The case for banning ads in social media

Re:The case for banning ads in social media by buboard on Thursday November 14, 2019 @07:39PM (#21541186)

"nobody" is a figure of speech of course. It's easy to settle the question with a poll: ask people worldwide if you 'd pay $40/year for FB. My bet would be it's < 5%

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The case for banning ads in social media by NeedMoreTea on Thursday November 14, 2019 @07:53PM (#21541265)

Then the ultimate valuation of FB is 5%, or a little less, of current. That's perfectly fine. They would have found an appropriate level in the marketplace.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The case for banning ads in social media by buboard on Thursday November 14, 2019 @08:04PM (#21541325)

hmm the ultimate valuation is exactly the same, perhaps a bit higher because of the lowered negative press?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The case for banning ads in social media by NeedMoreTea on Thursday November 14, 2019 @11:08PM (#21542133)

Hmm, that would be ironic, FB ending up being worth more by suddenly getting some ethics. :)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The case for banning ads in social media by mistermann on Thursday November 14, 2019 @09:20PM (#21541695)

> "nobody" is a figure of speech of course.

Ok then, can you restate your prediction of the future without the use of figures of speech? Calling people delusional who disagree with an utterly vague warning seems a bit inappropriate.

> It's easy to settle the question with a poll: ask people worldwide if you 'd pay $40/year for FB. My bet would be it's < 5%

I like this much better, as it is no longer suggestive that certain approaches cannot be done for certain reasons, and instead only poses a perfectly valid question with an explicitly speculative bet about what the answer would be. Fantastic.

[ Parent | on HN ]