Slashdot Mirror
Facebook May Ban Bad Businesses From Advertising (theverge.com)
Facebook will now let you file a complaint about businesses you've had a problem with if you bought something after clicking on one of their ads. If enough people complain about a business, it could lead to Facebook banning the company from running ads. The Verge reports: The new policy is rolling out globally starting today, and it's meant to help Facebook fight back against another type of advertising abuse on its platform. Facebook says it's trying to combat "bad shopping experiences," which can cost customers and make them frustrated with Facebook, too. Facebook is particularly interested in a few problem areas: shipping times, product quality, and customer service. This isn't just a matter of misleading advertising: if a company regularly provides bad service, products that don't meet buyers' expectations, or just frustrates consumers, they risk getting in trouble with the platform.
It appears that Facebook will send notifications to users to ask about their experience if it detects that they've purchased something after clicking on an ad. You'll also be able to find those companies and leave feedback on the Ads Activity page. Facebook says it will inform businesses about negative feedback and try to pinpoint problems that a large number of customers are having. If customer feedback doesn't improve after a warning, Facebook will eventually start to limit how many ads a company can run. If it continues long enough, they can be banned.
It appears that Facebook will send notifications to users to ask about their experience if it detects that they've purchased something after clicking on an ad. You'll also be able to find those companies and leave feedback on the Ads Activity page. Facebook says it will inform businesses about negative feedback and try to pinpoint problems that a large number of customers are having. If customer feedback doesn't improve after a warning, Facebook will eventually start to limit how many ads a company can run. If it continues long enough, they can be banned.
A new level to a DDOS attack.
You can't handle the truth! - Because I don't post left all my comments get modded down, bye bye Karma.
. . . against Facebook, and their business practices about collecting and selling data about folks who are not associated with their business.
Maybe if enough people file complaints against Facebook, they will take some action against themselves.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Does Facebook ever advertise their business on Facebook?
Facebook "may" do something good.
It's open season on businesses you disagree with. It worked for posts, comments and videos. Why not businesses? Report brigades, ho!
Rather odd for a company to boast powerful AI targed ads only to have users report "bad" ones no? Smells awfully fishy. Clicking on any kind of report would confirm you saw the ad. Rating your experience confirms you purchased either the product on the ad or some other product from the company, either way furthering what they know about you.
What a wonderful way to trick users, errr, suckers into giving FB feedback on ads!
Nah, they will pay their way out if need be. We will see 'troll factories' selling their services to anyone needing to ban a competitor. Employment even if you're too sleazy for telemarketing. For surely, facebook is not going to check that you actually bought the product?
I am not saying there are bad companies that produce crap. But if you look at Amazon bad reviews on products most of them are from people who got a product to solve a problem that there was no advertising to say it was even remotely going to solve.
This $400 dell laptop runs the most modern games kinda choppy. It is utter crap compared to my $3000 desktop system I made last year.
Or the people don’t understand the difference between a professional product vs a home product. Your linksys home router vs a Cisco switch for a data center. The home router is orders of magnitude cheaper and it has more features.
Or people getting an expensive camera with lenses that do not autofocus. For most average picture taker your phone will get better pictures. But for the professional photographer they can get real art from this complex phone.
People often will get the cheapest crap they can find expecting it to work like the premium version, or pay top dollar for an item that is meant for professionals that require sill and training to use.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Look at the business which recently had people coming through the door late in the evening, AFTER closing time, they let people through but eventually had to cut new customers off at a certain point in time.
Unfortunately, the next customer to try was a black woman,....
Do I need to explain the rest? Suffice to say, total social media mess, people fired, was any of this deliberate? Who knows? Based on the original posted story, Occam's razor says no.
Regardless. Customers can be idiots and cause unwarranted complaints and rating bombing to occur.
They may not.
Sig Follows: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
if facebook becomes the internet, such as it's facebook essentials in India, then doesn't it also violate net neutrality when it picks winners and losers?
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Not after Cambridge Analytica and the fact that Facebook moved their servers out of Europe just to avoid privacy rules.
Hogg didn't get shot at, but he sure is happy to exploit the fact that other people were in order to collect $ and logistical support from people like Soros as he goes out to gin up partisan fund raising and votes. Hogg and his types couldn't be more thrilled when a crazy person murders people, because they love a good emotional lever to use when trying to strip away ever more civil liberties.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
...companies like Comcast and AT&T will be excluded from this policy. Can't have the keepers of the internet fast lanes getting tetchy with their subjects.
I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.
You're right, someone should put a stop to that. *sarcasm*
I heard you like to ban bad businesses, so I see you put a bad business in your business, so you can ban yourself while you ban everyone else.
Kill Facebook.
If this were tied to something independent of Facebook and broadly agreed on, maybe it would work. Minimum BBB score required, for example. But if Facebook (or any of the tech giants) try to do this itself it really just invites further regulation. Commercial advertising is the primary mechanism by which the tech giants exert economic control, as between Facebook, Google/AdWords/DoubleClick, and Twitter they control something like 90% of the online advertising market.
I don't trust Silicon Valley with that kind of power and I don't really think anyone else should either. Outsource it - don't try to Change the World.
Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
Right, because the NRA's purpose is to PREVENT YOU FROM TAKING OTHER PEOPLE'S CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS AWAY. Just like the ACLU tends to focus on things like your rights as protected by the 1st, 4th, and 5th amendments (and, sometimes, the 2nd, too).
And since there are some very well funded groups trying to take away your civil rights, the NRA needs to spend money to push back against that never ending attack. Hogg and company, on the other hand, are seeking money and political power in order to strip away your rights. See the difference? Don't pretend you don't.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
We can ban assault weapons! Or at least make it hard for crazy people to get their hands on them!
Well, you're in luck! Assault weapons are already incredibly difficult to obtain unless you're willing to do so criminally. No assault weapon made after the 1980's can be sold in the US (unless it's to the government). And for those that are on the market, they cost many thousands of dollars if they're still functional, and buyers have to go through a lengthy and very expensive government tax/licensing process that includes a nearly proctological background check including multiple personal references and everything from banking info to employer interviews by BATFE feds. There's a reason that crimes committed by people using legally owned assault weapons are essentially non-existant.
.22 rimfire rifles. The rifles that share cosmetic similarities to assault weapons are used in only a tiny fraction of such cases, and most of those involve illegally owned weapons anyway.
Or are you talking about assault "style" rifles, that share some of the same cosmetic similarities as actual assault weapons? If so, then what you mean are "semi-automatic rifles," which of course have been available over the counter in this country for more than a century, and are the most common rifles in use. Untold millions of them. And yet, when it comes to murders, the FBI tells us that the number of people killed using a long gun of any kind is hugely eclipsed by the number of people who are beaten to death with bare hands, baseball bats, and fence posts. And of the tiny percentage that ARE killed using long guns, the vast majority of those are shotguns or simple little
But sure, let's keep crazy people from getting those. The NRA completely agrees with you, and has been calling for 30 years for stricter compliance with the sort of reporting processes and record keeping that would actually help with that. The murderer in Florida who killed 17 had a long history of crazy behavior and violent assault. So why did he pass the background check? Because an Obama-era program aimed at protecting minority teenagers from the legal consequences for violent behavior kept him off the books despite dozens of acts that would immediately prevent you or I from ever being able to legally possess any kind of firearm, ever. The NRA has encouraged, and congressional Republicans have passed a bill that tightens up exactly such sort of slop, and would have also prevented the recent Texas killer from passing a background check despite his previous employer (the Air Force) knowing he was a violent nutjob. So, it's good to know that you're with the NRA on this topic. It's an important one, and they've been preaching about it for decades. The push-back on it is coming from Democrats, so you might want to take it up with them.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
So I'll believe it when I see it.
then why is the NRA opposed to a waiting period so that a sufficient background check can be done?
then why is the NRA opposed to a waiting period so that a sufficient background check can be done?
Who said they are? They fully support a rich, deep background check through the NICS system, and want it to be even more thorough than it already is. A customer looking to make a purchase has to wait while that background check is completed. In most cases, that's only a matter of minutes ... because, you know, we now have things like high-speed, integrated databases and banks of federal agents with access taking calls (a RECORD number of them, every month) as purchases are queued up. What the NRA is saying is that we need reporting agencies, shrinks, and other parties who may know prohibitive things about a prospective gun owner to GET ON THE RECORD in the NICS system so that the very well-oiled NICS check can show red flags that are currently slipping through the cracks. Waiting longer for data that isn't present in the system achieves nothing. Only holding lazy, non-cooperative, or under-funded agencies responsible for stepping up and getting that data into the system will further tighten things down. Something Republicans have passed bills to do, and which Democrats have blocked, as recently as this year.
And, of course, Obama-era policies like the one (still in place) that prevented the crazy, violent murderer in Florida from even having a local record in the first place are going to always be a problem. No background check - instant, or week-long, is going to prevent him from buying a rifle if his school, victims, and sheriff's office won't even go on the record to put him into the red-flag-reporting NICS system in the first place.
The question isn't "why is the NRA against waiting for a background check," but "why are so many liberal politicians against providing the data that would instantly flag a prohibited person?" Background checks against hundreds of databases aggregated into NICS take only moments. It's very comprehensive, but it breaks down (as would any background check - five minutes or five weeks) if a sheriff won't charge or report someone who's committed dozens of assaults. That instant background check won't work if the Air Force can't be bothered to report (as required by law) that a person who was recently discharged from the military was done so because of committing violent assault. NICS works well, and instantly - but it's GIGO. A slower process wouldn't prohibit someone if the needed data isn't there.
In the meantime, hundreds of thousands of people criminally attempting to purchase firearms while being prohibited from doing so are blocked by NICS checks. Guess how many times people attempting those purchases (all of which, by definition, involve lying on federal paperwork while in the process of attempting the purchase - a gimme federal felony conviction) have been prosecuted for those criminal attempts? Less than a dozen, in years. How many of those people who just tried to lie their way through a background check but were denied a firearm purchase then went on to acquire a weapon illegally by other means, instead of going to jail for that just-committed, demonstrable crime? Tens of thousands, at the very least. Again, this is an area where the NRA has been - year in, year out - begging federal officials to act. They have caught-red-handed evidence of criminals attempting to acquire weapons, and those guys just leave the dealer without consequence, and the NRA's lawyers and lobbyists have been pointing out those missed prosecution opportunities for years.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
So you have no problem with sponsored acitvists, reputation-trashing campaigns against businesses, exploiting shootings in order to collect $ and logistical support, partisan fund raising and voting, and emotional leverage in general...
you only have a problem with them when they're used by opponents of things that you support.
Well that's certainly principled.
No, I only have a problem with totalitarian-minded types who know that shutting people up and stripping away their rights is the only way to forward their agenda. That you can't tell the difference between people who want to destroy rights and people who want to preserve them suggests that you really, REALLY should do anything dangerous to other people, like, say, voting.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I quite like the size of my penis so I don't need a gun
Wow, that's a powerful penis! When was the last time you had a bunch of MS-13 guys with machetes in your back yard? Is your giant penis armored, or what? It must be remarkable if you know it's capable of preserving your life when someone's willing to kill you with actual weapons. Truly, amazing. Have you considered starring in a reality show of some sort? You'd make a fortune.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I vote to preserve my right to live, thank you. Magazine size limits - a.o.k. Requiring someone to be 21 to purchase a semiautomatic weapon - a.o.k. Requiring trigger locks - a.o.k.
I'm damn dangerous. And there's nothing that you can do about that.
I vote to preserve my right to live, thank you.
You already have that right. If a criminal seeks to deny you of that right, we already have substantial mechanisms in place to punish them. That same criminal could, with a twitch of the wrist while driving, run you down with a car, too. Or beat you to death, as happens wildly more often than any murder committed using a rifle of any kind, let alone ones that share cosmetic features with assault weapons.
Magazine limits? I suppose you're thinking that the murderer in Florida would have been less deadly while he casually took his time killing people for quite some time before eventually abandoning his gun and walking out of the school. Right? Right. Except he chose to use low-capacity magazines because they were easier to conceal than standard capacity mags. If you really think that forcing a law-abiding person who's suddenly gone crazy (you know, someone who was limited to only buying low-capacity magazines) will be significantly safer if they have to pause their shooting for literally 2 or 3 seconds while they pop in another magazine, then you have no idea what you're talking about. Meanwhile, the actual criminals who don't care in the least about your limits, will think that's hilarious anyway.
And, 21 to purchase a semi-auto? People have been buying them for over a century. Of course it used to be much easier - anybody could walk into a hardware store and buy them like they would an axe or a screwdriver. Then we had a serious increase in the murder rate (not counting the big spike during prohibition) that topped out in the 1980's. Since then, roughly a hundred million guns have been purchased by American owners (most of those are semi-automatic), but the murder rate has dropped to roughly half of what it was 30 years ago. Far more guns purchased, far fewer murders.
I'm damn dangerous. And there's nothing that you can do about that.
I'm not sure what you're saying, here. Why should I care if you're "dangerous?" Are you threatening me, or somebody else? If you're not, then - so what? EVERYBODY is dangerous, and have at their disposal virtually unlimited ways to kill lots of people, without even getting around to using firearms. Are you boasting about martial arts skills or something?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Clip out the part of the conversation where you claim that I "really, REALLY should[n't] do anything dangerous to other people, like, say, voting," then innocently act confused about what I mean and ask if I'm threatening you... classy.
Killer ninja voting. Tool...