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

581–590 of 734 posts

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

#581

Post by jonfw »

ska wrote: post #565
jonfw wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is my income tax a price the government charges for providing roads, schools, and protection? Just because there are services rendered doesn't mean it's not a tax. There is no opt out, and price is a function of earnings rather than value added.

> and price is a function There are tons of things that are paid for on a percentage basis, and the "is this value added or not" line is pretty difficult to define clearly. It doesn't make sense to think of it as a tax, really, sure taxes can be used to provide services (or other things) but the fee being paid here is directly tied to the service you are receiving. If you want to draw parallels with government, it wo…

I can opt out of a toll road by taking the long way. If I was forced to take a toll road to get to my office, I would consider that a tax.

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

#582

Post by buzzerbetrayed »

jonfw wrote: post #157
dleslie wrote: post #99

I wish journalists wouldn't refer to Apple's app store cut as "tax" ; it's a service fee. That is the price Apple charges for providing payment-related services on its platform. It is not a tax.

Is my income tax a price the government charges for providing roads, schools, and protection? Just because there are services rendered doesn't mean it's not a tax. There is no opt out, and price is a function of earnings rather than value added.

Regardless of how hard you try to justify it as being similar to government tax (which you go to jail for not paying), the fact is that calling it the "Apple Tax" is an editorial decision used to paint it negatively. Now, you may support calling it that (or not) depending on how you feel about Apple. But let's not pretend it is the appropriate, unbiased name for it.

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

#583

Post by phabora »

multiplegeorges wrote: post #271
jonfw wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is my income tax a price the government charges for providing roads, schools, and protection? Just because there are services rendered doesn't mean it's not a tax. There is no opt out, and price is a function of earnings rather than value added.

There is an opt out. You might not like the opt out, but it remains a choice. You don't have to use Apple's platform or services. Taxes imposed by a government are compulsory. Words still have meaning and using tax to refer to Apple's fees is completely incorrect.

We all agree about what taxes are. Some just attach more libertarian sensibilities/fears/paranoia to that word.

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

#584

Post by TedDoesntTalk »

dgreensp wrote: post #566
kml wrote: post #559

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's one giant fighting another. Apple wants to destroy ad revenue and shift everyone to a paid App model because Apple can get its 30%. I bet you if Apple loses control of the AppStore for anti trust reasons, they would be all for ads.

This is Facebook’s narrative, but if Facebook makes a bit less money, how exactly does that “shift everyone to a paid App model”? Facebook’s annual net profit is an 11-digit number. Apple’s move is bad for Facebook’s stock price and good for users, and that’s probably all the noticeable impact. Even if Apple’s motives are somehow nefarious, Facebook is being scummy in the first place, so it’s a fair move for Apple to…

> how exactly does that “shift everyone to a paid App model

You nailed it. Facebook wants to confuse and distract. There's absolutely no reason why Apple's push for user permission on tracking would cause the Facebook app to become subscription-based. WTF?

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

#585

Post by phabora »

firephreek wrote: post #553

"Personalized Ads for Small Businesses" What a bunch of malarkey. I've worked in ad space and the actual ability for SB's to compete is laughable. Their budgets are so comparatively small that they simply don't get the assistance necessary. They're drinking through paper straws while the big dogs swim in lakes. SB's absolutely need a platform to compete, but I'm absolutely incredulous that FB is that platform, much l…

Small business is just a propaganda tool. The idea has some allure, maybe because it reminds Americans of their priomordial beginning as settlers, homesteaders, yeomans, craftsmen (or so the stories go).

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

#586

Post by ajsnigrutin »

ASalazarMX wrote: post #573
move-on-by wrote: post #44

I don't have Facebook and I'm generally skeptical of Apple's pro-privacy messaging. However, seeing this response from Facebook has gotten me very excited for this update. There must be more to it then Apple's generic 'Most Advanced Update Ever' marketing. I'm still skeptical of Apple's commitment to privacy, but I'm certainly happy to get this update. Apple should thank Facebook for the free marketing.

> I'm generally skeptical of Apple's pro-privacy messaging That's a very healthy attitude towards Apple's claims. They developed all these APIs that allow app makers to spy on their users, and then blame the app makers for spying. For example, why does any app need to know which other apps I have installed, and how long I use them? This permission should very sparingly pass the review process, and only for apps in sp…

APIs are great.. i want an app to be able to list all the apps installed. I just don't want facebook app to do it, because it really doesn't need that data, and I don't want to give it to them.

This should be done the same as with location and microphone access... ie. "ask the user". "Flashlight 2000 DX app wants to access list of apps installed - allow once, allow always, deny now, deny always". Facebook wants to track 50 different things? Well.. ask the user 50 different times and try to explain why you want access to their call history and calendar data (adding calendar entries could also be a write-only option, with optional unique ids to change/remove entries).... and give your UX team a headache. Also, "deny" should be the "bolded" default. Maybe even give the user a list of unchecked permission the app wants, with explanations why it needs them, and have the user check the ones they want to give to the app (default state is unchecked (deny)).

Also granularity is key... giving location access for bluetooth connections, giving "manage calls" access to stop playing music when you get a call, etc. is just stupid.

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

#587

Post by r00fus »

Hallucinaut wrote: post #572
r00fus wrote: post #529

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tell my mom she needs to use FF containers for FB. I set it up so she can't do anything else. She's happy & gets to see her extended family pics/updates.

Isn't this done automatically now in Firefox? As in, you don't need to even install the containers add-on as Facebook and related properties are automatically opened in a default Facebook container?

Wow that'd be great news - when did that happen?

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

#588

Post by xGrill »

ASalazarMX wrote: post #573
move-on-by wrote: post #44

I don't have Facebook and I'm generally skeptical of Apple's pro-privacy messaging. However, seeing this response from Facebook has gotten me very excited for this update. There must be more to it then Apple's generic 'Most Advanced Update Ever' marketing. I'm still skeptical of Apple's commitment to privacy, but I'm certainly happy to get this update. Apple should thank Facebook for the free marketing.

> I'm generally skeptical of Apple's pro-privacy messaging That's a very healthy attitude towards Apple's claims. They developed all these APIs that allow app makers to spy on their users, and then blame the app makers for spying. For example, why does any app need to know which other apps I have installed, and how long I use them? This permission should very sparingly pass the review process, and only for apps in sp…

I can think of a few. An app might need to know if Twitter is installed so it can show a button to open a link in twitter or a web browser (This was before App Deeplinking was a thing). Maybe if an app company had multiple apps that it wanted to cross sell and see if they have both apps installed to enable certain functionality.

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

#589

Post by lozaning »

sircastor wrote: post #577
sebasvisser wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’d be surprised how many fb users (mostly less technical) just use a browser to access fb.. They don’t need an app in the App Store to do so.. So this might actually be a fight against the strange people working at Facebook that will get them to rethink what it is they do everyday..

This is me - and Facebook does not miss an opportunity to ask me to download messenger.

I use the low bandwidth option if I need to get on there. mbasic.facebook.com no nagging about apps and you can actually use the messenger web interface.

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

#590

Post by m463 »

ASalazarMX wrote: post #573
move-on-by wrote: post #44

I don't have Facebook and I'm generally skeptical of Apple's pro-privacy messaging. However, seeing this response from Facebook has gotten me very excited for this update. There must be more to it then Apple's generic 'Most Advanced Update Ever' marketing. I'm still skeptical of Apple's commitment to privacy, but I'm certainly happy to get this update. Apple should thank Facebook for the free marketing.

> I'm generally skeptical of Apple's pro-privacy messaging That's a very healthy attitude towards Apple's claims. They developed all these APIs that allow app makers to spy on their users, and then blame the app makers for spying. For example, why does any app need to know which other apps I have installed, and how long I use them? This permission should very sparingly pass the review process, and only for apps in sp…

Not only do they develop these technologies (wifi location db, ibeacon, deep linking, findmy, etc)

They don't give you the ability to block them.

and of course, you can't find out what is going in and out of your phone over the network, and you definitely can't firewall it. ("content blockers" are nerfed)

Post reply on HN