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

261–270 of 734 posts

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

#261

Post by mayneack »

rising-sky wrote: post #233
czbond wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wholly internalized that there was a real problem when I started taking my phone to other parts of the house, placing it in a drawer before returning and shutting the door to have an in person conversation with someone.

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.

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

#262

Post by wyattpeak »

nerbert wrote: post #109
fairity wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple's TOS surrounding this change prevent any sort of content-gating of this sort. Infractions may result in removal from the app store.

I'd be curious to see whether apple has the balls to remove fb from the app store

I don't know how it was received (if at all) in the rest of the world, but in Australia at least Facebook is still reeling from their news ban, I suspect the populace would support Apple for a few days, and that's realistically as long as the ban would last if implemented.

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

#263

Post by reaperducer »

23iofj wrote: post #246
reaperducer wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

an existential threat to their business model Nothing existential about it at all. It's an actual threat to Facebook's business model. And I'm OK with that.

> Nothing existential about it at all. It's an actual threat to Facebook's business model. "Existential threat" means a threat to the very existence of a thing, so a thing that is an "existential threat" is a very big actual threat. I think maybe you're confusing "Existential" with "Hypothetical"?

"Existential threat" means an implied, or perceived threat.

Politicians started using that phrase en masse about a year ago, and the internet has latched onto it and now misuses it all the time.

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

#264

Post by the-dude »

saddlerustle wrote: post #210
iscrewyou wrote: post #12

It’s so hard to feel bad for Facebook. They’ve made shadow profiles for non-Facebook users for crying out loud! But they are really going out of their way to oppose Apple on this move. The burger restaurant clip in the audio...couldn’t they still target users just based on interests? And not actually linking those interests to a specific person? And on the other hand, I don’t hear much from Google.

There aren't shadow profiles for non-facebook users. That's a myth.

Sources please.

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

#265

Post by Joeri »

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 removed the facebook app years ago. If people insist on using facebook they should use it from the browser, in private browsing mode.

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

#266

Post by collaborative »

Pros: great news for value app developers. Unfair competition won't be as big of a worry and users will finally have to start valuing their apps (with money!)

Cons: small retail sellers will find it hard to advertise and won't be able to compete with big ad spenders that use more wholesale ad strategies

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

#267

Post by mhoad »

reaperducer wrote: post #257
mhoad wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know it really isn’t that obvious to me at all and I think Facebook is a genuine cancer on society. But everyone seems to conveniently forget about the absolute moral nightmare that is Apple’s supply chain. Remember when they had to put up nets to stop people from killing themselves? [1] What about when they were accused of using literal slave labour? [2] Or the time they actively lobbied Congress when a vote cam…

everyone seems to conveniently forget about the absolute moral nightmare that is Apple’s supply chain No, everyone hasn't. Apple has its problems, too, and nobody denies that. But arguments like yours amount to no more than "Hey, look over there! Don't look at Facebook, look at this other thing!" Deflection. Whataboutism. Call it what you will.

What are you talking about?

I am responding to someone calling Apple a hero. I did nothing other than to point out the fact that like many things in life, it's not that simple.

There is no attempt to help Facebook or whatever you had in mind, that was your own projection. We can talk about 2 issues at the same time.

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

#268

Post by uneekname »

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.

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

#269

Post by BoorishBears »

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.

I like how you say it's false equivalency but then kind of fail to actually show that... maybe because it's not?

In the real world there are few "heroic" deeds that don't benefit the entity doing them.

The doctor doing the transplant gets professional acclaim that is not worthless, would you say the doctor did it to market themselves?

Turns out doing good things can be profitable, it's not an either or.

This tired cynicism any time a company does something good and people admire them for it (ie consider the action heroic) is not novel or useful. Companies at the size of Apple and co are never going to be pure forces of good with no bad deeds, but they are still capable of being heroes in a specific context. Right now Apple is being a hero of their customer's right to privacy

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

#270

Post by bozzcl »

system16 wrote: post #43

> Facebook says Apple is attempting to push free apps, which often sweep data up and feed it to advertisers, to move to subscription models. And I think most users will see no problem with this. If I value the service enough, I'll pay for it. That Apple gets 30% is another discussion and as a user, not my problem. If I don't value the service that much, I now get to be informed and can decide whether I value using it…

In fact, I would say apps would get a lot more revenue by switching to a paid model. I don't know the exact numbers, but I think I've heard monthly revenue from tracking is less than a cent per user.

Now imagine they charge $1 monthly for their app subscription. Hell, even a couple of cents would be an improvement. Or even better: they charge a one-time payment to buy the app.

Post reply on HN