351–359 of 359 posts
Privacy blog post. vercel-insights.com, www.google.com, 'Sign up with Google', Join 132,793 people from companies like: Microsoft, Amazon, facebook, Google, Disney "There it is again. That funny feeling."
"...there's nothing wrong with a bit of data collection."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What an absolutely absurd generalization wrapped in aphorism. There is nothing in history that is absolutely repeated in all instances, nor is "history repeats itself" a valid argument that proves anything other than lazy thinking.
Come on man. This is not an abstract thought. You don't need to go far to see examples of this exact scenario. You can choose to ignore it. That's your prerogative. But what I'm saying is not a lazy generalization. It's backed by what happened and continues to happen in our current day and age. Almost no company starts as an evil entity. But they definitely end up there once they grow large enough.
That's exactly what it is. You're pretending you can predict the future with confidence about specific business decisions a company will make regarding its data and assets. You must be a billionaire with your ability to play the stock market by predicting the future.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’re right, it’s a bit more than the App Store. AFAIK it also includes ads in the News app and apps that load articles from the News app (e.g. Stocks app). Their fine print also mentions the TV app, but I haven’t seen ads there, so perhaps they’re referring to content suggestions. This seems to be confirmed further down the line in the fine print when it says: > We create segments to deliver personalized ads on the…
The ads on the TV app I think are 30s trailers when playing episodes or movies (only once per session as I’ve experienced) which can immediately be skipped like a recap. It’s the only ad on a streaming service that has never annoyed me (I also like the fact that it’s not targeted). Zero ads are better but their implementation on tv plus is the least irritating I’ve experienced.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Come on man. This is not an abstract thought. You don't need to go far to see examples of this exact scenario. You can choose to ignore it. That's your prerogative. But what I'm saying is not a lazy generalization. It's backed by what happened and continues to happen in our current day and age. Almost no company starts as an evil entity. But they definitely end up there once they grow large enough.
> This is not an abstract thought That's exactly what it is. You're pretending you can predict the future with confidence about specific business decisions a company will make regarding its data and assets. You must be a billionaire with your ability to play the stock market by predicting the future.
No, I can't predict the future. I can, however, look at our world and its incentives. Look at similar companies and how consistently they change.
Right now Apple is using privacy as a marketing strategy. One day that can change - in reality it will inevitably change, it's just a matter of time. Profits will forever be the one and only motive for a company to exist. Once privacy costs more than it brings in, it will be compromised.
It's not rocket science. It's basic logic.
Now let's assume your argument is true: we can't predict they will change. Why is that a reasonable thought? Have they never changed before? Is there anything that prevents them from changing?
Your argument falls flat: change is constant. Everything changes. Your argument is that "no, for this company, it won't happen". It makes no sense. Whether you believe in this company or not is irrelevant.
If instead of doing ad hominem attacks, you'd really consider how certain we can be of change, you might even change your mind.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand why people are so against Advertisers targetting people based on their data? what are people so afraid of? the way i see it, the worst case scenario is you get an Ad for something you might actually like...
Because it's none of their damn business! If you are cautious in public around strangers, and you better be, why would any sane person trust a company with their personal data?!? Your question is either super naive or you have a stake in facebook or apple.
the things I don't want getting into anyone's hands are things like: financial info, address, phone number, social security, my middle name, birthday, etc. none of those things are stuff I share with a social network.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Meanwhile, the only competitor(Google's Android) tracks everything you do everywhere. So Apple's privacy perspective is way better than Android's. Could it be better? Of course, and I'm fine with trying to pressure them to do more for protecting our privacy, but between the 2, it's not even close, Apple is WAY more private with your data than Google will ever be.
> Meanwhile, the only competitor(Google's Android) tracks everything you do everywhere. The difference is you can avoid the tracking easily. This is a direct result of prioritizing user control. You can install apps without telling anybody, you can get your GPS location without telling anybody, and so on. Apple, by denying user control, makes privacy worse for users who care, and it will only get worse as Apple ramps…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Meanwhile, the only competitor(Google's Android) tracks everything you do everywhere. The difference is you can avoid the tracking easily. This is a direct result of prioritizing user control. You can install apps without telling anybody, you can get your GPS location without telling anybody, and so on. Apple, by denying user control, makes privacy worse for users who care, and it will only get worse as Apple ramps…
That's funny! You can not opt-out of Google tracking, they just make it look like you can. There is a reason Google runs the Google Play Store, fonts.google.com, maps.google.com and gmail.com for instance. It's not because they are nice, it's because they make oodles more money hosting that stuff free and yanking data from you for their actual money making business.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.