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

331–340 of 359 posts

Re: Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy

#331

Post by Guvante »

lost_tourist wrote: post #249
Guvante wrote: post #42

I don't know why everyone points to taking pictures and audio as scary on social media apps. The ability to record and post a video is effectively baseline functionality and requires those permissions. Certainly Meta is doing shady things here but not all of the permissions are necessarily sketchy. (I would agree that much like position data more specificity would be good for permissions)

Not for us passive social media users. I just flip through friends stuff or news /blogs that I follow, no need for pictures/audio from me. Definitely something to be opted into manually.

Both Android and iOS opt in manually to those things.

They also list them on the app store to avoid being surprised that the flashlight app records audio.

Re: Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy

#332

Post by smoldesu »

musictubes wrote: post #314
smoldesu wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their "ecosystem" model is why we need crowbar legislation like Europe's DMA to force interoperability. Make no mistake, Apple is playing for keeps just as hard as Google is: https://httptoolkit.com/blog/apple-private-access-tokens-att... All of these companies deserve their due scrutiny. Specifically around the illusion of privacy though, nobody has further to fall than Apple.

Right, Apple has the most to lose if they resort to the business model of Facebook so they have an incentive to stick to what they are doing.

Their userbase is more-or-less captive either way. All of FAANG is boiling the frog, just at different speeds.

Re: Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy

#333

Post by throwaway0223 »

lancesells wrote: post #291
LexGray wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Honest question: what kind of "blogs" and "social" would survive without advertising? What kind of content creator can produce quality content in the long run, for free?

The Verge? Nops. Techcrunch? Also not. AnandTech or Business Insider? No and no. Hackaday? Dead. NYT and Bloomberg? Maybe, and likely not. And what about your top 20 favorite YouTube creators? The majority would be gone.

Sure, the long tail of quirky small bloggers would be unaffected -- they don't really make any money today from advertising. But a lot of them are bottom-feeders; they consume content produced by others, and re-hash to add their own takes.

And we're not even talking about the second order effect -- all the ecommerce companies that would be wiped out without qualified leads and traffic. Go to any site - The Verge, Hackaday, Daring Fireball - and see the ads. Most of those companies would disappear.

Is this really the web you want to live in? A web with only a handful of publications with large followings who can command premium subscription (read: The Information, NYT, Stratechery, etc), and the top x% of privileged wealthy folks who can afford paying for a bunch of subscriptions?

Yes, I would call advertising a social necessity. It's like a multi-dimension version of prisoner's dilemma - it may not feel you're winning, but the alternative option is much worse.

Re: Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy

#334

Post by nativeit »

throwaway0223 wrote: post #333
lancesells wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Honest question: what kind of " blogs " and " social " would survive without advertising? What kind of content creator can produce quality content in the long run, for free? The Verge? Nops. Techcrunch? Also not. AnandTech or Business Insider? No and no. Hackaday? Dead. NYT and Bloomberg? Maybe, and likely not. And what about your top 20 favorite YouTube creators? The majority would be gone. Sure, the long tail of qu…

Out of curiosity, in these flights of fantastical hypotheticals where “advertising” doesn’t exist, or at least the advertising industry, why are we assuming the other features of capitalism would remain?

Re: Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy

#335

Post by toastal »

JohnFen wrote: post #220
soperj wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'm not even willing to do that. I physically go to a bank branch to interact with my bank.

Largely this isn’t possible for e-commerce. Some might say it’s just convenience, bun there are a lot of goods only reasonably available online.

Re: Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy

#336

Post by wkat4242 »

throwaway0223 wrote: post #333
lancesells wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Honest question: what kind of " blogs " and " social " would survive without advertising? What kind of content creator can produce quality content in the long run, for free? The Verge? Nops. Techcrunch? Also not. AnandTech or Business Insider? No and no. Hackaday? Dead. NYT and Bloomberg? Maybe, and likely not. And what about your top 20 favorite YouTube creators? The majority would be gone. Sure, the long tail of qu…

I already don't see ads on any of the sites you mentioned and I haven't for a decade thanks to Raymond Hill. Clearly they're able to survive with a significant percentage of users saying nope.

Re: Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy

#337

Post by wkat4242 »

kaba0 wrote: post #250
MikusR wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even settings app on iphones has adds.

This is the bullshit I'm talking about in another thread. No it doesn't. Telling you about icloud which is like an inherent feature and partially the reason some people buy their phones is absolutely in no way comparable to actual ads. Do you know what has ads in settings? Xiaomi. A relative bought one and I helped him set it up, and you literally had to see an ad to listen to your ringtone!!!

If people bought their phone because of iCloud there's no need to advertise it to them.

What's really annoying on iOS is that persistent notification badge to "finish setting up your account" even when I choose not to use some apple services.

Re: Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy

#338

Post by Matumio »

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.

I went to a routine check-up at the ophthalmologist. Later I got an email with the PDF bill. Except the PDF wasn't in the email.

I had to visit the site of whatever service provider they use. I had to login with 2FA and accept their terms. The terms allow third parties to send me targeted advertisement based on my medical history. (They are very explicit about that. I guess that's progress... This is in Europe.)

So the stuff I get "for free" when I sell my medical history is the right to view my own medical bills. If I don't agree, I just get charged some random amount via my health insurance. I could bother them to share their copy, but by default they don't.

Re: Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy

#339

Post by tgma »

2Gkashmiri wrote: post #161
kaba0 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, not all ads are the same from an ethical standpoint. Displaying an app ad in the appstore upon searching for a similar term is very different than displaying ads based on your whole life, collected in malicious ways.

I don't own an apple device now but why does app store have ads ? After paying upwards of $1000+ on a iPhone, why can't you expect an ad free experience on a first party app store?

That's kind of arbitrary though. Why if they wanted to price it at $2k if it were to be ad free? Would the consumer then prefer ads if offered with such choice?

They are taking the risk of repelling their customer who paid $1k+ and still sees ads and they are entitled to the courage of their conviction to take that risk.

Re: Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy

#340

Post by heavyset_go »

ianlevesque wrote: post #259
heavyset_go wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

And you validated this with them? Deity help whoever tries to diagnose me based on my ads.

Yes, we're on good terms, know each others' medical history and it was recognized that there was no malice in asking "is there a reason I keep seeing ads for X?" where X is a medication for some condition that's more innocuous than asthma.
Post reply on HN