Author Topic: FB - Facebook  (Read 263238 times)

cameronfen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 511
Re: FB - Facebook
« Reply #970 on: February 08, 2019, 10:35:21 AM »
^^ You probably know this but because facebook is in the news and politicians are incetivized to win popularity of their citizens. 


Jurgis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4532
    • Porfolio
Re: FB - Facebook
« Reply #971 on: February 08, 2019, 01:39:11 PM »
https://www.wired.com/story/germany-facebook-antitrust-ruling


FACEBOOK’S MASSIVELY LUCRATIVE advertising model relies on tracking its one billion users—as well as the billions on WhatsApp and Instagram—across the web and smartphone apps, collecting data on which sites and apps they visit, where they shop, what they like...

On Thursday, Germany’s Federal Cartel Office, the country’s antitrust regulator, ruled that Facebook was exploiting consumers by requiring them to agree to this kind of data collection in order to have an account, and has prohibited the practice going forward.

“Facebook will no longer be allowed to force its users to agree to the practically unrestricted collection and assigning of non-Facebook data to their Facebook user accounts,” FCO president Andreas Mundt said in a statement announcing the decision.


...[until now] authorities haven’t done a good job of articulating why privacy is an antitrust issue. Here, the German regulator makes it clear. “The FCO’s theory is that Facebook’s dominance is what allows it to impose on users contractual terms that require them to allow Facebook to track them all over,” Khan says. “When there is a lack of competition, users accepting terms of service are often not truly consenting. The consent is a fiction.”

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/germany-gets-wrong-facebook-120602470.html

...why go after Facebook and not Google, the biggest fish of all? Google’s parent, Alphabet Inc., collects more data.

If this stands on appeal, they will go after Google too. Maybe even before that.
"Before you can be rich, you must be poor." - Nef Anyo
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"American History X", "Milk", "The Insider", "Dirty Money", "LBJ"

Spekulatius

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3003
Re: FB - Facebook
« Reply #972 on: February 08, 2019, 03:53:27 PM »
I believed they will go after Google and possibly Amazon too. Germany and most other countries in the EU have laws governing the use of data. Germany has a “Datenschutzgesetz” since the 70’s. This happened, when people got worried about the state and police doing data mining to find terrorist (then the communist Rote Armee Fraktion), which caused a violent epterror wave in the 70’s. While the datamining was successful, a lot of people got worried (due to expirence from the Nazi state) that this sort of data mining would go too far, and a law was out in place in 1977.

While this is all great, the law and the regulators haven’t really kept up with the newer data collectors like FB, GOOG and AMXN and the like, with a few exception like google maps cannot show street fees of private residences etc. But I think the grace period is over and they will have content with much much more regulation to the original spirit of the law now, not just in Germany, but in the entire EU.

Also for a historical perspective, the US is one of the few developed countries that does not have a comprehensive law governing the use of data. The other countries are China and Russia. Also upsetting to me is the Patriot act, which became effective after 9/11. With that law, the privacy of data with respect to the state pretty much went out the window. I am not sure there is much to show for this.


 And yes, I own FB stock, but that does not make the unregulated use of data right. The worst offenders of privacy are not GOOG or FB, they are the credit agencies, which pretty much make it their business model to sell private data. Stepping of the soapbox now.
To be a realist, one has to believe in miracles.

JayGatsby

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 637
Re: FB - Facebook
« Reply #973 on: February 09, 2019, 11:58:48 AM »
User data isn't as important to google. If I search for "toyota truck" that's all the data they need to show me ads related to buying a toyota truck. Most of their ad products don't let you specify beyond that anyway.

I was listening to a podcast yesterday where the guy said his customer acquisition cost on FB was up 4x over a few years ago. Just one piece of anecdata, but thought it was interesting. In his view the shotgun approach of targeting everyone on FB used to work, but now targeting is required. Not necessarily a bad thing. Most of what I see seems to support my view that prices are up, ad load is up, and user engagement is down. We'll see

cameronfen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 511
Re: FB - Facebook
« Reply #974 on: February 09, 2019, 01:53:04 PM »
User data isn't as important to google. If I search for "toyota truck" that's all the data they need to show me ads related to buying a toyota truck. Most of their ad products don't let you specify beyond that anyway.

I was listening to a podcast yesterday where the guy said his customer acquisition cost on FB was up 4x over a few years ago. Just one piece of anecdata, but thought it was interesting. In his view the shotgun approach of targeting everyone on FB used to work, but now targeting is required. Not necessarily a bad thing. Most of what I see seems to support my view that prices are up, ad load is up, and user engagement is down. We'll see

Maybe this comment belongs in the google thread, but user data is extremely important to any large tech company. Google even built android (and chrome) and offered them for free to collect more user data. Their search engine is built on user profiles and population behaviour.  Basically you feed in you personal online behavior into a machine learning algorithm (likely a neural network) and it uses this to decide what links to put where. That's all built on training on billions of people and probably trillions and trillions of searches.  Especially for big tech firms, data is absurdly valuable.  Google Brain the AI unit of google has by itself justified all the costs of google X in history.  Google X cost 3.5 billion this year alone.  Without data Google Brain would be worth nothing.

This is the problem with all companies, Facebook more so than any other because they are even more data dependent. People dont understand the massive amounts of money companies make with your data.  At the same time people may complain to politicians, but they dont leave facebook en mass or switch to duck duck go over google over data concerns.  This is why even with huge fines, companies like fb, amazon, and google will still try every trick in the book to get more data off you. 

GDPR is probably a good step if you want more data privacy (I for one dont really care that much the creepiness factor doesnt bother me as long as google and FB keep there products free), but even the absurd looking fines are not as much of a deterrent for tech companies as you think, because of how effectively they can monetize.

JayGatsby

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 637
Re: FB - Facebook
« Reply #975 on: February 09, 2019, 11:07:25 PM »
User data isn't as important to google. If I search for "toyota truck" that's all the data they need to show me ads related to buying a toyota truck. Most of their ad products don't let you specify beyond that anyway.

I was listening to a podcast yesterday where the guy said his customer acquisition cost on FB was up 4x over a few years ago. Just one piece of anecdata, but thought it was interesting. In his view the shotgun approach of targeting everyone on FB used to work, but now targeting is required. Not necessarily a bad thing. Most of what I see seems to support my view that prices are up, ad load is up, and user engagement is down. We'll see

Maybe this comment belongs in the google thread, but user data is extremely important to any large tech company. Google even built android (and chrome) and offered them for free to collect more user data. Their search engine is built on user profiles and population behaviour.  Basically you feed in you personal online behavior into a machine learning algorithm (likely a neural network) and it uses this to decide what links to put where. That's all built on training on billions of people and probably trillions and trillions of searches.  Especially for big tech firms, data is absurdly valuable.  Google Brain the AI unit of google has by itself justified all the costs of google X in history.  Google X cost 3.5 billion this year alone.  Without data Google Brain would be worth nothing.
Isn't user data and population data pretty different? Facebook has every individual person, and monetizes that individual's data.

Isn't Google primarily using population data that could easily be disconnected from the individual users? If website A has an average dwell time of 27 seconds and website B has an average dwell time of 48 seconds, website B is probably better. Is anyone trying to regulate that sort of broad population data?

Google does do more targeted stuff with custom intent ads, youtube ads, etc, but I don't think it's as large of a percentage of revenue.

cameronfen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 511
Re: FB - Facebook
« Reply #976 on: February 10, 2019, 07:44:16 AM »
User data isn't as important to google. If I search for "toyota truck" that's all the data they need to show me ads related to buying a toyota truck. Most of their ad products don't let you specify beyond that anyway.

I was listening to a podcast yesterday where the guy said his customer acquisition cost on FB was up 4x over a few years ago. Just one piece of anecdata, but thought it was interesting. In his view the shotgun approach of targeting everyone on FB used to work, but now targeting is required. Not necessarily a bad thing. Most of what I see seems to support my view that prices are up, ad load is up, and user engagement is down. We'll see

Maybe this comment belongs in the google thread, but user data is extremely important to any large tech company. Google even built android (and chrome) and offered them for free to collect more user data. Their search engine is built on user profiles and population behaviour.  Basically you feed in you personal online behavior into a machine learning algorithm (likely a neural network) and it uses this to decide what links to put where. That's all built on training on billions of people and probably trillions and trillions of searches.  Especially for big tech firms, data is absurdly valuable.  Google Brain the AI unit of google has by itself justified all the costs of google X in history.  Google X cost 3.5 billion this year alone.  Without data Google Brain would be worth nothing.
Isn't user data and population data pretty different? Facebook has every individual person, and monetizes that individual's data.

Isn't Google primarily using population data that could easily be disconnected from the individual users? If website A has an average dwell time of 27 seconds and website B has an average dwell time of 48 seconds, website B is probably better. Is anyone trying to regulate that sort of broad population data?

Google does do more targeted stuff with custom intent ads, youtube ads, etc, but I don't think it's as large of a percentage of revenue.

So population data is just a collection of individual data.  So even if all you wanted was population data why would you stop at collecting summary statistics of every 1000 visitors?  Also google searches are highly customized to each user (as are ads).  I am not sure exactly what advertisers put in, but google places the ads based not only on how much the ad buyer is willing to bid, but also the probability of a click.  In order to value click rate effectively you need data on individual profiles.  This is why when I search a term and you search a term we get different search results and ads.  I'm not an expert but happy to discuss in a DM so as not to get off topic. 

Jurgis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4532
    • Porfolio
Re: FB - Facebook
« Reply #977 on: February 10, 2019, 04:20:26 PM »
AFAIK Google as FB tracks individuals across web pages using cookies for gathering info and advertising. So the system between the two is pretty similar. Google is probably using Gmail/google account as an anchor while FB uses FB account.
"Before you can be rich, you must be poor." - Nef Anyo
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"American History X", "Milk", "The Insider", "Dirty Money", "LBJ"

Liberty

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11324
  • twitter.com/libertyRPF
    • twitter.com/libertyRPF
Re: FB - Facebook
« Reply #978 on: February 18, 2019, 12:25:01 PM »
Apologies if this has already been posted, but interesting email from Zuckerberg in 2015 talking about VR/AR, platforms vs apps, etc. Interesting look into how he sees strategy in the space:

https://www.scribd.com/document/399594551/2015-06-22-MARK-S-VISION#fullscreen&from_embed
"Most haystacks don't even have a needle." |  I'm on Twitter  | This podcast episode is a must-listen

Pauly

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 88
Re: FB - Facebook
« Reply #979 on: February 18, 2019, 09:50:34 PM »
Apologies if this has already been posted, but interesting email from Zuckerberg in 2015 talking about VR/AR, platforms vs apps, etc. Interesting look into how he sees strategy in the space:

https://www.scribd.com/document/399594551/2015-06-22-MARK-S-VISION#fullscreen&from_embed

Interesting. If the email is legitimate, it sheds more light on FB's thinking behind the Occulus purchase. Still, four years on and Unity is still independent. Did FB ever seriously pursue it? Were they rejected?