the days of racial one-liners that are just
dumb and play on stereotypes, but how do we convince people still thinking
those jokes are appropriate to cease using them? Education and compassion may
help in some cases but not all.

~~~
shuntress
Lets start by condemning and removing organized genocide.

There is (hopefully) enough space between "actively organizing genocide" and
"conservatives, conspiracy theory pages, or even jokes" to allow room for a
reasonable line.

>how do we convince people still thinking those jokes are appropriate to cease
using them

By restricting their ability to make those jokes in a way that is clearly tied
to the act of making those jokes.

~~~
iateanapple
> There is (hopefully) enough space between "actively organizing genocide" and
> "conservatives, conspiracy theory pages, or even jokes" to allow room for a
> reasonable line.

There is no trust to allow anything resembling a reasonable line.

~~~
shuntress
Could you please expand on that?

Trust between who?

------
matthewfelgate
I'm not sure why people are hating on Facebook more than any other platform.
Justified or not? Explanations pleasse.

~~~
ardy42
> I'm not sure why people are hating on Facebook more than any other platform.
> Justified or not? Explanations pleasse.

This is a big topic, so you really can't expect someone to do your homework
for you if you actually want to understand.

Long story short Facebook had already shown themselves to be duplicitous and
untrustworthy on the user privacy front for more than a decade, then various
_other_ dark sides of social media made themselves most evident on Facebook,
and Zuckerberg has done a poor job at responding to those challenges.

------
smashah
I predict that Facebook will do a huge OOH campaign squeezing the other co's
to come back to Facebook

------
gbolcer3
He should just ban them for a year.

------
cm2012
Here's the business case why advertisers wouldn't want to enter the boycott,
beyond just losing their fb sales:

1) Facebook has had a number of negative sounding news cycles in the past few
years (Cambridge Analytica, etc.), and data shows that the average American
hasn't changed their behavior based on them. 70% of all Americans and
Canadians use Facebook or Instagram at least once a month, and 55% of all
Americans and Canadians use it at least once per day. Facebook's monthly and
daily user counts have only grown.

2) Facebook has done a better job than many in blocking hate speech. They can
always do better, but I'd be worried about scope creep. If Facebook makes
changes that the boycott organizers don't think are enough, it could make
advertisers in the boycott a target if they start spending on FB again later.
One key risk is if the boycott demands they start deleting Trump's posts, like
Twitter did. If that happens, it would potentially put any boycotters in an
unpleasant media cycle.

3) Most of the advertisers joining so far are companies that either are
progressive at their roots (Patagonia, Ben & Jerry's, The North Face) or want
to cut ad spend in a COVID environment anyway (Verizon, Unilever). For
instance, Unilever is also pausing Twitter ads, which has nothing to do with
the boycott.

4) Right now the general public does not associate most companies with FB ads.
Joining the list will remind people who are passionate about this issue that
their company does FB ads at all, which they don't currently think about.

So all the above combined makes me conclude that joining the boycott offers
few advantages, but presents real risks.

~~~
Alex3917
> it would potentially put any boycotters in an unpleasant media cycle.

That's already happening anyway, look at Ryan and Saagar today:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQICXcPBG8c](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQICXcPBG8c)

------
cultus
It will be a moot point soon enough when the ad market crashes.

------
spicyramen
My take is that since many people increase their cellphone usage, some renown
brands do not need advertising as they may already seen increase in online
sales, hence could be a good reason to cut in ads and be politically correct

------
cairoshikobon
Last two things I got from FB Ads:

"Smart" Wallet in Nov 2019: Never arrived. Owner now keeps posting dramatic
posts without issuing anyone a refund.

Bamboo Socks: Never arrived. No email after the first order confirmation last
year. No nothing.

~~~
kache_
You don't vehemently boycott everything that is advertised to you? P:

~~~
eaandkw
I tried that for a while. Then I realized I spend most of my time on Twitter,
FB, etc. hiding or deleting ads. So I just deleted all of my social media
accounts.

------
gdsdfe
it shows that when you have a monopoly or a strong moat, you can basically say
"fuck you" to your clients in a polite way of course, oh well

------
jb775
If my direct competition is partaking in this boycott, I'm doubling down on my
facebook ad-spend. Great opportunity to steal customers from your competition
while they are worried about posturing.

~~~
willcipriano
You'd probably be able to cut your ad spend in half and get the same result if
the niche is small enough. If only you are buying ad spots for Amish chocolate
teapot fans all of the sudden I imagine the price goes down quickly.

------
ben85ts
potential ad free alternative [https://userheist.com](https://userheist.com)

------
b20000
'soon enough' hahahhaha

------
MangoCoffee
even if big Corps stop advertising on FB. they will pay for FB's massive data.

------
saos
I actually hope not.

------
sfpoet
All I can do is imagine Jesse Eisenberg saying this. There are other channels
you can push your spend through with decent ROI. Nobody's platform be it a
personal blog or small app is without analytics anymore.

Shorting Facebook: FB 210p 7/10

~~~
xfour
2:10pm 7/10/2020?

~~~
greenshackle2
Don't know if you're joking, but it's Facebook put option with strike price of
$210 expiring on 7/10, in other words, betting that the stock price of FB will
be less than $210 by July 10 - current price is $235, so that would be down
~10%.

------
throwawaysea
I hope he doesn’t cave in. All the companies who signed onto the campaign to
stop advertising on Facebook are essentially against the fundamental
principles freedom of speech and expression. I don’t plan to buy from them any
longer, because they’re normalizing censorship.

~~~
acallaghan
> I don’t plan to buy from them any longer, because they’re normalizing
> censorship.

Go make a right-wing social media site, or join one that exists now. There's
people threatening civil war if Trump isn't re-elected, without being
challenged or 'censored'.

Freedom of speech is _from the government_ , private companies have freedom to
choose what they allow, given they also have free speech

