Apple's privacy push cost Meta $10B • Hacker News Board

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

#381

Post by jbay808 » Fri, Feb 04, 2022, 5:42 PM UTC

samwillis wrote: post #9

As a rough datapoint, I run a consumer targeted e-commerce site. We ran a campaign before Christmas were we were selling a new product that was only marketed on Facebook, we are certain that (almost) all customers found it though that Facebook campaign. Facebook was only able to attribute about 50% of the sales to the ads, it should have been close to 100%. This then meant that Facebooks estimated CPA was effectively…

Is it possible that some fans spread the word organically after they initially found your product through FB?

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

#382

Post by FearlessNebula » Fri, Feb 04, 2022, 5:51 PM UTC

paulcole wrote: post #326

FearlessNebula wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

I guess im talking about something else. You’re talking about being shown ads that are related to your interests which is fine with me.

I’m talking about Facebook radicalizing people and manipulating their viewpoints and selling them on things they otherwise would have never wanted in a million years if they hadn’t used Facebook.

I’m not talking “Facebook showed me a cool pen and I like to collect fountain pens so I bought it”, no issues there. I’m talking “Facebook radicalized and manipulated me and now I am buying extremist books and courses that I otherwise never would have”.

The latter is why I disable targeted ads. Because it just an order of magnitude beyond “showing me relevant products”

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

#383

Post by FearlessNebula » Fri, Feb 04, 2022, 5:55 PM UTC

ineedasername wrote: post #315

FearlessNebula wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Everything but food, clothing, and a place to live are things we don't need. There are countless additional luxuries that make life more convenient or enjoyable. I found out about Instant Pots from ads, and when I finally decided to check it out and found it interesting I bought one. It has significantly improved my after-work quality of life multiple times a month with large reductions in food prep time. I found out…

I totally agree. But I don’t think Facebook (or anyone else to my knowledge) gives the user proper control over their data. My fear is that by feeding them this information, they’ll be able to gradually manipulate me in ways I otherwise never would have been interested in. For example I noticed that YouTube gradually started pushing me conservative leaning self improvement videos a la Jordan Peterson and co. I have never knowingly watched that type of video, and now I’m getting “alpha male” ads for supplements and courses.

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

#384

Post by FearlessNebula » Fri, Feb 04, 2022, 5:55 PM UTC

ajayyy wrote: post #285

FearlessNebula wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does Facebook even need the IDFA? Isn’t your Facebook account UUID also a unique ID that only you have? It’s not like people are browsing Facebook without logging in.

to link between the facebook app and other apps with the facebook ads sdk

They can’t use your Facebook account or something else for that? I’m pretty ignorant about ad tech, it’s something I’d like to learn more about.

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

#385

Post by llbeansandrice » Fri, Feb 04, 2022, 5:56 PM UTC

ksec wrote: post #256

travisporter wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well no one's arguing that targeted ads are not effective. This is just an example of how well it works, so upvoting it may not be the best way to bolster your side of the fight.

>Well no one's arguing that targeted ads are not effective. Oh they sure were. All ads are useless. Targeted ads are evil. And Ads should not be targeted were the HN's view, which later became there shouldn't even be any ads, it should all be subscription. That is 2018/19. By 20/21 HN were even targeting those who were working inside the online Ad industry. And this is seen across the tens of thousands of comments. (…

> All ads are useless

I don't think I've ever seen someone say this. People hate that they make the internet impossible to use. I have a family friend that runs a small business and all of the revenue comes from ads on the websites they run. I hate using their website because of the ads.

Pop-up that takes up the whole screen asking to subscribe, auto-play video ad, content moving as ads get loaded slowly. It's all just awful to use. The ads are absolutely effective though.

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

#386

Post by tiborsaas » Fri, Feb 04, 2022, 5:56 PM UTC

tetraca wrote: post #379

paulcole wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

This mindset is so weird to me. I can't imagine just wanting to buy things for the sake of buying things. I generally only buy things because I have problems I recognize and want to solve. And the more heavily advertised a solution to one of my problems is, the more I inherently distrust it to actually be a quality lasting product/service instead of something that's just desperately trying to program me that it's act…

I'm doing the same as paulcole. If I already want to buy things, like a new table for my living room or new tiles for my bathroom, then I do want to see what's on the market beyond my bubble. That's not because I'm manipulated into buying them[1]. If I see a new ad and I like it, I do check if I can get same product for a cheaper price from a company who's ad budget is not baked into the price.

Basically I can use targeted ads as a free product discovery engine. Seeing an ad doesn't mean I'm going to mindlessly buy it. I know some people do that, but there's a way to make use of the situation.

[1] there might be an evil conspiracy among kitchen table manufacturing companies who teamed up with Hollywood producers to sell me the idea that I want a loft style new kitchen table :)

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

#387

Post by scarface74 » Fri, Feb 04, 2022, 5:58 PM UTC

wbsss4412 wrote: post #349

FactolSarin wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

See also - slaves being counted as 3/5ths of a person…

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

#388

Post by tiborsaas » Fri, Feb 04, 2022, 5:59 PM UTC

FearlessNebula wrote: post #382

paulcole wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

I guess im talking about something else. You’re talking about being shown ads that are related to your interests which is fine with me. I’m talking about Facebook radicalizing people and manipulating their viewpoints and selling them on things they otherwise would have never wanted in a million years if they hadn’t used Facebook. I’m not talking “Facebook showed me a cool pen and I like to collect fountain pens so I…

If you can be manipulated by ads to be a terrorist I guess you have greater problems than tracking. In this case I'd say it's better for the public if these people are keep getting tracked.

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

#389

Post by ksec » Fri, Feb 04, 2022, 6:00 PM UTC

user_7832 wrote: post #238

ksec wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I cant upvote you enough. This single comment contains many of the contrarian view against HN. It is nice we have these real world stories on HN to balance the ideological fight against ads, where All Ads are evil.

I disagree. The problem was never about the ads. It was about the fact that ads were forced, privacy-invasive (due to customization) and generally were terrible overall (think malware/crypto mining risks, terrible UX - think annoyingly flashy gifs, or those gigantic banners in the middle of a scenic drive), not to mention poorly regulated, leading to lots of "double your money/phallus in 3 days!" type of scams. There…

>I disagree.

I dont think we disagree.

Like I wrote in another post, most on HN couldn't understand the difference between placement ad on Google Search Engine and Google Ads Network. And suggested we should ban all "tracking ads". And later all ads. I explicitly ask them and suggest what you just wrote. That there could be good ads, and they, by majority disagree. This isn't just on HN, it is pretty much across the whole tech industry. Benedict Evans wrote a lot about this [1] and on Twitter. We even went to ask people offline to make sure we are not in an online bubble. But so far the results suggest otherwise. Especially with Tracking [2].

[1] https://www.ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2021/5/13/apples-ads...

[2] https://twitter.com/benedictevans/status/1387414650443141120...

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

#390

Post by sfink » Fri, Feb 04, 2022, 6:01 PM UTC

52-6F-62 wrote: post #249

zahma wrote: post #65

Apple knows where the future of technology is going, and Meta is getting in the way. Meta, appropriately renamed to reflect the trend toward augmented and virtual reality, would eventually become a threat to Apple’s walled garden business model. Apple gives lip service to privacy so long as it attracts users to their platform. However the moment we’re in is when the their invasion of privacy is meant to benefit their…

Do you think the past 2 years of digital-only communications has really enticed kids into the arms of Facebook/the like and their live-your-life-in-a-headset plan? I get a sense of the opposite. Bloody cassette tapes and boomboxes are back in style. It's not just a gimmick. Kids are nostalgic for a past they didn't even know—one without such intense and obligatory interconnection—one where they can run around and get…

Ironically, I think they're looking for (and finding) a life with more interconnection by rejecting one with "such intense and obligatory interconnection" as you put it well.

I guess it's the natural evolution of things:

1. we seek connectedness. 2. we invent a set of reductionist mechanisms for achieving connectedness 3. we discover that the reductionist aspect really matters and the connectedness we've achieved is hollow and fake 4. we (or rather our heirs since we're too stubborn to change) adapt to the new reality and build some degree of real connectedness on top of the old and a warped version of the new.

"warped" meaning either "adapted to actual needs" or "perverted to serve unintended purposes" depending on whether your interests are being served or not.