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

341–350 of 579 posts

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

#341

Post by Jenk »

duxup wrote: post #257
Jenk wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just fire up YT shorts. Nothing but content from TikTok.

I think I have seen that... I don't mind it in a way as I'd rather watch it on youtube than install the tiktok app. Granted I'm also not going out of my way to watch it so not a big win for YT.

Honestly it's a really poor experience compared to TikTok - ignoring the whole Chinese State controlled thing - the algorithm on YT just doesn't match TT's ability for content discovery.

I haven't installed the app either but on the odd occasion will doomscroll in a private browser session.

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

#342

Post by brimble »

thebean11 wrote: post #330
brimble wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sort of. Again, it's possible to personalize ads without tracking, unless tracking means "collecting literally any data, including order history for a logged-in user" or things like selecting ads based on geography for an address that you provided, not even GPS tracking or something like that.

It is entirely possible that the settings do totally different things, so the different language isn't some kind of trick. I think it's likely that picking either of those phrases and using it for both would result in the description of the respective settings being less accurate.

Swap the one that applies to applications to "disable personalized ads", rather than "disable tracking".

But it doesn't do that—does it? It disables (a certain kind of) tracking. The tracking may not even be used for ads. Apple has no way to guarantee that. You may still see personalized ads based on other data.

Make the Apple one "disable tracking" rather than "disable personalized ads". But the setting might not do that at all, while still disabling personalization. In fact, the ad personalization may not have been based on tracking in the first place, and even if it were, disabling personalization could very well leave the tracking in place.

The accusation was that Apple's describing the same thing two ways to give themselves an advantage, but I'd say the settings very likely do not do the same thing.

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

#343

Post by isodev »

hotpotamus wrote: post #154
isodev wrote: post #32

All Apple did was give users the choice. Users choosing to deny Facebook the permission to share their data? That's entirely on Facebook.

I see this in the thread but I have to say that I disagree a bit. I'm certainly glad Apple gave users a choice, but you have to consider "the tyranny of the default" which is a great phrase I think. Most people will simply use the default option, so Apple's choice of default says something.

There is no default, all users get a prompt if they want to allow Facebook to get their data or not.

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

#344

Post by [deleted] »

barsonme wrote: post #312
scarface74 wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So let’s say I’m in CA voting for my two Senators. How much does my vote actually count when 10 other states combined have the same population but 20 Senators? How much does my vote count even for representatives if I’m in a state that’s heavily gerrymandered?

The allocation of Senators isn’t supposed to be proportionate to state population by design . It’s a non-issue. Proportional representation occurs in the House.

[deleted]

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

#345

Post by bagacrap »

alanlammiman wrote: post #309

The problem isn't just Apple's action on IDFA. It's that Facebook seems to be so poorly managed on some fronts that its reactions, rather than mitigating problems, has caused further harm. For example - in a rushed effort to get their privacy issues in order, they are deactivating the live facebook integrations of customers based on cursory/mistaken/possibly machine-based readings of their privacy policies. They did…

"we don't want to track individuals" --- right, but each ad FB places has a lower conversion rate if they don't know as much about the user, so while your goal may not be tracking per se, tracking does get you the same sales in fewer placements, and Facebook can sell those saved placements to other buyers

the fact that they're cracking down on partner privacy in a hamfisted way surely doesn't help matters but I can't see how angry devs are driving the share price down

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

#346

Post by jboy55 »

dom96 wrote: post #290
alephnan wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems like post-hoc confirmation of "I knew it! I told you guys so!" like people who claim a catastrophic recession is around the corner, quarter after next. If you have some special insight that the wider market doesn't and hasn't price in, then the odds and prices are asymmetrically tipped in your favor. As an example, I spent $13,580 shorting Facebook on Wednesday, which I haven't sold but will probably later…

On a more general note, anyone know of any good guides/articles describing these sorts of bets? I often have a sense of where a stock price will go but have no idea how to take advantage.

Just note, the poster most probably did not actually 'short' facebook, the poster used options to do this. Its pretty simple for the buy case.

Options have a strike price and an expiration date. You buy a CALL option, with a strike price, that gives you an option to buy that stock for that price. Or you can buy a PUT option, that gives you the option to sell at that strike price.

Example using made up numbers. FB is $240. You look on the options tab and you can see various expiration dates. Lets pick 3 months out. You may see a Call option for a strike of $250 for $20. That means that you have until 3/4/2022 to exercise that option, if FB is trading for > $260, you will make a profit. ($240 + $20). If FB doesn't trade you make nothing.

Puts work similarly. The strike would just be $230. Note, you don't have to exercise, if next week FB goes to $300, your call's value will skyrocket to ~$60-70. You can sell the option any time, you don't have to wait.

You may have noticed the cost of the option is greater than the delta between the exercise price and the value of the share. In my example this is roughly due to the time between now and the exercise date. Over time, this shrinks, this is called beta-decay.

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

#347

Post by oramit »

ghaff wrote: post #227
throwhauser wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was with you up to here: > 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 Zuckerberg has been a surprisingly good steward of the one successful idea he came across, the social network graph. His acquisitions (Instagram, etc) worked very well to supplement the social network graph and keep it going longer…

Even in my older demographic (i.e. those of us who got in when you still needed edu addresses or shortly thereafter) which is supposedly more the core audience for Facebook this days, I don't see people "rage quitting." But I do see essentially everyone in my circles (including myself) having dialed down usage a lot .

Mid 30's here and I joined right after the .edu requirement was dropped. Everyone in my age group is on Facebook but they rarely post anymore because they are busy! They all have kids and jobs and house projects they are working on and the novelty of updating about everything has worn off so they post very infrequently. When Gen-Zers make jokes about Facebook being for old people, that's us!

The algorithmic feed can't handle the "lack" of new posts though so it keeps inserting lots of ads, videos, and whatever that I don't actually care about. I really like Facebook when it is about interacting with my friends but everything else is a distraction. The level of distraction in Facebook is just too high. It's okay if nothing is going on!

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

#348

Post by pseudalopex »

chillage wrote: post #306
AlexandrB wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this covers how it's supposed to work, but the reality is far messier and worse. In particular, the hypothetical cheese grater manufacturer would probably be have to pay Google to advertise on their own brand name adword so a generic competitor doesn't steal customers that already know about their great cheese graters. Oh, and about 90% of the people who see your cheese grater ads would be people who just bou…

You are right of course, it's not a perfect situation and, yes, many times may still not be able to get your cheese grater off the ground. My question remains though - if you are not allowed targeted advertising, what practical alternatives do you have to mass market your useful product? We are not looking at this from the point of view of your personal preference where you would rather the product was in a store alr…

> if you are not allowed targeted advertising, what practical alternatives do you have to mass market your useful product?

Contextual advertising.

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

#349

Post by wbsss4412 »

FactolSarin wrote: post #335
barsonme wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The allocation of Senators isn’t supposed to be proportionate to state population by design . It’s a non-issue. Proportional representation occurs in the House.

Just because it was done by design doesn't mean it's a non-issue. The Senate is an extremely undemocratic organization. The population discrepancy between States is much higher now than when the country was founded. Nor do the reasons the founders did it this way exist anymore.

People confuse the arguments made out of political expediency for political gospel.

Even though many points made about the constitution were rooted in political theory, and make good sense even today, that doesn’t change the fact that the people involved were politicians who were looking to make the best deal possible within the context of a rapidly failing state under the articles of confederation.

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

#350

Post by duxup »

Jenk wrote: post #341
duxup wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I have seen that... I don't mind it in a way as I'd rather watch it on youtube than install the tiktok app. Granted I'm also not going out of my way to watch it so not a big win for YT.

Honestly it's a really poor experience compared to TikTok - ignoring the whole Chinese State controlled thing - the algorithm on YT just doesn't match TT's ability for content discovery. I haven't installed the app either but on the odd occasion will doomscroll in a private browser session.

I think I have heard that.

I suspect youtube is trying to do both at the same time and... doesn't work.

But for me and a rando one off clip, I'd rather see it on youtube.

Post reply on HN