[ClumsyPilot]

>"You want proof? Look at their financial statements."

Homeopathy peddlers make a killing, so does the agile consultants and th catholic Church, if this is proof they must both be right?

Just because someone made loads of money doesnt mean their claims are sciebtifivally valid.

[aerosmile]

I went out of my way not to give Facebook any moral high ground, and yet you still managed to get offended.

[ClumsyPilot]

Your 'proof' doesn't make sence, what does 'offense' or 'moral high ground' have to do with it?

[pseudalopex]

Snark isn't a sign of offense.

[aerosmile]

Call it what you want, the outcome is the same. You want to say [A], but before you say it, you have to start with [B] just not to get the conversation derailed by call-it-what-you-wants. And it turns out, the call-it-what-you-wants are still going to do their thing, pretending this is Reddit.

[pseudalopex]

I call it a sound challenge to your fallacious argument from profitability. Your non sequitur derailed the conversation.

[aerosmile]

Would you mind to elaborate? I am genuinely wondering if you're a troll or if I am mistaken in my argument. To summarize, I responded to the claim below that Facebook's ad platform is ineffective:

> All related studies are showing that the latter isn't working anyway.

I pointed out that Facebook wouldn't be profitable if the ad platform is ineffective, and you called that argument fallacious. I am really curious to hear what's fallacious about it.

[yarcob]

The fallacy is that Facebook making a profit doesn't mean that invasive ad targeting is effective.

It just means that Facebook is good at selling ads, whether they are effective or not.