Live data from Hacker News

Facebook testing notification to users about Apple privacy changes

axios.com

301–310 of 339 posts

Re: Facebook testing notification to users about Apple privacy changes

#301

Why would anyone agree to this? I don’t see a benefit to letting Facebook or any company track me across the internet. When did we ever decide this was what consumers wanted? Every time this topic comes up I check Facebooks stock price and realize how detached people are from facebooks revenue driven by the advertisement market.

Why would anyone agree to this? Because the opt-out is hidden under the third pane behind the per party 1 by 1 drop-downs of the opt-outs for "legitimate interests", in a list of 120 "vendors" that require individual sub-pane drop downs and a radio button all having an "agree to selected" button that will immediately negate all your previous selections and just blast you to the content as if you "agreed to all".

If it was opt out, Facebook could get away with this. Apple is forcing their hand so people are presented with a fairly straight forward choice.

Re: Facebook testing notification to users about Apple privacy changes

#302
post #152
post #5

It's simultaneously remarkable and utterly unremarkable that Facebook has been dragged kicking and screaming into building a consent screen for this kind of tracking. Watching this tracking notification conflict unfold in the media has really helped me to refine where I stand on this: if a business depends on non-consensual tracking to be able to survive, then I'd prefer that the business has to fold before stripping…

You're more forgiving than I am. As far as I'm concerned, individual-targeted advertising has such inherently perverse incentives that even those starting out with good intentions (e.g. consensual opt-in) will eventually find themselves engaged in unethical, privacy-eroding behavior as a matter of course. Consider what would happen if you outlawed individual-targeted advertising. Ad relevancy falls overall. What then…

As both an advertiser and publisher I'd also be far happier without individually targeted advertising. On our websites I would prefer to just show contextual ads, and when advertising I'd honestly rather just get our message out there in places where it's likely to resonate, rather than trying to target a specific person who's ready to buy a car, or whatever.

Re: Facebook testing notification to users about Apple privacy changes

#303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'When Big Brands Stopped Spending On Digital Ads, Nothing Happened. Why?' https://www.forbes.com/sites/augustinefou/2021/01/02/when-bi...

What happens when small brands don't spend on digital ads? Nothing Happening is the worst possible outcome.

I do believe small brands can get more ROI using social media than wasting their money on digital ads.

Re: Facebook testing notification to users about Apple privacy changes

#304

A horrible thought experiment: What if FB only maintained their Android mobile app and made iOS second class, gradually lagging in features and operational support/stability? If that experiment 'succeeds', Instagram could follow. What do you suppose would be the outcome?

It might make some hard core Facebook users shift to android. They will get lower engagement metrics from iOS users (the smart thing to do is to try again with moving to a web app). But the declining engagement of iOS customers will likely hurt Facebook monetarily more then the lack of fidelity with targeting.

The problem is the iOS demographic often correlates with one of the most valuable to advertise to. While targeting will become harder again, which might hurt prices, overall its not like that ad spend is going to go away. Targeting will become more coarse-grained, but at the end of the day, facebook has so many on platform data sources, that it remains quite profitable to serve them.

Re: Facebook testing notification to users about Apple privacy changes

#305
post #231
post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Clearly I'm missing something in my logic Sampling methodology. Every ad impression in your sample was shown to the same person, but the ad industry is interested in billions of people.

I’m sorry, I don’t really follow. Could you explain a little bit more?

You weren’t served a hyper personalized ad because those get expensive at scale so they segment your id into ad target groups. You fit some form of gym enthusiast who shows interest in rowing segment and some unfortunate rowing company keeps throwing their money at you in a useless bid.

Re: Facebook testing notification to users about Apple privacy changes

#306
post #299
post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That makes the point a lot worse, and really just comes across as you responding to a set of assumptions nobody is actually making. What is the ‘it’ which you imagine people think is trivial? Who is saying anything is trivial? Where is anyone saying it’s just technology? Who said people don’t have a preference to use Facebook? How do you know how hard people have thought about this? I don’t think Facebook is trivial…

I think we're down in the weeds here - so I'll leave it at this. I shouldn't have focused it on tech so much, other people make the same category of mistake. The assumptions that I am talking about are basically this. (1) "people can easily do without Facebook", or the variant that "Facebook isn't very important to them" (2) There are viable replacements available to the people who do value this, at least in their ow…

Ignoring most of this, because you really are just talking about your own assumptions about what other people are thinking, which are nothing to do with me.

However your example:

> You dislike all my examples, try this one "Nobody needs a fossil fuel engine car". Obvious, right? Electrics are available and better in every way (just ask your favorite tesla owner). Telling people they can do fine without FB because you do is a bit like telling them they can do fine without gasoline because you do. Even when technically true for some values of "fine" and "need", it's not useful.

Is interesting for two reasons.

On the one hand, it’s just as bad as your prior ones, because the impact of doing without a car at all will be for many people quite significant in a way that I maintain is simply not the case with Facebook.

I know all kinds of people who have stopped using Facebook and it just hasn’t been a big deal, unlike all the examples you bring up.

On the other hand, I would imagine most people would simply accept that electric cars are a viable alternative to gasoline cars today, and that they will eventually switch to one in the future at some point, even if the economics don’t make sense now, which again makes this analogy just inapplicable to talking about Facebook.

What I take from this is that you are arguing against an amalgam of views you have seen elsewhere and trying to dispel a kind of misunderstanding that is somehow implicit to what you have seen.

I don’t really have anything to do with all that.

What I’m suggesting is that you dispense with these analogies, and simply consider the possibility that people don’t actually need Facebook, and that quitting Facebook wouldn’t actually have much impact for most people. Of course there are exceptions, but that’s not the point.

Being willing to consider this possibility sheds light on Facebook’s own behavior as well as the current situation with regard to what would make things better.

Why would you think it ‘laughable’ that people don’t know their own best interests? That seems to just trivialize a complex issue.

Many of us hold that it is important for society to treat people as though they do, but for the most part that is an ethical assumption that restrains abusive institutions. It’s equally true that most people know that they don’t know their own best interests in many ways, and we all obviously hold many false beliefs about both ourselves and the world. It’s pretty easy to think something is more (or less) important to you than it actually is.

Re: Facebook testing notification to users about Apple privacy changes

#307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> THIS is the best you can do with teams of engineers making > $200k/year throwing AI at everything? Maybe it is the best we can currently do and maybe it isn't objectively great. But the real question: is it better? I mean, better than the random shotgun approach that was TV, magazines, bus wraps, billboards, etc. Is it better than the spam flyers or "yellow pages" the post office delivered to every single household…

Is it one tiny increment better? Maybe? I'm with others who are not really impressed. For years the best Facebook could do were "Hot single [your gender preference] in [your city] are looking for [your age] [your gender]". Thanks, Mad Lib ads. But for the sake of argument let's say there is some small increment. What is the cost we are willing to pay for that? Databases that know exactly how much time we spend on the…

The 1% chance you will click on a singles ad is worth more to Facebook than a 90% chance you will click on an ad for your favourite hobby. The singles company will pay higher for that 1% click chance than anyone else. Even if Facebook could show you a more relevant ad, they are not incentivized to do so.

It doesn't matter to Facebook/Amazon whether or not they show you ads you are interested in (or that might impress you with how deep they understand you as a person). It only matters if advertisers get better results than they would get by spending their ad money on TV, Newspapers, Magazines, Radio, etc.

Re: Facebook testing notification to users about Apple privacy changes

#308
post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Similar theory behind those “do you like this app” prompts that come from the app itself. If you tap “yes” they’ll give you the prompt to rate on the AppStore. If you tap “no” they won’t. This can seriously inflate an app’s rating and help prevent low ratings. Nice, underhanded and effective dark pattern!

This is called review gating and isn't allowed: https://appradar.com/blog/ask-users-leave-review-in-app-stor...

Nike Run Club did this to me just last week. The no button leads to a feedback form, the yes button to the App Store.

Re: Facebook testing notification to users about Apple privacy changes

#309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone has options. I deleted FB years ago. No one actually needs FB.

I agree in principle, and so did I, but there's no denying that it puts a major crimp on your social life. It's wrong that people are forced to decide between accepting predatory terms or losing touch with friendly acquaintances. Also, if you own a small business, there's a real chance that you'd rely on Facebook for a significant portion of your business, because without a presence on their platforms you had may as…

> Also, if you own a small business

Unless it’s a one person business, have the office administrator do it. No need to bother with every detail.

Re: Facebook testing notification to users about Apple privacy changes

#310
post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Overall advertising budgets are not dominated by the effectiveness of advertising, but by adversarial spending by their competitors I would like to know how this conclusion was reached. By that logic, the advertising industry would not really need individual targeting at all

> By that logic, the advertising industry would not really need individual targeting at all You're right, they don't. But the point is not to argue that ad relevancy itself is bad. In a vacuum, improved ad relevancy is good! However, the improved relevancy of individually-targeted advertisements is not offset by the social detriment of user tracking. To use an example, on a Facebook group for gamers, it would be fine…

> However, the improved relevancy of individually-targeted advertisements is not offset by the social detriment of user tracking.

Spot on.

How good or relevant adverts doesn't matter if the way the information is collected is by unethical. If you went to a store and while you were shopping, an employee attached a tracking device to your car, it would clearly be a violation of your rights and you'd be rightly pissed. The equivalent of this happens all the time with software on your phone.

Yet here we have people defending Facebook and Google for trying to protect their spy-monopoly.

Post reply on HN