81–90 of 162 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thankfully the EU also has legislation that makes "share data to use" tactics illegal, so this shouldn't be a problem.
How are you going to enforce this against app developers outside of the EU?
I think one of my personal issues with allowing Meta to access these private APIs is that they may not take "don't allow" for an answer. I have WhatsApp to talk to some family and I recently disabled allowing all contacts in iOS 18. WhatsApp now has a persistent notification at the top of messages to "Allow All Contacts". If Apple allows users to choose whether or not to give Meta access, and users choose "no", Meta…
If this is still possible, then Apple fucked up the implementation of this feature, as clearly there should be no way to differentiate not having bothered to fill out a ton of contacts and having limited access for an app to see your contacts; and since this is so obviously easy to do correctly, it frankly sounds actively malicious: there is a set -- probably a very small set -- of engineers and product managers who chose to build this incorrectly, in order to continue to maintain the status quo of the proxy war between Apple and Meta, to our detriment.
I think one of my personal issues with allowing Meta to access these private APIs is that they may not take "don't allow" for an answer. I have WhatsApp to talk to some family and I recently disabled allowing all contacts in iOS 18. WhatsApp now has a persistent notification at the top of messages to "Allow All Contacts". If Apple allows users to choose whether or not to give Meta access, and users choose "no", Meta…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> All their other “products” are just suction pipes for hoovering up that data. I don't think that's true for their VR/MR hardware. That's Meta's attempt to get a product that is _not_ like that, but which instead gets them in a position similar to where Google and Apple are for phones. I.e., where they own the platform and can profit off of that.
Dude they tried to force you to log in with your Facebook account to use your hardware. Everything made by that wretched company is tainted.
The Reuters report on this is much more detailed: https://www.reuters.com/technology/apple-slams-metas-numerou... And yes, Meta isn’t denying requesting everything under the sun. Their only retort is Apple’s privacy concerns are anticompetitive excuses. Two things can be true: Apple is only protecting their own interests, and Meta is a terrible would-be guardian of all the data they’re requesting.
Apple shouldn't be allowed to lock down APIs between system components to give themselves a competitive advantage, but that doesn't mean Meta should be allowed decide if they're getting that access. Let Apple offer users the option: allow once, allow permanently, refuse, or fake empty responses without telling the app.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple shouldn't be allowed to lock down APIs between system components to give themselves a competitive advantage, but that doesn't mean Meta should be allowed decide if they're getting that access. Let Apple offer users the option: allow once, allow permanently, refuse, or fake empty responses without telling the app.
Users will be faced with a dialog saying "to use Facebook, you must accept XYZ", and their only options will be to accept or to not use the app. Facebook will detect empty or fake data and lock the user out unless they acquiesce.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How are you going to enforce this against app developers outside of the EU?
In a discussion thread about Meta (which follows EU law) launching an app in the EU using their alt App Store laws; why would you further move the goalpost just for arguments sake?
1. characterizing this as a "discussion thread about Meta" is a stretch. While the OP is about meta specifically, it's fairly obvious that as of a comments up, the discussion is about the behaviors of app developers in general, rather than what Meta is specifically doing.
2. Discussing unintended side effects isn't "moving the goalposts". If we're talking about the student debt crisis, and someone brings up the idea of student loan forgiveness, it's not "moving the goalposts" to bring up concerns about inflation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thing is, at some point users must become comfortable with "pedantic permission dialogs." Users must take responsibility for knowing how software works and the motivations of its creators. Trying to outsource those decisions to corporations and government simply isn't working. Since computer users (I include phone users in that definition) can no longer trust software developers (Apple, Meta, etc.) to be ethicall…
> Trying to outsource those decisions to corporations and government simply isn't working I don’t follow. What is wrong with the status quo?
Businesses are deciding who lives and who dies, instead of people being allowed to have their own choice in the matter. These businesses make decisions based on data stolen from users. If the data were on paper in a person's home, it would be considered private and inaccessible.
Why should a company decide that they should have access to your every move and every data, just because you purchased something from them? Why should a company decide what you're allowed to do with your device? A business shouldn't be permitted to decide these decisions for you without your fully informed consent.
That's what's wrong with the status quo.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dude they tried to force you to log in with your Facebook account to use your hardware. Everything made by that wretched company is tainted.
Did they back off of that? I have an older oculus I can dig out if I can safely walk its data off from Meta
That's a distinction without a difference to me. I will not be purchasing hardware that requires a cloud account. Especially not a peripheral.