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

"Localhost tracking" explained. It could cost Meta €32B

zeropartydata.es

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 286 posts

Re: "Localhost tracking" explained. It could cost Meta €32B

#271

Post by Emiledel »

disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #243
account42 wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Targeted advertising has been good for small business in the same way that the mob is good to small business that pay up. The main reason businesses need to rely on advertising to reach people is because people are already being bombarded by competitors.

Sorry what? Like, basically all businesses need to advertise, and unknown ones (i.e. small and new businesses) need to do this much more. Coke will be fine if they stop buying TV spots (for a while, at least) but I'm pretty sure Linear/Datadog etc wouldn't be the size they are now without advertising. > The main reason businesses need to rely on advertising to reach people is because people are already being bombarde…

This is a valuable thread to pull thank you: how about differentiating targeted, sticky advertising vs context based advertising. On my local paper website, I value being shown local stuff (to your point on small business). On security websites, show me security products. On HN, Show me tech and science.

The ADD incidence rate being 10x for adults since 2005 (not to even mention kids), we'd all appreciate relevance to what we're exploring/thinking about/learning, rather than the genuine nuisance of nagging for something out of context because we're tracked all around the web.

Re: "Localhost tracking" explained. It could cost Meta €32B

#272

Post by efilife »

gloxkiqcza wrote: post #29
ryukoposting wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1.2B is less than 1% of Meta's revenue in FY2024. Maximum fines for infractions like these should exist on a sliding scale, as some percentage of prior revenue.

The point was it’s two orders of magnitude more than the original comment stated. Also 1% of yearly revenue is not insignificant.

How is it not? Will anyone actually feel this fine?

Re: "Localhost tracking" explained. It could cost Meta €32B

#273

Post by gloxkiqcza »

efilife wrote: post #272
gloxkiqcza wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point was it’s two orders of magnitude more than the original comment stated. Also 1% of yearly revenue is not insignificant.

How is it not? Will anyone actually feel this fine?

YoY percentages are usually presented with one decimal place of precision. This makes the number drop by one whole percentage point. It impacts net profit margin and profit numbers even more. Literally everyone up to the C level executives, board of directors and shareholders will notice and care about this. The missing money could have been invested into making more money in the future or payed out as dividends. Instead it’s gone.

This also means all employees feel this because it affects the prospects of their raises, management pressure and in the end whether they get to keep their job or not. (I’m not saying the recent layoffs were caused by this but it sure as hell didn’t help.)

Every single penny matters to a capitalist corporation and this was not pennies.

Re: "Localhost tracking" explained. It could cost Meta €32B

#274

Post by DrScientist »

Ray20 wrote: post #239
DrScientist wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So your argument is that because the ring leaders, and the people who benefit the most from the crimes, almost always get off - we should forget about them and just penalize the people who have to do what they are told because they need to feed their families? That would seem to be a recipe for more crime, not less. Note i don't think anyone is saying those directly involved should get off scot-free, just that those…

No, my argument is that the system you propose results in ring leaders escaping responsibility and people having to commit crimes in order to feed their families. Look at any socialist country, almost any dictatorship, or the work of any bureaucratic organizations related to the committing crimes. The obligation to commit crimes in such systems arises precisely from the ability of the ring leader to take responsibili…

> ... citing the fact that he did not commit the crime, but simply did not take something into account or did not know something.

Read Sarbanes Oxley.

You can frame the law anyway you want. Not knowing can be framed as criminal irresponsibility. Also look at health and safety regulation - negligence is not a defense.

And if you think rank and file getting punished with bosses getting away scot free will lead to less unbearable pressure to commit crimes - then I have a bridge to sell you.

Re: "Localhost tracking" explained. It could cost Meta €32B

#275

Post by DrScientist »

Ray20 wrote: post #261
DrScientist wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's complex - that's why you have judges and juries - to make judgements. I'm saying leaders bear more responsibility than foot soldiers - I'm not saying foot soldiers don't also have a responsibility - but 'I didn't physically do it' isn't a defence for those that gave the orders/ created a culture where it happened. Sure, Zuck might not really known and that is a mitigation. But I think the interesting question he…

>those that gave the orders That's part of the crime. Of course, the one who gave the order must bear responsibility. It's just that if the subordinate also bears full responsibility, there is a high probability that there will be no order to commit a crime, because everyone will expect that there will be no criminal ready to commit the crime. >what does everybody ( in the commpany ) think would have happened if he d…

> Why is this important?

Because leadership is important and is why things like this keep happening in companies like Meta and are not a regular occurrence in companies say like Apple ( despite the laws for the rank and file being the same.... )

> Where are the examples?

Health and safety legislation. Sarbanes Oxley ( after Eron and the bosses getting off ).

I don't understand why you are so keen to give Meta leadership a free pass.

Re: "Localhost tracking" explained. It could cost Meta €32B

#276

Post by ryukoposting »

rsynnott wrote: post #44
ryukoposting wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1.2B is less than 1% of Meta's revenue in FY2024. Maximum fines for infractions like these should exist on a sliding scale, as some percentage of prior revenue.

They actually do; max GDPR penalty is 4% global revenue, say. Of course the concern would be that even at that rate some companies might see it as a cost of doing business.

I'd be inclined to go with something closer to 40%, or 400%.

Re: "Localhost tracking" explained. It could cost Meta €32B

#277

Post by gausswho »

boneitis wrote: post #190
gausswho wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I felt a prude at the time but eschewed native apps for browser versions and haven't regretted. Didn't benefit from notification distraction anyway. Apple and Google just didn't get their houses in order to be taken seriously. If it ain't on F-Droid, I'll wait.

There is another can of worms hidden in plain sight right here, I feel like. From the article: You’re not affected if (and only if) You access Facebook and Instagram via the web, without having the apps installed on your phone This is only what's observably true of a particular app under the hood from straightforwardly jacking into it with Frida or performing any other deeper analysis. What's to say Meta/Google/Other…

Indeed. I read elsewhere that some Android manufacturers even ship with Facebook bits that don't show up in the app listing and cannot be removed.

We desperately need a viable open hardware / open source OS competitor in the phone space.

Re: "Localhost tracking" explained. It could cost Meta €32B

#278

Post by dvngnt_ »

account42 wrote: post #219
dvngnt_ wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For gaming and media consumption, VR is here to stay. The meta raybans have also been successful. As far as replacing your smartphone with AR glasses that remains to be seen

"Here to stay" doesn't say much. VR is as of now an extreme nieche and the reasons for that is more the space requirements and simply that having to wear a device sucks - those reasons are inherent and will not change with new tech.

> "Here to stay" doesn't say much. VR is as of now an extreme nieche

If we're comparing to 3d glasses for movies like the parent comment said then that is a huge difference. samsung is releasing an android headset this year this long into VR which they didn't do for 3dtv. this generation of VR has already lasted longer than 3D-tv 6 years.

There are space requirements for base stations, but it can be played for many hours in a chair or in bed. Not every experience requires a large room. Newer headsets are self-tracked so that's already been solved by new tech.

The bigscreen beyond 2 is 107g and can be worn for hours. Struggling to see how portability and versatility won't improve with new tech.

Re: "Localhost tracking" explained. It could cost Meta €32B

#279

Post by dvngnt_ »

hoppp wrote: post #167
dvngnt_ wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For gaming and media consumption, VR is here to stay. The meta raybans have also been successful. As far as replacing your smartphone with AR glasses that remains to be seen

I think the world is progressing away from headsets or screens. We will just have an AI that will do everything, we just ask. "Book a flight, order a pizza and reply to my emails" boom, done.

Possibly, but the issue with chat interfaces is you often don't know what options are even available, and you still need the ability to browse information, so I think some screen will still be needed.

Re: "Localhost tracking" explained. It could cost Meta €32B

#280

Post by apitman »

disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #243
account42 wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Targeted advertising has been good for small business in the same way that the mob is good to small business that pay up. The main reason businesses need to rely on advertising to reach people is because people are already being bombarded by competitors.

Sorry what? Like, basically all businesses need to advertise, and unknown ones (i.e. small and new businesses) need to do this much more. Coke will be fine if they stop buying TV spots (for a while, at least) but I'm pretty sure Linear/Datadog etc wouldn't be the size they are now without advertising. > The main reason businesses need to rely on advertising to reach people is because people are already being bombarde…

Public ads should be illegal and customers should go to a catalog when they want to see ads.
Post reply on HN