Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | vanuatu's commentslogin

not to defend zuck but its a common misconception that meta sells data

advertisers dont see the personal data they buy for ad placement


There is no misconception. Meta also sells data, next to selling advertising space.

They literally don't. Data is their moat; selling it would be counter to their financial success.

Well not in bulk to its advertisement competitors as you seem to suggest. But as a different revenue stream, data collectors sell the collected information. Don't be naive, of course they do, first customer are governments.

no, it doesn't sell user data. or, where can I buy some?

Brokers. Acxiom and Experian for starters.

Heck, you can buy facebook datasets right now from brightdata.

https://brightdata.com/products/datasets/facebook

Don't you recall the Cambridge Analytica scandal?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Analytica

All corporates sell your data. You're a fool to think otherwise, data makes dosh, and you can sell any data for a price.

Data is a commodity.

There are current ten plus folk in the subway carriage I am sitting in right now. Toss me £10 and I'll give you a dataset of ten people of what colour tops they're wearing and what brand of shoe and colour.

And yes you can sell your internet data too.

https://www.moneymagpie.com/make-money/make-money-selling-yo...


its not a misconception. As an advertiser, I can go use meta's tools, target people specifically, and show them ads on meta's platform. While i don't get the CSV dump, but if i can target people with my message, its the same thing. Meta keeps the data AND the distribution. Data brokers have the data but no distribution of attention for that data. Newspapers have distribution but don't have the granualar data for direct targeting.

There are many, many use cases of having a CSV dump of the data, but in reality, all of it boils down to either reselling the data, or marketing a product to the demographic in the data.

The 3rd use case is that of palantir but let's not get distracted.

So, meta is not selling data is like saying netflix is not selling movies (its actually buying them). Technically true, but a shallow understanding.


i dont think targeted ads are necessarily bad, and definitely not has bad as the data freely shared vs. behind meta's walls

and what is this 3rd use case?


Why should anyone at all care about this distinction?

i care that my data isnt being sold

i dont really care that i get targeted ads, in fact i prefer targeted ads vs. ones that are of no use to me


Really do you care that your daughters are being advertised beauty products at the exact moment that they delete a photo because it's likely that they're feeling low self esteem at that moment? Because that's a service that you used to be able to buy from Meta.

i think some targeted ads are bad

and social media is probably bad


Why wouldn't Meta also directly sell data if nobody cared about this distinction?

all the labs "clean" their pretraining data, and you can have your pretraining data to be minimally ai generated but also spam synthetic post-training data

I think there's been a recent wave of 'fde-washing' with companies adopting the role (or renaming existing roles) without understanding what made it effective in the first place

Imo, the main responsibilities of the fde role are:

1. get the customer to the business outcome (if the product is insufficient, the fde builds what needs to be built to get the outcome, hence the engineer part)

2. take the learnings back into the product. the expected result of 1) and 2) repeating is your revenue and margin increasing and time to onboard decreasing. if your fdes are building from scratch repeatedly then you're going to be priced like a services business

most companies aren't willing to hire the technical talent that makes a good fde and aren't willing to run their R&D off of their fde team


anti-ai article with ai-isms all over :(

It's not anti-AI, it's anti-who-gets-the-power.

This isn't an attack on the technology, it's an observation: we're about to, once again, let the same people profit while treating everyone else as cash cows. Just like every other time these people get the chance. Under the cover of "we're doing it for the good of humanity," they line their pockets a little more. The article explicitly acknowledges the value and the power of AI. The problem isn't the tool, it's that it's in the wrong hands: instead of benefiting everyone, it'll only benefit a handful of people whose interests are in the wrong place.

And about the "ai-isms": maybe the author used AI to structure an idea and source the piece. Refusing to use a tool just because you criticize how it's being used would be missing the entire point. The critique isn't about the hammer, it's about who's holding it and who it's hitting.


true

i'm sick of the frequent, random, doomerist articles

i'm an old guy who has been writing software for 30 years

I have never felt more capable and productive, thanks to these new AI tools


I've seen many cases where AI led to ROI with high margins (maybe not enough to justify the entire industry capex though), but they usually share similar features

- AI is a component of a larger product sold

- The product improves the metrics that customers care about, typically autonomously

- The customer is paying for the outcome, regardless of whether or not the product had AI in it

'Copilot' style AI features are much harder to measure ROI on, because they are typically further away from the base metrics that make it easy to measure ROI, and are typically used for specific tasks in a long web of other tasks within a professional job


What are those many cases you have seen? In which industry?

i work at a company that automates front and back office workflows (being vague on purpose)

all industries, all are willing to pay 10s of millions even with the tech being somewhat immature


Care to share examples ?

Another poster that has definitely seen all the impressive AI results but can't/won't specify.

The AI results comes from a different company. In Canada. You wouldn't know it ;)

the results are in the revenues of appied ai companies!

now compare that margin / growth to big tech or hft...

That wasn't the question though was it. Compared to most businesses those are good margins.

There isn't any business on earth that compares to the margins of HFT firms. Regardless they aren't asking for big tech or HFT level salaries.


Hmm compared to film/entertainment yes, but from the perspective of an individual developer worker, your alternatives are not just in film/entertainment

hiring top junior talent is more competitive than it's ever been!

regular tender offers

if the only people remaining are insiders, the market is effectively nonexistent because nobody is going to take the other side of the trade

insider trading is bad because it drains liquidity from the markets which reduces its predictive power

if i am the uninformed, without insider trading laws what is the incentive for me to bet when I know there are insiders?


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: