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

451–460 of 734 posts

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

#451

Post by czbond »

that_guy_iain wrote: post #337
rising-sky wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure why this is getting down-voted, but I think the point here is the _fact_ that you have been put in a situation where, as an individual, you are concerned enough to do this is telling, crazy or not

This logic could be used to say there is a problem that some people believe they need to wear tinfoil hats to stop mind-reading. No, we should help them seek medical help. It's easily verifiable to check if your phone is sending data, so if they're concerned, they can check that like many people do and find out what data is being sent. But stopping a conversation midway through to hide your phone to continue to talk…

Ha - nothing subversive or illegitimate! I'm an engineer ha. The effort cost is minimal (walking to another room) - the downside cost if I was wrong (data mining by a social app for ads) was worth it.

Insurance companies analyze purchase records for modeling lifestyle risk.... if I were discussing a family member who had a health scare how do I know that info isn't 'surfaced' to insurers, etc?

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

#452

Post by tomekjapan »

robteix wrote: post #424
tomekjapan wrote: post #415

Apple some time ago recognized that they won't be able to compete on software with other BigTech giants so they are building an environment where certain software advancements are crippled. User activity data will be important to tune algorithms for maximum utility and by restricting access to user data for others, Apple wants to give itself the best shot to stay in the game. In the long run this will be a net loss f…

> Apple some time ago recognized that they won't be able to compete on software with other BigTech giants so they are building an environment where certain software advancements are crippled. User activity data will be important to tune algorithms for maximum utility and by restricting access to user data for others, Apple wants to give itself the best shot to stay in the game. That seems off to me. Apple isn't cripp…

Getting users to opt-in will be very hard given the current partially justifiable negative vibe, so that will likely not happen at scale unless opting in results in a clearly better experience. However, if the majority of users jump into the Apple ecosystem before those clearly better experiences are materialized, there will be few remaining alternatives for Apple users to compare to and change their mind regarding tracking. Consequently there will also be little incentive to improve the software using user data.

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

#453

Post by czbond »

mayneack wrote: post #261
rising-sky wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure why this is getting down-voted, but I think the point here is the _fact_ that you have been put in a situation where, as an individual, you are concerned enough to do this is telling, crazy or not

I didn't downvote, but "It doesn't matter if it's true, It's bad that I'm concerned" is used to justify all sorts of alarmist policies. Right now that's what's being used to restrict voting rights across the US and has been used for a long time to justify NIMBY and tough on crime policies regardless of evidence.

I do have precedence in logic, right? Alexa/Siri/etc must listen for their voice cue prompts to activate, and discarding all other discussion. So I must trust that corporation would discard if not applicable. Without a hardware cutoff switch for a mic - it is blind trust, isn't it?

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

#454

Post by runarberg »

dillondoyle wrote: post #322
runarberg wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Targeted ads don’t work any better then static ads. This is new for me. Actually now that I think about it, all evidence I remember at the moment is anecdotal. So perhaps you are right. Regardless of its efficacy, the legality should be out of the question.

Yes they do. It really bugs me all these HN threads state this and rely on their own personal experience not as an ad buyer but as a consumer. It's not true. One can directly measure ROI and prove the value of this advertising. Especially FB provides for my business (political marketing) at least 10X better direct response value and that is mostly using 1:1 targeting and lookalike modeling.

Cool. Just as I thought. It seemed wrong that such an easily measurable thing would never have been tested and a whole industry (arguable the biggest industry in the western world at the moment) had never measured it (or they had and found no effect).

What I like about the HN discourse is that if someone slings out a statement which is demonstrably false, someone that knows better might respond with a correction. That is why I left this comment, as I all my knowledge with the targeted ad business was anecdotal, and I desperately needed a correction.

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

#455

Post by User23 »

reedjosh wrote: post #61
BoorishBears wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... what? A doctor giving someone a new lease on life with an arm transplant isn't a hero unless they're threatening _their own_ arm by volunteering it. - In what world do things work like that?

I would say that's a false equivalency. In the Apple case, it's possibly gaining via marketing and driving people to paid apps that Apple gains revenue from. Please don't misread me though--I'm glad Apple is doing this, I just don't think they're heroes for it.

Hero has become something of a joke word these days. It's used to describe acts as mundane as getting out of bed in the morning and going to a salaried job. It's too bad, because it's nice to have a word to describe people of near godlike achievement. Chuck Yeager would be an example of what I consider a bona-fide modern hero. Alexander would be an example from antiquity.

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

#456

Post by MeinBlutIstBlau »

e40 wrote: post #403
coldpie wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Between this privacy fight and the form factor of the iPhone Mini, there's a 90% chance my next phone will be an iPhone after more than a decade on Android. I'm done with this ad-sponsored trash ecosystem.

I moved to iOS for the specific reason of getting the Apple watch because of some heart issues I was having. Did it a year ago. I wasn't thrilled, but I was sick of the Android adware/malware problem (every time I installed an ad-supported app I got malware within a week or two). How do I feel now? I absolutely love this ecosystem. I don't fear OS updates like I used to with Android. I don't fear my device will be st…

The m1 is honestly selling me to move back to apple stuff again. Also I'm sick of trash process handling on Android where apps just stop running because some other one is sucking down the ram in the background. I could have every app opened on my iphone even on 1gb with an SE and no issues noticed whatsoever. I really think apple is delivering an upswing they need to after the whole trash 12 in macbooks and butterfly switches.

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

#457

Post by Spivak »

nicky0 wrote: post #336
Spivak wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is absolutely true. Both companies play the game of selling customer acquisition. But we seem to be generally more okay with middlemen squeezing a two sided market. Sometimes. If it’s DoorDash or Amazon then public opinion seems to go the other way. But regardless it’s not Facebook’s value prop to business that people have an issue with but ya know, how they actually deliver it.

No, devs don't buy customers from apple. Customers buy apps, and Apple takes a commission. No money flows from Developer to Apple (apart from to 100$ annual fee if you want to be anal about it).

No they buy access to customers. You can't sell to Apple's customer base unless you give them 30% of gross. The world where Apple charges that 30% commission to the devs after the sale or collects it from the customer during the sale is irrelevant. We fork over a lot of money to Apple for the privilege of selling to their customers.

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

#458

Post by jackson1442 »

Jonanin wrote: post #411
sjm wrote: post #30

If personalized ads are really so beneficial to their customers, Facebook should have no problem convincing them to allow the tracking they need and opt-in.

Apple controls the messaging on the dialog, not FB. It is worded in such a way that >95% of people will likely disallow it.

In addition to my sibling comment, most apps now have pre-prompts for permissions, like where you see a full-pager telling you why the app wants to use notifications where you consent before getting the real consent prompt.

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

#459

Post by sailingparrot »

helsinkiandrew wrote: post #37
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.

I can forgive them for fighting to try and save their business model. But I can’t forgive them for dragging Grace Jones into the fight.

Grace Jones is a fully functioning adult person and made her own choice. No one dragged her.

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

#460

Post by icedistilled »

bromuro wrote: post #216
icedistilled wrote: post #121

Facebook friend suggestions are such garbage. Half of them are legitimate acquaintances. Half of them are random women from south america. I've never interacted with anything that should bring those up and I've never clicked on that sort of suggestion. The only reason I can think they'd show me them is my demographic, 30 something male. I haven't clicked on anything on FB or elsewhere on the web that should be gettin…

My guess: given your set of data and browser history, to contact south american women is their best way to keep you engaged. It could also be _you_ are the target for keep these ladies engaged. Who knows how many creepy psychological-mechanisms are behind their algorithms.

>My guess: given your set of data and browser history, to contact south american women is their best way to keep you engaged.

Let me re-iterate. Because I'm male and on the internet I knew people would question my premise.

I haven't clicked on anything on FB or *elsewhere* on the web that should be getting me random foreign women as friend suggestions. I'm not naive. And even if I were clicking on correlated things elsewhere, which I'm not, I have never clicked on one of these suggestions in FB. That's two layers of ridiculously bad targeting that just annoys their users.

Post reply on HN