yourdonut

What I find odd is that digital ads gives you much more clarity of impact than tv/radio/print ads. It also gives you more detailed cohort data so that you can learn from experiments and adjust your buys based on where the impact is. It's as if the P&Gs of the world woke up recently and realized they need to understand impact of their media buys in general.

"Facebook has hundreds of engineers and enough data to do match patterns against. Facebook can largely identify who's who." I know, I used to work there. I was asking you. Pattern matching isn't black-and-white, as you alluded to in your previous comment.

"Yes, the infamous 'they trust me, dumb fucks'?" You didn't do or say stupid things when you were 19? You don't believe in giving second chances, let alone to a teenager?

"Facebook can easily filter requests from fake profiles" "Except that Facebook knows who is real and who fake."

You say that so definitively. Have you worked on a product with millions of new users a week? It's an extremely hard, constantly shifting problem.

"Facebook can display ads to fake users and still make the campaigner pay for the impression"

Facebook's entire business relies on user and advertise trust. Why would they sacrifice that for some short term growth that would inevitably kill the business by eroding trust?

Speaking as an ex-Facebook growth employee, fake accounts actually hurt growth and are actively sought out and removed by a dedicated team. Think about it--if a user receives a bunch of fake friend requests, it's a bad experience. This is one of the (many) reasons MySpace died--because of the onslaught of porn-promoting accounts that they never cleaned up until it was too late.