Re:Apple's privacy push cost Meta $10B
by samwillis on Friday February 04, 2022 @06:21AM
(#30205429)
> Word-of-mouth exists
True. However in this case we are confident, based on our own internal tracking and metrics, that this is correct.
Re:Apple's privacy push cost Meta $10B
by geoduck14 on Friday February 04, 2022 @02:00PM
(#30211327)
>True. However in this case we are confident, based on our own internal tracking and metrics, that this is correct.
I'm really curious what you sell now. Can you tell us?
If not, can the rest of HN create fun speculations?
Maybe they had a drop-down saying "How did you hear about us?" with just "Facebook Ads" and "Not Facebook Ads", that's my theory.
Re:Apple's privacy push cost Meta $10B
by lkasdlkdad on Friday February 04, 2022 @06:53PM
(#30215258)
Check his profile, he sells posters.
> If not, can the rest of HN create fun speculations?
Human armpit-scented cat toys.
Mechanical keyboard keys that are 10" tall for standing desks.
Subscription beach towel service printed with top 5 memes by volume
Re:Apple's privacy push cost Meta $10B
by wizzwizz4 on Friday February 04, 2022 @07:57PM
(#30215839)
Minecraft parody as a service
Lord of the rings themed oscilloscopes.
> Did you use a Facebook-specific link in the ads?
I do sometimes find it odd that such a thing is insufficient for tracking sources of traffic in and of itself. No doubt there is a complexity that I have missed
Word-of-mouth exists. It's possible Facebook wasn't making it up. Did you use a Facebook-specific link in the ads?