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

Facebook testing notification to users about Apple privacy changes

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 339 posts

Re: Facebook testing notification to users about Apple privacy changes

#311

Post by ogre_codes »

meekrohprocess wrote: post #49
randmeerkat wrote: post #34

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…

> It's wrong that people are forced to decide between accepting predatory terms or losing touch with friendly acquaintances.

Yes and no.

While I've lost touch with a few older friends I don't do anything with, I've learned that reaching out by iMessage and SMS is welcomed by a lot of people. Instead of talking to people the lazy way and posting on Facebook, I text them individually or in small groups and the response tends to be much warmer and ignored less often.

I've always thought I was bugging people, but I've found that many friends appreciate the more personal approach.

Re: Facebook testing notification to users about Apple privacy changes

#312

Post by doctor_eval »

squeezingswirls wrote: post #303
fingerlocks wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Isn't part of the problem that Facebook limits the reach of accounts once they get to a certain size? My understanding is that they basically block you from broadcasting to your friends. The ROI of a small business is then limited because after a point you have to effectively pay for digital ads anyway.

Matthew Inman posted about this https://twitter.com/Oatmeal/status/923250055540219904

As an aside, this also reflects on the honesty of their ad campaign about supporting small business. If they really cared about small business they wouldn't make them pay to reach the audience they created on their platform.

Re: Facebook testing notification to users about Apple privacy changes

#313

Post by judge2020 »

ogre_codes wrote: post #291
kortilla wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This model is based on the assumption that ads are for things the consumers already know about. This is not correct. Example: I type “housing insurance” into Google and the “organic” results are dominated by the mega insurance companies. Without targeted advertising, the ads are also dominated by mega insurance companies because they have the biggest advertising budgets. With targeted advertising, I can see an ad fro…

> Similarly, the ads for someone interested in DIY vs someone who is happy to pay for skilled labor are drastically different when you search “drywall repair”. Google doesn't need to "Track and target" me personally to know that a web request I make comes from a specific location. Knowing I bought cycling shorts last week isn't going to increase the relevance of that search. Likewise, the reverse is true. FWIW, have…

> you just have to scroll past a page of Google garbage first.

'Google garbage', aka Google Maps listings (which DDG also has above their search results, although it uses Apple Maps).

Re: Facebook testing notification to users about Apple privacy changes

#314

Post by tgsovlerkhgsel »

smhg wrote: post #189
idreyn wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a simple man -- if I see a button with a primary intent color standing between me and my content I've been conditioned to press it, often before I realize what I'm doing or reading the accompanying text. Probably tens of millions of people will do the same here.

> if I see a button with a primary intent color standing between me and my content I've been conditioned to press it While cookie-laws have good intentions, this side effect should have been properly researched first. An internet full of shady and useless pop-ups which drive this behavior makes me sad. I'm still hoping they will someday disappear.

The intent has been that there would be two equally available buttons.

Regulators just hadn't understood yet that you have to make that explicit, then hire some people to find the loopholes and make it more explicit. Down to prescribing font sizes and colors, or even a standardized dialog.

Of course, mandating compliance with DNT (or a new header) would be better.

And then you need actual enforcement, because when the compliant players see themselves get screwed out of ad revenue by everyone else ignoring the law and nothing happening to them... they can't stay compliant, and they won't.

Re: Facebook testing notification to users about Apple privacy changes

#315

Post by tgsovlerkhgsel »

rickdeveloper wrote: post #169
idreyn wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a simple man -- if I see a button with a primary intent color standing between me and my content I've been conditioned to press it, often before I realize what I'm doing or reading the accompanying text. Probably tens of millions of people will do the same here.

What do you think about a 10s delay (or whatever an appropriate reading time is) before the buttons become active?

You want to make the web even worse?

Instead, mandate a standardized header to communicate the intent, as most users have the same intent on all sites.

Show a cookie popup to a user who already said no via the header? That's a fine. Do it again? There goes 2% of your annual revenue.

Re: Facebook testing notification to users about Apple privacy changes

#316

Post by kortilla »

somedude895 wrote: post #235
kortilla wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This model is based on the assumption that ads are for things the consumers already know about. This is not correct. Example: I type “housing insurance” into Google and the “organic” results are dominated by the mega insurance companies. Without targeted advertising, the ads are also dominated by mega insurance companies because they have the biggest advertising budgets. With targeted advertising, I can see an ad fro…

> Without targeted advertising, the ads are also dominated by mega insurance companies because they have the biggest advertising budgets. > With targeted advertising, I can see an ad from a provider specific to my location that I didn’t know existed who offers way better rates because of the different risk pool. The same applies for thousands of other products/services that are localized. You're talking about geo tar…

Fair enough, it’s not clear what level of profiling we’re eliminating. That’s why I also gave the example of a DIY profiled customer vs a “pays for handymen” profiled customer.

Re: Facebook testing notification to users about Apple privacy changes

#317

Post by kortilla »

ogre_codes wrote: post #291
kortilla wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This model is based on the assumption that ads are for things the consumers already know about. This is not correct. Example: I type “housing insurance” into Google and the “organic” results are dominated by the mega insurance companies. Without targeted advertising, the ads are also dominated by mega insurance companies because they have the biggest advertising budgets. With targeted advertising, I can see an ad fro…

> Similarly, the ads for someone interested in DIY vs someone who is happy to pay for skilled labor are drastically different when you search “drywall repair”. Google doesn't need to "Track and target" me personally to know that a web request I make comes from a specific location. Knowing I bought cycling shorts last week isn't going to increase the relevance of that search. Likewise, the reverse is true. FWIW, have…

You didn’t read my drywall example close enough. It’s not location specific, it’s specific to the type of customer. Should we be advertising a hardware store or should we be advertising “Teds drywall repair service”?

As Ted, I don’t want my ads wasted on people that want to repair things themselves. As a customer who doesn’t care how it gets fixed, I don’t want an ad for Home Depot.

Re: Facebook testing notification to users about Apple privacy changes

#318

Post by kortilla »

mrcartmenez wrote: post #289
kortilla wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This model is based on the assumption that ads are for things the consumers already know about. This is not correct. Example: I type “housing insurance” into Google and the “organic” results are dominated by the mega insurance companies. Without targeted advertising, the ads are also dominated by mega insurance companies because they have the biggest advertising budgets. With targeted advertising, I can see an ad fro…

There’s a big difference between localisation of ads (which the industry has always achieved) and targeted ads that know you are interested in DIY vs hiring a contractor. Saving that DIY enthusiast a single modification of their google search is not worth narrowing their entire experience of the web for, or worth giving up their privacy for. And to OP’s original point. If your business relies on invading the privacy…

> Saving that DIY enthusiast a single modification of their google search is not worth narrowing their entire experience of the web for, or worth giving up their privacy for.

Sure, but let’s be clear that it is a trade off. If you’ve ever seen non-techies Google things, they don’t provide the contextual clues that we instinctively know to include. The majority of the population just types in “drywall repair” and expects the computer to know what they “obviously mean”.

Re: Facebook testing notification to users about Apple privacy changes

#319

Post by kortilla »

olex wrote: post #237
kortilla wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This model is based on the assumption that ads are for things the consumers already know about. This is not correct. Example: I type “housing insurance” into Google and the “organic” results are dominated by the mega insurance companies. Without targeted advertising, the ads are also dominated by mega insurance companies because they have the biggest advertising budgets. With targeted advertising, I can see an ad fro…

On both examples, the user can trivially reach the desired search outcome by manually adding their location or "diy"/"for hire" to the search query, without the search engine needing to know a single thing about them.

Agree, but the users don’t know to include that. And Google became dominant because they learned how to attach that context automatically.

Re: Facebook testing notification to users about Apple privacy changes

#320

Post by ogre_codes »

kortilla wrote: post #317
ogre_codes wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Similarly, the ads for someone interested in DIY vs someone who is happy to pay for skilled labor are drastically different when you search “drywall repair”. Google doesn't need to "Track and target" me personally to know that a web request I make comes from a specific location. Knowing I bought cycling shorts last week isn't going to increase the relevance of that search. Likewise, the reverse is true. FWIW, have…

You didn’t read my drywall example close enough. It’s not location specific, it’s specific to the type of customer. Should we be advertising a hardware store or should we be advertising “Teds drywall repair service”? As Ted, I don’t want my ads wasted on people that want to repair things themselves. As a customer who doesn’t care how it gets fixed, I don’t want an ad for Home Depot.

I find it unlikely Google presents drastically different results (or adverts) for someone who is interested in DIY versus someone who might be looking for a contractor. Mostly because it's a terrible thing for Google to try and guess.

While Ted might find it convenient to target people based on whether they are wealthy homeowners who hire contractors or DIY guys, I have no interest in sharing that information with Google (or Facebook). It's neat for Ted, not so neat for me.

Other things which might result in "better" advertising which I don't like:

  - Companies scanning my license plate while I'm at Home Depot.
  - Someone camping the county building permits office with a video camera and facial recognition software.
  - The phone company forwarding my phone records to advertisers.
All of these are similarly invasive to Google & Facebook's tracking and equally disgusting.

This is all particularly true since just buying the Adword for "Drywall Repair" in my area, would likely yield the exact same results without tracking.

Post reply on HN