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

Facebook is pushing back on Apple’s new iPhone privacy rules

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 734 posts

Re: Facebook is pushing back on Apple’s new iPhone privacy rules

#431

Post by zepto »

judge2020 wrote: post #382
landryraccoon wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On one hand, it's argued that Apple has an incentive to act against their customers because they want to sell apps on the app store. On the other hand, it's argued that Apple doesn't care about their developers because they enforce draconian regulations on what iOS developers are allowed and not allowed to do, and don't hesitate even to shut down billion dollar apps (i.e., Fortnite). I have mixed feelings about Apple…

> and don't hesitate even to shut down billion dollar apps (i.e., Fortnite). It's fairly obvious that, given Epic was saying "you can pay $2 less to get the same amount of vbucks" that Apple was going to lose a huge portion of revenue from the App if they didn't pull it, and if they actually left it up, they'd have to allow every other app to institute third-party payment processors as well to not appear like they're…

Given that vbucks are just made up and have no marginal cost, Epic can say whatever they like about how much less they can charge for them.

It doesn’t mean anything at all.

Re: Facebook is pushing back on Apple’s new iPhone privacy rules

#432

Post by fartcannon »

judge2020 wrote: post #319
titzer wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember back in 2002 when I took a college course on Computer Security and the prof told story after harrowing story of the lengths to which spy agencies went to get the information they were after. I remember thinking, "Well if the NSA really wanted to track everyone and record everything that was ever transmitted over the internet, I suppose they could. But nah, that's crazy." Fast forward to 2013 and Snowden. O…

The poster you're replying to did not say that AMZN/GOOG/AAPL wouldn't spy on you, they simply stated that evidence should be considered to justify claims, especially if you're trying to spread those claims to other people. Your argument "we should sound alarms without evidence because tomorrow we'll have evidence" is classic conspiracy theory reasoning, which is why people will classify you as one. In essence, we sh…

I believe the post in question believes they have enough evidence to justify the actions and is speaking from a position of surprise/resignation at the state of things.

Kind if like, 'I cant believe it's come to this, but given all the evidence, it's justified."

Re: Facebook is pushing back on Apple’s new iPhone privacy rules

#433

Post by esrauch »

harrisonjackson wrote: post #174
CodesInChaos wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some level of targeting is necessary, for example it clearly makes no sense for a typical restaurant to advertise globally. The interesting question is much tracking adds on top of simpler targeting based on location and context.

Facebook should just make a user's location required - not the ios permission to constantly track a user all over... but just a field on a user - city/state/country. Or make it optional and just show that ad to users that have set their location field.

I don't think that's relevant here: the new prompts aren't about collecting gps data but correlating your identity across contexts. If you manually chose a city in Facebook, I think the ad in the other random app which used fb ad network would only be able to use it if the user said "yes" to the prompt.

Re: Facebook is pushing back on Apple’s new iPhone privacy rules

#434

Post by zepto »

paulgb wrote: post #222
drewvolpe wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"You're Apple's customer and Facebook's product" is often repeated but completely true in this case. It's all about incentives. Apple makes money by selling more products which means they innovate by making Watches, Earpods, M1, etc. Facebook makes money by selling your attention and data, which meants they innovate by extracting data from every experience they can (Oculus, Whatsapp, ...), using more complex technolo…

Also, you literally are Apple’s product to their iOS developer ecosystem, in the sense that developers fork over 30% of their revenue to Apple for access to you.

If this is true about Apple, it is true in any retail situation.

It’s not what people mean when they say ‘you are the product’.

What they mean is that if you aren’t paying, then the company is only interested in retaining you as a user so that they can satisfy their actual customers.

When you are paying, you are the customer

It’s also true that iOS developers are customers of Apple’s distribution service.

Buy Apple’s users are not a product in the sense that anyone uses this phrase.

Re: Facebook is pushing back on Apple’s new iPhone privacy rules

#435

Post by davidjade »

tailrecursion wrote: post #406

My guess is over time most free apps that depend on tracking will refuse to work unless allowed to track. And most users will acquiesce, just so they can use an app that they want to use. Even the Facebook app itself could refuse to work unless tracking is turned on. It's still a positive change overall, and still affects Facebook but it appears to me the effect will be minor, even temporary.

I wonder though, could they and still get approved by Apple? Apps have to have some level of minimum functionality to pass review. You can require a sign in but I wonder if you could require tracking.

Re: Facebook is pushing back on Apple’s new iPhone privacy rules

#436

Post by esrauch »

nojito wrote: post #321
CodesInChaos wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some level of targeting is necessary, for example it clearly makes no sense for a typical restaurant to advertise globally. The interesting question is much tracking adds on top of simpler targeting based on location and context.

That's not targeting. That's simply location based advertising. Facebook and others have convinced people that they can do better than simple location based advertising.

I think theres a spectrum of techniques and no bright line. If you are temporarily in NY but live in LA, is it location based advertising to show the user an ad targeted to LA? What if you're at a regional airport and the only flights today are to LA? What if the ad network knows you have a flight booked to LA today? What if you have a lot of friends in LA so there's a good chance you will be there soon?

People would call the last one personalized and not "location targeted", but it's pretty hard to see where that flips.

Re: Facebook is pushing back on Apple’s new iPhone privacy rules

#437

Post by gigatexal »

mokus wrote: post #3

The fact that Facebook appears to consider user consent an existential threat to their business model tells me everything I need to know about them right now.

+1 this. People don't want to be tracked. Don't track me. I will decline tracking when this comes up.

Re: Facebook is pushing back on Apple’s new iPhone privacy rules

#438

Post by Spooky23 »

technofiend wrote: post #408
ryandrake wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think people forget how ubiquitous smoking was. I remember back in the 80s, you basically couldn't go anywhere without ending up stinking like an ashtray. And it was even worse decades earlier before I was born. Everyone bellyached as anti-smoking laws kicked in, but slowly, attitudes changed, and now, it's not such a big deal. I bet if you got rid of anti-smoking laws, you wouldn't even see a huge uptake in public…

It's probably hard to fathom now but while working at Chevron in 1990 / 1991 the two smokers in my group got their own office so no one else had to share with them while they smoked at their respective desks. Thankfully they kept the door closed, but any time you had to go in there everything - the walls, the ceiling, their keyboards and monitors, their books - everything had an odiferous brown patina. It was like wa…

I had to do some work at a customer datacenter, which was a converted print/mainframe room in a 70s high-rise with lots of windows.

The customer had built a wall blocking all of the windows in the late 80s (this was circa 2000), we had to go in the the area inbetween.... 10-15 years of no interior cleaning and high temps resulted in these weird formations of tar drips. It almost looked like a cave formation. Absolutely vile.

The story from the site staff was that the print and mainframe operators back in the day would essentially sit and continuously smoke, all day, all night. IIRC, we found a half dozen defunct cigarette machines.

Re: Facebook is pushing back on Apple’s new iPhone privacy rules

#439

Post by jdj627jsh »

Jonanin wrote: post #418
tailrecursion wrote: post #406

My guess is over time most free apps that depend on tracking will refuse to work unless allowed to track. And most users will acquiesce, just so they can use an app that they want to use. Even the Facebook app itself could refuse to work unless tracking is turned on. It's still a positive change overall, and still affects Facebook but it appears to me the effect will be minor, even temporary.

You are right, and not only that: personalized ads are better for users and for small businesses. I’m ready for the downvotes, but this is very much true.

Can you elaborate on how targeted ads are better for users? Do those benefits outweigh the documented harms and abuses, the risk of further harms and abuses?

Re: Facebook is pushing back on Apple’s new iPhone privacy rules

#440

Post by spoonjim »

uneekname wrote: post #268
spoonjim wrote: post #189

Well, looks like NPR is fake news now. “That gives [Facebook] reams of personal data on who we are and what we are doing, which it then vacuums up, packages and sells.” Even the most cursory investigation will reveal that Facebook does not sell this data as it is too valuable, they just rent out access to your eyeballs.

I see what you're getting at, and NPR definitely could have worded that better, but I think they're getting the point across fairly well. From a layman's perspective, ad tracking is the packaging and selling of user data.

But that is wrong... they do not sell the data. It is a bald faced lie.
Post reply on HN