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

Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy

growth.design

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 359 posts

Re: Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy

#301

Post by draugadrotten »

heavyset_go wrote: post #180
jonhohle wrote: post #36

I wonder what it will take for people to finally get fed up with creepy advertising companies. I received a letter from Target that by default they’ll sell my information to unaffiliated third parties and I have to call or write a letter to opt-out. I’m sure I agreed to that at some point (and anyone signing up for a loyalty program that doesn’t cost anything should realize that’s what they are agreeing to, even if t…

> None of this improves my life. Now you'll get some ads that recommender systems think they should show you, based on your shopping experience at CVS, that could be potentially embarrassing if you have anyone over, or have someone else using your devices. I was able to guess a family member's previously private medical condition based on the ads they got while I was at their place.

You know, I hate privacy-intrusive ads...but if a business would present me with an honest option to click on - "Show me your best guess what you think I want to buy!" - I would enjoy clicking on it. When I want. Because I do want to shop, and I do want to buy. I just hate being monitored in secret and nudged in secret to influence my behaviour against my own will. Let me shop - be transparent about your AI recommendations, and I might even buy the suggestion. Just stay away from the shady stuff.

Re: Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy

#302

Post by azinman2 »

dwaite wrote: post #300
azinman2 wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 geogr…

I’m not literally suggesting that as the solution, I’m being illustrative. It doesn’t have to be an impossible to solve problem as they’ve presented it to be.

Re: Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy

#303

Post by dwaite »

hospitalJail wrote: post #236
dwaite wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that untrue for nearly any computing platform?

I don't do any finance with Google or Microsoft, I def don't give any health info to Microsoft, I use degoogled browsers, so I don't think they are able to grab any URLs/searches(or if they do, its clear they arent current matching anything to my main account). Every company gets a little bit of information, where as, I'm suggesting that in this particular case, 1 company gets everything.

But in terms of using those platforms - you likely log into your bank via a chrome-based browser or Edge.

Even if not, you are still running a browser on their platform. Why not scrape financial information from another source such as disk storage or by monitoring network/crypto API?

If the platform vendor turns malicious, why presuppose they will only alter the behavior with respect to their own apps?

Re: Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy

#304

Post by godelski »

daft_pink wrote: post #13

I think it's unfair to compare Facebook actively screwing us to Apple not adopting your proposed metric on their product and passively allowing a very popular app in their app store. Not a huge fan of Apple, but they aren't Facebook.

> I think it's unfair to compare Facebook ... to Apple

They aren't?

They're saying Meta is screwing us and that Apple could do more to protect us. That they spend a lot of time and money talking the talk but they don't so much walk the walk. They sure do a bit, but they could do a lot more. Article definitely isn't saying Apple is as bad as Meta and Meta is 100% the "bad guy" in the story. It's just that our castle walls (Apple) are shiny but not strong. The Great Wall isn't so great if it isn't keeping the Mongolians out and you definitely shouldn't be advertising it as such when it doesn't.

Re: Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy

#305

Post by nicce »

hinkley wrote: post #215
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.

I picked up a copy of Popular Mechanics yesterday and it took me a solid 2 seconds on half a dozen pages to determine if it was an ad or an article. The styles have sort of blended together and I don't think that's an accident.

It is the same in some digital newspapers. It is also harder to block them as ads. So called ”sponsored” articles.

Re: Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy

#306

Post by rchaud »

isodev wrote: post #177
nicce wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple's ad business, however, is growing all the time. And in significant margins. https://www.wired.co.uk/article/apple-is-an-ad-company-now https://www.statista.com/statistics/1330127/apple-ad-revenue...

Apple shows ads for apps in the App Store sans behavioural targeting. If there is a kind of “ethical ads” that’s as close as it gets.

There are ads in the Apple News app that are the same kind of garbage you'd see on Google ads.

Re: Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy

#307

Post by godelski »

jonhohle wrote: post #36

I wonder what it will take for people to finally get fed up with creepy advertising companies. I received a letter from Target that by default they’ll sell my information to unaffiliated third parties and I have to call or write a letter to opt-out. I’m sure I agreed to that at some point (and anyone signing up for a loyalty program that doesn’t cost anything should realize that’s what they are agreeing to, even if t…

FYI, most loyalty programs you can sign up for without giving any information if you're willing to use a card. If you aren't, usually they accept invalid or random phone numbers.

Of course this isn't a solution and we should resolve the issue, but it is at least a partial stop gap.

Re: Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy

#308

Post by rchaud »

amelius wrote: post #166
hedora wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the top hit for IDFA (the wikipedia article): > Starting in iOS 14.5, iPadOS 14.5, and tvOS 14.5, users are prompted to decide whether to opt-in or out of IDFA sharing before apps can query it. This choice can be altered in Settings.[2][3] In May, 2021, Verizon-owned advertisement analytics company Flurry Analytics reported that 96% of US users opted out of IDFA sharing.[4]

> 96% of US users opted out of IDFA sharing If it's so clear that users don't want to be tracked online, why don't we just ban it altogether? It would solve a lot of problems.

Who has a better chance of getting a meeting with your political representatives to discuss this? You, or Google/Facebook?

Re: Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy

#309

Post by spandrew »

endisneigh wrote: post #39
jonhohle wrote: post #36

I wonder what it will take for people to finally get fed up with creepy advertising companies. I received a letter from Target that by default they’ll sell my information to unaffiliated third parties and I have to call or write a letter to opt-out. I’m sure I agreed to that at some point (and anyone signing up for a loyalty program that doesn’t cost anything should realize that’s what they are agreeing to, even if t…

> I wonder what it will take for people to finally get fed up with creepy advertising companies. As long as people get "free stuff" people won't get fed up.

It doesn't matter whether it's free or you're paying either — your consumer data from the grocery store and other retail purchasers is already tied to the ad grid too. If you buy a can of cat food you'll get cat toy ads on Instagram.

The harsh reality, despite what privacy pundits might say, is that people... just don't really care. And that's fine? It's great Apple lets me tell an app not to track me. But if they didn't? It doesn't make material difference to me. Okay I bought cat food and now I see cat toys Instagram ads that I may or may not buy... okay?

It's not like insurance companies are able to use the data to deny you health coverage or something (yet, anyway). It's just used to support more consumerism atm. When that bridge is crossed then people might care, until then ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Re: Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy

#310

Post by musictubes »

Draiken wrote: post #269
vore wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple has a pretty good revenue stream already without using telemetry for advertising, which is why they've been able to position themselves as so privacy focused. Maybe that might change in the future, but like it or not, the Apple ecosystem is lucrative enough already that it seems pretty unlikely they would be nefarious about it anytime soon.

I agree with you. But my point is that how it looks now is irrelevant. The world changes. CEOs change. Incentives change. What won't change is the ultimate goal of any company: profit above all else.

How it looks now is not irrelevant. It is how I decide what to use. If things change in the future I will react to it then.
Post reply on HN