Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook testing notification to users about Apple privacy changes

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 339 posts

Re: Facebook testing notification to users about Apple privacy changes

#171

Post by logifail »

meekrohprocess wrote: post #49
randmeerkat wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone has options. I deleted FB years ago. No one actually needs FB.

I agree in principle, and so did I, but there's no denying that it puts a major crimp on your social life. It's wrong that people are forced to decide between accepting predatory terms or losing touch with friendly acquaintances. Also, if you own a small business, there's a real chance that you'd rely on Facebook for a significant portion of your business, because without a presence on their platforms you had may as…

> if you own a small business, there's a real chance that you'd rely on Facebook for a significant portion of your business

Source?

Even if this is true for some types of small business, in some markets, it's a bit of a stretch to claim this applies across the board.

Re: Facebook testing notification to users about Apple privacy changes

#172

Post by metaxis78 »

egypturnash wrote: post #120
idreyn wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's true, I forgot about that. I appreciate that those prompts don't highlight a particular option which tends to force you to read them. I wonder how often Apple will allow apps to re-request this permission when it's been denied; I have a handful of iOS apps that are constantly asking me to grant permission to see more of my photos, and I wish they'd rate-limit that kind of abuse.

Shit, every time I reboot my iPad it asks for permission to connect to my phone for wifi calling, and I keep on saying "no" and I wish I could just say "never ask this again". It's just as annoying when Apple does it.

You can disable this feature, it's specifically a thing that you enabled at some point. The reason you're getting prompted is because you indicated that you want it. IIRC it's something to do with the wifi calling settings on your phone, not your ipad.

It IS annoying that their nag box doesn't have a "go to settings" option, at least.

Re: Facebook testing notification to users about Apple privacy changes

#173

Post by [deleted] »

notyourwork wrote: post #3

Why would anyone agree to this? I don’t see a benefit to letting Facebook or any company track me across the internet. When did we ever decide this was what consumers wanted? Every time this topic comes up I check Facebooks stock price and realize how detached people are from facebooks revenue driven by the advertisement market.

[deleted]

Re: Facebook testing notification to users about Apple privacy changes

#174

Post by gowld »

tnt128 wrote: post #11

Here is the logic, if you allow tracking, we would show your more relevant ads, if you don’t allow, we will spam the shit out of you. Either way, you see tons of ads, but allow tracking, you see ads more relevant. Of course that’s not how they word this. They framed it as a benefit, Notice how it’s worded - allowing for better personalized ad experience - I bet when worded this way, a good percentage of people will t…

What's wrong with ads? Facebook costs money and effort to produce for its users to enjoy.

I don't use FB, but people who do use presumably enjoy it.

Re: Facebook testing notification to users about Apple privacy changes

#175

Post by panta »

imheretolearn wrote: post #161
kibwen wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're more forgiving than I am. As far as I'm concerned, individual-targeted advertising has such inherently perverse incentives that even those starting out with good intentions (e.g. consensual opt-in) will eventually find themselves engaged in unethical, privacy-eroding behavior as a matter of course. Consider what would happen if you outlawed individual-targeted advertising. Ad relevancy falls overall. What then…

>> Overall advertising budgets are not dominated by the effectiveness of advertising, but by adversarial spending by their competitors I would like to know how this conclusion was reached. By that logic, the advertising industry would not really need individual targeting at all

Individual ad targeting is needed only as soon as someone does it. It is not “needed” per se.

Re: Facebook testing notification to users about Apple privacy changes

#176

Post by logifail »

artful-hacker wrote: post #123
umvi wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but there's no denying that it puts a major crimp on your social life In what way? Social lives existed before 2008 when FB went mainstream. I don't have a FB anymore, and I still text my friends for get-togethers.

I deleted my facebook account a long time ago, but I definitely do not get invitations to some parties and events because of that. Facebook events are the easiest way to invite people to a party or other gathering.

> I definitely do not get invitations to some parties and events [..]

Our 7 year old goes to an arts and crafts centre, in the aftermath of the furore over the WhatsApp Terms of Service update the organizers changed their contact details to suggesting reaching them via Signal instead. So we switched. Job done.

Re: Facebook testing notification to users about Apple privacy changes

#177

Post by godelski »

idreyn wrote: post #69
notyourwork wrote: post #3

Why would anyone agree to this? I don’t see a benefit to letting Facebook or any company track me across the internet. When did we ever decide this was what consumers wanted? Every time this topic comes up I check Facebooks stock price and realize how detached people are from facebooks revenue driven by the advertisement market.

I'm a simple man -- if I see a button with a primary intent color standing between me and my content I've been conditioned to press it, often before I realize what I'm doing or reading the accompanying text. Probably tens of millions of people will do the same here.

While I agree with your point about this and that most people will do this it really brings up a lot of questions about what consent actually means. Especially with dark patterns and asymmetric information.

Re: Facebook testing notification to users about Apple privacy changes

#178

Post by sriram_sun »

kibwen wrote: post #152
bnj wrote: post #5

It's simultaneously remarkable and utterly unremarkable that Facebook has been dragged kicking and screaming into building a consent screen for this kind of tracking. Watching this tracking notification conflict unfold in the media has really helped me to refine where I stand on this: if a business depends on non-consensual tracking to be able to survive, then I'd prefer that the business has to fold before stripping…

You're more forgiving than I am. As far as I'm concerned, individual-targeted advertising has such inherently perverse incentives that even those starting out with good intentions (e.g. consensual opt-in) will eventually find themselves engaged in unethical, privacy-eroding behavior as a matter of course. Consider what would happen if you outlawed individual-targeted advertising. Ad relevancy falls overall. What then…

Exactly! How do you grow by 25% quarter over quarter without discovering new business models? "Knowing" us even more and getting us to fork over 25% more! Or moving spend from a site outside of FB to within it.

Re: Facebook testing notification to users about Apple privacy changes

#179

Post by sanedigital »

kibwen wrote: post #152
bnj wrote: post #5

It's simultaneously remarkable and utterly unremarkable that Facebook has been dragged kicking and screaming into building a consent screen for this kind of tracking. Watching this tracking notification conflict unfold in the media has really helped me to refine where I stand on this: if a business depends on non-consensual tracking to be able to survive, then I'd prefer that the business has to fold before stripping…

You're more forgiving than I am. As far as I'm concerned, individual-targeted advertising has such inherently perverse incentives that even those starting out with good intentions (e.g. consensual opt-in) will eventually find themselves engaged in unethical, privacy-eroding behavior as a matter of course. Consider what would happen if you outlawed individual-targeted advertising. Ad relevancy falls overall. What then…

> Overall advertising budgets are not dominated by the effectiveness of advertising, but by adversarial spending by their competitors.

This is absolutely not the case. Google’s biggest ad clients achieve pretty incredible ROI (called ROAS) on each dollar they spend. And they track these obsessively—I supported a large travel client that had a small (but highly skilled) engineering team dedicated exclusively to their SEM bidding and monitoring systems.

The reason digital advertising is so valuable is pretty exclusively related to attribution and tracking. If companies weren’t sure they could make so much money with their spend, their budgets would absolutely drop.

Re: Facebook testing notification to users about Apple privacy changes

#180

Post by fuster »

mc32 wrote: post #164
kibwen wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're more forgiving than I am. As far as I'm concerned, individual-targeted advertising has such inherently perverse incentives that even those starting out with good intentions (e.g. consensual opt-in) will eventually find themselves engaged in unethical, privacy-eroding behavior as a matter of course. Consider what would happen if you outlawed individual-targeted advertising. Ad relevancy falls overall. What then…

>” Would consumers spend less money? No...” I’m not sure about that. A lot of advertising is about appearances and superficial things. Example. Do we need cars in the US to get from place to place (NYC, etc excepted) Yes! Does it have to have bells and whistles? No. Can an entry level car do the job in the great majority of cases? Does it have to be a “luxury” brand? Or an upscale model? Spending would go down. Good,…

I think there is the question of what people would do with the money they save by buying only the entry-level car. Would everyone really just save the money? I expect people would just spend it on something else (that maybe has more effective advertising, even if via word-of-mouth or something else). So spending would remain roughly the same. I don't have any hard research I can personally point to though.
Post reply on HN