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

Apple's privacy push cost Meta $10B

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 579 posts

Re: Apple's privacy push cost Meta $10B

#321

Post by cercatrova »

ericmay wrote: post #313
cercatrova wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean content as in what reddit or HN has, articles, posts, videos about a topic etc. Of course on Instagram people need to post stuff, photos and videos, but I don't think that when people say content they mean interpersonal photos and videos.

I see. I definitely think it is content (I wouldn’t draw a distinction between origin), but I can see how you have a different interpretation. When you use Instagram do you see ads or posts from people who aren’t your friends or family members? I’ve never used it so I’m not sure how the algorithms work. Personally if someone is my friend and has something worth sharing they’ll tell me about it directly or send me a p…

Ads yes, usually from random B2C companies, but I adblock so I don't see any. People who aren't your friends, no, you only see those who you follow.

I also get messages or pictures from people I'm friends with, but for people who are more acquaintances, I follow them on IG and see what they're doing, and if it's interesting I'll comment on the post or message them, and catch up with them that way.

It's also somewhat of a hassle to send messages and photos to people when you want to share it broadly, such as a trip you went on or something. People might also not necessarily want to see what you're sending all the time, so an IG post is an easy way for people to follow you and what you're up to.

You can almost think of it as RSS for your friends and family.

Re: Apple's privacy push cost Meta $10B

#322

Post by ineedasername »

scarface74 wrote: post #314
ineedasername wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe their desktop traffic wouldn't have tanked so much if they'd kept it a richer experience, and continue to enrich it. Instead they abandoned it completely once traffic patterns tipped towards mobile.

How many people really use desktops that much in 2021 for personal use? Facebook is already seen as being “for old people”.

78% of homes have a computer in them. [0] I don't know anyone who does not use a PC for personal use, and my non-work social circles are not at all techie dominated.

Also I'm not talking about 2021: I'm talking about years ago when Facebook moved away from prioritizing the PC platform. Maybe it wouldn't have mattered, I don't know, but when FB became a primary entry point to the internet for many people, and FB then mostly ignored desktop experience, it certainly accelerated any decline already in place. But had they enriched that experience, maybe there'd still be a much stronger following there.

[0]https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2021/computer...

Re: Apple's privacy push cost Meta $10B

#323

Post by brimble »

thebean11 wrote: post #274
brimble wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the issue the language? It's not clear from the language or the article that Apple's version disables any tracking at all. It seems like two different things.

How could you possibly server personalized ads without tracking?

Why would disabling personalized ads necessarily disable tracking? [EDIT] Consider: toggling the display of something does not necessarily change the underlying data, or data collection, behavior.

Why would all data used to personalize ads have to be tracking? It could also be things like purchase data from the very service that's advertising to you. Halting collection—not use for ad personalization, but collection—of that would go beyond what even I would consider tracking (and I think most of what goes on in the ad world today should simply be illegal). It would be possible to personalize ads only based on this kind of thing—in fact, that's what the article seems to imply is going on, at least in part.

So there are at least two ways that setting might mean something different from one that disables tracking.

Re: Apple's privacy push cost Meta $10B

#324

Post by vishnugupta »

intrasight wrote: post #138
samwillis wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree with you that Facebook (the app) is in decline and Facebook/Meta are rushing to diversify as the market changes, the premise of the article that Apples change has significantly effected Facebooks revenues is not a lie. Apples change has fundamentally damaged ad conversion attribution from the Facebook/Instagram apps on iOS, we have seen it it ourselves. It may be that the exact figure of $10B is inflate…

Please correct me if I'm wrong. This privacy change only affects apps on iOS? I only use the facebook.com website. Ad tracking in that context hasn't changed?

You can use Safari along with privacy relay enabled to minimize websites’ tracking.

Re: Apple's privacy push cost Meta $10B

#325

Post by btdmaster »

This "privacy push" is only a change with respect to IDFA -- something specifically built by Apple to compete with Google's advertising ID. Opting out system-wide was already possible, but unsurprisingly its existence is not something that's well-known since Apple has established themselves as Goddess of Privacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identifier_for_Advertisers.

To me, this is closer to "Apple spying technology becomes opt-in and no one uses it anymore".

Re: Apple's privacy push cost Meta $10B

#326

Post by paulcole »

FearlessNebula wrote: post #229
paulcole wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unpopular opinion on HN, but I’m 100% OK with being tracked because it means: 1. I get to use products and services I like without paying money from my wallet. I have plenty of data to share that’s effectively worthless to me. 2. I get exposed to new products and services (through ads) that I’d like to buy. I like buying things!

You want companies to use your personal information to manipulate you into buying products you don’t need?

Yes! I don't earn money to watch it sit in the bank. If there's something fun out there that I might like to buy, show it to me!

Re: Apple's privacy push cost Meta $10B

#327

Post by cercatrova »

potatolicious wrote: post #304
cercatrova wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. I feel the exact opposite. I don't really care about content anymore, it's really just mind numbing drudgery. There's a reason there's a meme about getting addicted to HN and doing "deep work" with "digital minimalism". In recent times I've cared more and more about what my friends and family are doing, because those are the people I'm connected with in actuality, in real life.

I agree with your position - but I don't think it necessarily means you disagree with the other post. I've completely stopped using FB because I want to connect with my friends and family. After using the product for many years I realized that idly surfing past pictures of children, weddings, BBQs, etc, that despite FB's loud insistence, that's not connection . Even commenting on friends' posts isn't... really connec…

That's true, I have group chats in in as well, but FB and IG serve somewhat of a different purpose for me. See my other comment:

>I also get messages or pictures from people I'm friends with, but for people who are more acquaintances, I follow them on IG and see what they're doing, and if it's interesting I'll comment on the post or message them, and catch up with them that way.

>It's also somewhat of a hassle to send messages and photos to people when you want to share it broadly, such as a trip you went on or something. People might also not necessarily want to see what you're sending all the time, so an IG post is an easy way for people to follow you and what you're up to.

>You can almost think of it as RSS for your friends and family.

Re: Apple's privacy push cost Meta $10B

#328

Post by sfe22 »

ebruchez wrote: post #281
sfe22 wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I looked up the Swiss system, and it certainly is not direct democracy.

> it certainly is not direct democracy You appear to make up your own extreme definition of what the words "direct democracy" should be and what they should mean. But it's not like that. There are ways words and condepts are commonly used. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy

Looks like I need a new word to describe a system where everyone rules, rather than certain people or organization, since both democracy and direct democracy are apparently taken to describe systems where all people don’t actually rule. Maybe “actual true direct pure democracy” should do.

Re: Apple's privacy push cost Meta $10B

#329

Post by maybelsyrup »

eric4smith wrote: post #91

Lies. Don’t you all see it? Facebook has been declining over the past year and this is a convenient way to blame someone - anyone. Let’s face it, what are your friends all using now? That’s right - video - YouTube and TikTok. Facebook had no answer for video and thus lost a lot of eyeballs. Instagram is a poor clone of TikTok and most people just repost their popular TikTok videos on Instagram reels anyway - hardly a…

> And Zuck is very smart. The moment I saw the rebrand to Meta I knew that he saw this day coming perhaps years ago. He knows the next frontier is the meta verse and so he’s trying to make Facebook be the epicenter of it.

Imagine believing this

Re: Apple's privacy push cost Meta $10B

#330

Post by thebean11 »

brimble wrote: post #323
thebean11 wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How could you possibly server personalized ads without tracking?

Why would disabling personalized ads necessarily disable tracking? [EDIT] Consider: toggling the display of something does not necessarily change the underlying data, or data collection, behavior. Why would all data used to personalize ads have to be tracking? It could also be things like purchase data from the very service that's advertising to you. Halting collection—not use for ad personalization, but collection—o…

I think we are coming at it from different directions. You need tracking for personalized ads, you don't need personalized ads for tracking.
Post reply on HN