> Facebook said it was caused by a bug in the system that has now been fixed.
Funny how problems like these are attributed euphemistically to "bugs" that are "fixed" in reporting.
I do not often see journalism incorporating detailed descriptions of computer-related mishaps other than "glitches" [1,2]. It does not help that reporting on these circumstances to journalists may also be mediocre.
Would it really matter? The root cause would probably sound something like this:
"The user's preferences were ignored because the advert system failed to invalidate the cache during the change, causing the user's previously cached settings to be used. This occurred only for a small set of users, who were in a similar geographic location and were assigned to an experimental cohort to test an updated component of the advert system."
Yet another reason to limit Facebook to the browser (a proper browser, too, not a Google Services Client masquerading as a browser that does not let you install adblockers on mobile).
My wife had a miscarriage last December; we’ve been getting mailers advertising baby formula for months - one of them was literally an entire box of samples. Turns out we’d both been trying to throw them away before the other one saw them, because it’s kind of soul crushing as a reminder. Thanks, future!
I don't know if this would have stopped this particular instance but "Parenting" is one of three ad categories you can hide completely in your Facebook ad settings (the other two being Alcohol and Pets) so at least you have the option to be creeped out by other types of ads instead.
If you get offended by ads then install an ad blocking service. When I recently got a new computer, I tried to support content creators by not blocking their ads. After a few days I gave up, there were too many semi pornographic ads that offended me. After installing ublock origin, all my problems went away.
That sounds easy until you realize you would need a special adblocker for Facebook. Ublock Origin doesn't handle those.
And don't even get started on mobile adblocking, it's still widely uncharted territory. I had to use an altogether new browser on Android, because mobile Chrome doesn't allow ad-blocking plugins. Shocking, I know.
18 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 41.1 ms ] threadFunny how problems like these are attributed euphemistically to "bugs" that are "fixed" in reporting.
I do not often see journalism incorporating detailed descriptions of computer-related mishaps other than "glitches" [1,2]. It does not help that reporting on these circumstances to journalists may also be mediocre.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2016/07/2...
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2015/07/08...
"The user's preferences were ignored because the advert system failed to invalidate the cache during the change, causing the user's previously cached settings to be used. This occurred only for a small set of users, who were in a similar geographic location and were assigned to an experimental cohort to test an updated component of the advert system."
Would anyone understand this? Would anyone care?
Feature: Display most profitable ads to users without offending anyone.
Bug: User was offended.
Resolution: Add user to block list for offending advert.
Status: resolved.
Not to mention fradulent.
Glad to see Facebook has the customer's best interests at heart.
Yet another reason to limit Facebook to the browser (a proper browser, too, not a Google Services Client masquerading as a browser that does not let you install adblockers on mobile).
It's heart breaking to even think about it.
And don't even get started on mobile adblocking, it's still widely uncharted territory. I had to use an altogether new browser on Android, because mobile Chrome doesn't allow ad-blocking plugins. Shocking, I know.