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

211–220 of 339 posts

Re: Facebook testing notification to users about Apple privacy changes

#211

Post by aledalgrande »

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…

If the company is public, multiply that by 10.

Re: Facebook testing notification to users about Apple privacy changes

#212

Post by kibwen »

sanedigital wrote: post #179
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. 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…

Companies obsess about these metrics because they don't want their ROI to be less than their competitors', because that would put them at a competitive disadvantage. It's not in doubt that individual-targeted advertising is more effective than than the alternatives; by eliminating user tracking you would be decreasing ROI across the board, but that's fine because, again, all that you're fighting for is a higher ROI than your competitors. And to reiterate, it's not like consumer dollars are just vanishing into the ether; every dollar a consumer makes either gets spent or saved, and regardless of the ROI of a specific ad campaign they've still got to buy dish soap or diapers or what have you. Just because advertising ROI drops does not mean that the company revenue/profit will drop; if it did, that probably means another company has better ROI (and if they can do so, and as long as they're not tracking users, then good for them!).

Re: Facebook testing notification to users about Apple privacy changes

#213

Post by yalogin »

I am really surprised the amount of tantrums FB is throwing in this saga. This is a golden opportunity for them to reset their platform and change their brand in the world.

Large businesses don't get these kind of opportunities often and this is something, I thought, they will seize. I really thought they will build security/privacy into their platform and weed things out. They could have gone to a paid model in some cases and doubled down on privacy in others. They would have lost revenue in the short term but would be great in the long term.

However, they are doubling down on the catering to fear mongering, cult marketing type things and kicking and screaming without much to show.

Re: Facebook testing notification to users about Apple privacy changes

#214

Post by kd0amg »

bavent wrote: post #194
reggieband wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> THIS is the best you can do with teams of engineers making > $200k/year throwing AI at everything? Maybe it is the best we can currently do and maybe it isn't objectively great. But the real question: is it better? I mean, better than the random shotgun approach that was TV, magazines, bus wraps, billboards, etc. Is it better than the spam flyers or "yellow pages" the post office delivered to every single household…

I don't buy that. For example - I bought a rowing machine on Amazon. It was the first piece of home gym equipment I'd ever purchased. For months after, other rowing machines were suggested to me. I already bought one, why would I buy another, especially if I hadn't returned the first one? Ads like this are very common for me - a purchase that I would consider to be a one-off thing (at least, for several years, whatev…

> Clearly I'm missing something in my logic

Sampling methodology. Every ad impression in your sample was shown to the same person, but the ad industry is interested in billions of people.

Re: Facebook testing notification to users about Apple privacy changes

#215

Post by K0nserv »

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #90
Nextgrid wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Ask App Not to Track" just means the app will be denied access to the IDFA (which you can already do by turning on "Limit ad tracking" in settings). It's worded like that because this can't prevent the app from using something else (IP address or device fingerprinting) to track you.

Is the discussion moot if users can be easily fingerprinted without IDFA? It makes life slightly more difficult for advertising partners and social media companies, but not impossible. It's just a small additional barrier to friction that buys Apple some good PR.

That’s against Apple’s guidelines, violations of which will get your app kicked off the only distribution channel on iOS. We’ll have to see how this shakes out in reality, but as a deterrent it’s pretty strong.

Re: Facebook testing notification to users about Apple privacy changes

#216

Post by throwaway2245 »

marketingtech wrote: post #201
throwaway2245 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It turns out most non-targeted ads aren't actually that effective Non-personalised television advertising is still doing great.

No, it's not. Eyeballs are down, thus prices and market share are down compared to digital. Different industry sources have different figures, but everyone agrees TV spend was down >5% in 2020 and expected to drop faster in 2021 as digital continues to grow at >30%. There's now a mad rush to standardize tech for personalized tv advertising, as providers plan to use the email/phone number you used for your cable/strea…

Is it not right that 2019 was the highest spend ever for TV advertising?

And a 5% drop would be less than the drop in broader TV production, via coronavirus?

Major events that are associated with large advertising budgets haven't happened: the Olympics didn't happen. The Eurovision Song Contest didn't happen.

Re: Facebook testing notification to users about Apple privacy changes

#217

Post by fingerlocks »

sanedigital wrote: post #179
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. 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…

At least someone in this thread gets it. Ad tracking really is about attribution, personalized ads are secondary nice-to-have.

This is how small businesses figure out their advertising budget. Where are our customers coming from, or more importantly, where are they not coming from, so we know where to spend or not spend our limited resources?

But I’m not surprised this isn’t pointed out more often. The hardcore privacy zealots really blow up when you try to explain that it’s mostly innocuous.

Re: Facebook testing notification to users about Apple privacy changes

#218

Post by EGreg »

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…

Would ad companies like Google make less money? Not really. Overall advertising budgets are not dominated by the effectiveness of advertising, but by adversarial spending by their competitors

This premise seems wrong to me. It assumes that advertising is always a net positive, regardless of how targeted it is.

As someone who runs a company that built apps and have spent ZERO on advertising and PR, I can tell you that is usually not the case.

In fact, the biggest component of user acquisition cost is the untargeted advertising. Much better to reduce that cost to zero by increasing the viral k-factor and user retention. Those two metrics matter way more than advertising. If you can reduce the ad spend per user, or per customer, you are BETTER off, not worse.

For example, Google adwords nor any other advert network offers NO WAY of targeting MacOS, only iOS and Android, so we couldn’t make any money advertising our Calendars for Mac app.

And trust me we experimented with all kinds of monetization in that app:

https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/technology-43386918

Original article was im ArsTechnica: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/03/there...

https://www.google.com/search?q=qbix+mining&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-...

Re: Facebook testing notification to users about Apple privacy changes

#219

Post by JMTQp8lwXL »

K0nserv wrote: post #215
JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the discussion moot if users can be easily fingerprinted without IDFA? It makes life slightly more difficult for advertising partners and social media companies, but not impossible. It's just a small additional barrier to friction that buys Apple some good PR.

That’s against Apple’s guidelines, violations of which will get your app kicked off the only distribution channel on iOS. We’ll have to see how this shakes out in reality, but as a deterrent it’s pretty strong.

Apple might dislike Facebook, but it's difficult to imagine a world where it's removed from the App Store.

Re: Facebook testing notification to users about Apple privacy changes

#220

Post by madeofpalk »

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…

> but there's no denying that it puts a major crimp on your social life.

I completely deny that.

I deleted Facebook when I was 25 and never once missed it. It never once put a crimp on my social life because my social life was never really organised around facebook in the first place. I still wanted to keep in touch with friends, and they wanted to keep in touch with me, without facebook.

Post reply on HN