Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy

#291

Post by lancesells » Fri, Sep 08, 2023, 8:14 PM UTC

LexGray wrote: post #222

Zambyte wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If there is a kind of “ethical ads” that’s as close as it gets. A news paper ad? A builtin board? I think advertisements that hijack your attention are always unethical. You should have to look for ads to see them.

Isn't looking at an Apple device just like looking at a newspaper? I seem to recall papers being chock full of ads outside the front page to a far greater extent than the Apple News app. Our society depends on advertising for promoting new services, gaining new customers, and building trust. I would call it a social necessity which makes it very ethical as long as it is truthful. The hijacking that occurs is consensu…

> I would call it a social necessity which makes it very ethical as long as it is truthful.

Disagree on this one. Blogs, media, social, word of mouth, etc. would still exist without advertising and would serve the purpose of all of those things. PR teams would become as large as marketing teams, things would get exploited (they already are), but we wouldn't be subjected to distraction and manipulation.

I don't think ads are the most evil thing there is, but society would be fine without them and you would probably see a much smaller imbalance of power in wealth and companies. I'll take 1000s of small forums compared to one big Meta.

Re: Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy

#292

Post by warkdarrior » Fri, Sep 08, 2023, 8:16 PM UTC

daneel_w wrote: post #193

wiseowise wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should they? They compare Meta and Apple, aren’t they?

The article tries to make it out as if it's about privacy and integrity in general. Google is all the way up at the top of the list of crooks together with arseholes like Meta.

That's whataboutism at its finest!

A: "I will write an article about Apple's and Meta's privacy practices." B: "But what about Google???"

Re: Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy

#293

Post by riversflow » Fri, Sep 08, 2023, 8:16 PM UTC

amelius wrote: post #289

riversflow wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If what you describe were economic reality, ads wouldn’t be a thing. The reality is that ads allow a vendor to reach significantly more customers, paying for the ads. You can see this with the rise of ultra specialty online stores we’ve seen in the last decade thank to targeted advertising.

I don't see the logical connection between my comment and yours. Yes, ads make people buy more stuff. Is that a good thing? My comment doesn't say anything about that. But anyway, my guess is no, because it leads to overconsumption, and exhaustion of natural resources. Also: > 96% of US users opted out of IDFA sharing Meaning that users really do not want to be tracked.

I was replying to this.

> will just make products more expensive, since now you also pay for the adtech that's involved

That’s not generally how the economics of advertising works. If it were, advertising wouldn’t be very successful/important.

People don’t like the idea of being tracked, but my experience is that they like the results.. Especially all the extreme specialty niche products that simply wouldn’t exist without targeted ads.

Re: Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy

#294

Post by Timon3 » Fri, Sep 08, 2023, 8:16 PM UTC

charcircuit wrote: post #169

heavyset_go wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the way i see it, the worst case scenario is you get an Ad for something you might actually like... That's hardly the worst case scenario when there are countless stories like "Facebook Allowed Advertisers to Target Users Interested in “White Genocide” — Even in Wake of Pittsburgh Massacre"[1]. There's also the time Facebook's targeted ads were used to facilitate genocide in Myanmar[2][3]. [1] https://theintercept.…

>when there are countless stories like "Facebook Allowed Advertisers to Target Users Interested in “White Genocide” What's wrong with that? The more interests available the better ads can be targetted. >There's also the time Facebook's targeted ads were used to facilitate genocide in Myanmar The article doesn't mention ads were used. It just sounds like Facebook was connecting people based off a common interested peo…

Generally speaking it's never a good idea to stoke the fire of unfounded fears in people. Doing so directly leads to stochastic terrorism and other horrible things.

There are more important things in this world than money. Surely we can all agree that "better ad targeting" isn't worth human lives?

Re: Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy

#295

Post by warkdarrior » Fri, Sep 08, 2023, 8:18 PM UTC

shreddit wrote: post #53

Oh the irony: Sign up to get this free Ethical design cheat sheet: [ Google Sign in] [Email Sign in]

But it's ethical, it says so in the name!

Re: Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy

#296

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Sep 08, 2023, 8:18 PM UTC

sumeno wrote: post #113

dazc wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'Apple's main source of income is through luxury hardware and subscription services.' So why not keep it that way? I understand the temptation of veering from the path of 'do no evil' but Apple are not exactly short of revenue? Apple, Google and Meta are currently all three sides of the same coin. Take your pick but don't claim any virtue for doing so.

> So why not keep it that way? Because capitalism incentivizes unsustainable growth at all costs.

[deleted]

Re: Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy

#297

Post by bloomingeek » Fri, Sep 08, 2023, 8:19 PM UTC

tomcar288 wrote: post #142

goalieca wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple does not have a tracking pixel on half the popular web. Apple's main source of income is through luxury hardware and subscription services. Facebook sells your information and attention to willing buyers.

I don't understand why people are so against Advertisers targetting people based on their data? what are people so afraid of? the way i see it, the worst case scenario is you get an Ad for something you might actually like...

Because it's none of their damn business! If you are cautious in public around strangers, and you better be, why would any sane person trust a company with their personal data?!?

Your question is either super naive or you have a stake in facebook or apple.

Re: Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy

#298

Post by soperj » Fri, Sep 08, 2023, 8:22 PM UTC

hoppyhoppy2 wrote: post #186

soperj wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just use my banking website from my phone. Why install apps?

My bank and credit union allow me to deposit checks from my phone via the apps; their websites don't offer that option.

Honestly can't recall the last time I've had to deposit a cheque.

Re: Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy

#299

Post by zie » Fri, Sep 08, 2023, 8:24 PM UTC

lern_too_spel wrote: post #257

kaba0 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am no bootlicker for any corp, but I do value and appreciate Apple’s focus on privacy, and I think that many criticisms of it is just nitpicky and doesn’t help anyone (e.g. calling that buy icloud service label an ad..). On the other hand, I very much await sideloading to be forced out of Apple by the EU.

> I think that many criticisms of it is just nitpicky and doesn’t help anyone This is true, but many criticisms are valid. Apple News is user-tracking adware that cannot be uninstalled on MacOS. You cannot install an app on any of the iDevices without telling Apple. You cannot get your GPS location on an iDevice without telling Apple. Apple is spending considerable resources growing their ad business, so expect this…

Meanwhile, the only competitor(Google's Android) tracks everything you do everywhere.

So Apple's privacy perspective is way better than Android's. Could it be better? Of course, and I'm fine with trying to pressure them to do more for protecting our privacy, but between the 2, it's not even close, Apple is WAY more private with your data than Google will ever be.

Re: Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy

#300

Post by dwaite » Fri, Sep 08, 2023, 8:28 PM UTC

azinman2 wrote: post #262

dwaite wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There isn't a Threads account. You upgrade your Instagram account to work with Threads. It isn't a different platform, specifically because they didn't want to build up yet another social graph from scratch. Your graph in the Instagram app is your graph in the Threads app. This is somewhat akin to how Messenger isn't a different platform from the rest of Facebook. There may be a future 'downgrade' function, but remov…

UPDATE users SET threads = FALSE WHERE username = ‘foo’ There’s no intrinsic reason it has to be this way other than they built it to be as easy to join as possible.

> There’s no intrinsic reason it has to be this way other than they built it to be as easy to join as possible.

You are hypothecating a LAMP-style stack where they just need to add a flag to their database table and update all their SQL to ignore data from flagged accounts.

I'm hypothecating architectures where it is substantially more difficult than that, such as heavily cached, event-driven microservices with geographic distribution, data locality, and which attempt to comply with various data retention and privacy regulations.