8 ms·

If the software developer didn't get anything off you they wouldn't make the software available to you in the first place.

by bzb3 6y ago

ethanbond 6y ago
Fuck, I've been paying for Spotify as an act of charity?
- mynameisvlad 6y ago
  Spotify is actually using Facebook for login, though, so they don't necessarily use App Ads. The original commenter only said that it's the reason most (but not all) apps use the SDK.
  - ethanbond 6y ago
    Ah. I'm thankful for the opportunity, err... requirement to trade my privacy for others to have one fewer password to deal with. And of course for Facebook to have more personal data to munch on.
    - mynameisvlad 6y ago
      I'm not really sure what the problem is here. You are perfectly free to not use Spotify, or any other app that chooses to utilize Facebook login or other components of the Facebook SDK. Spotify made their choice to use the SDK for whatever gains they get out of it, and as a customer you can choose to not use their service or app if you disagree with that. There's even comments in this HN thread that point you on how to do it on Android if you're so inclined.
      - ethbro 6y ago
        As with all things Facebook, the truth is that they're opaque as mud about what they do with data. I'd give more credence to "the market is making an informed choice" hypothesis if consumers were, in fact, informed.
      - admax88q 6y ago
        This is really just a variant of the "and yet you participate in society, hmmm" argument. At some point users are allowed to complain about shady behaviour done by huge corporations with resources they use to try to thrust their way into everyones lives.
        edmundsauto 6y ago
        And at some point, companies are allowed to make their own decisions about how they want to instrument and monetize their products. This general complaint about not liking a component of someone else's software doesn't resonate with me at all. Not that you're wrong, but we just have different values. I sometimes will load a website that uses React when really it's just a static content site. It just gets tiring, and doesn't add to the conversation, when every discussion about an article that could be HTML devolves into that. I get that other people feel that way, and in many ways I share their values... But it becomes its own sideshow and hijacks the otherwise interesting conversations, without adding anything new.
        ta17711771 6y ago
        Does React report your personal data to Facebook?
        rendall 6y ago
        << I get that other people feel that way, and in many ways I share their values... But it becomes its own sideshow and hijacks the otherwise interesting conversations, without adding anything new. >> With sincere respect, I don't understand this argument, in general, whenever it comes up. Whenever I find a discussion unhelpful or tedious, I move on or mute it. Often, I've been in an interesting online discussion, and someone pipes up with the wish for everyone to stop talking about this topic because it's not interesting, when they have the tools available to not follow the discussion. Can you explain? Honest question.
        pferde 6y ago
        At the risk of getting downvotes for being snarky, it essentially boils down to the "Stop it, you're having fun wrong!" nerd stereotype.
      - fouc 6y ago
        There should be more visibility on where a user's data is going. User's should be informed, similar to malware sites, they should be informed "this website is sending your data to the following companies" etc.
      - danieldk 6y ago
        Spotify made their choice to use the SDK for whatever gains they get out of it, and as a customer you can choose to not use their service or app if you disagree with that. Wrong. At least for EU citizens. If Spotify are collecting data in this way (and not only using the SDK for Facebook Login), they are in violation of the GDPR. There must be clear unambiguous consent to collect the data in the form of an affirmative action of the user and it must be possible to use the app without giving consent, because the Facebook data collection is not essential for the app to operate. If they do share data with Facebook, Spotify should be scared, since they are definitely large enough to be on the radar of the EU or national bodies. Moreover, outside the EU it would be dumb for Spotify to say "just don't install the app if you don't agree". The 10 Euro per month that premium users pay is worth more than some Facebook tracking. (IANAL)
        WesolyKubeczek 6y ago
        > If Spotify are collecting data in this way (and not only using the SDK for Facebook Login), they are in violation of the GDPR. It's kinda worse. They "only" open the gate wide and any of your data they can see is there for Facebook to take. It can feast on any data it can grab with the same permissions the main app has. Like a fucking virus from MS-DOS times infecting binaries, but this time developers are doing it quite voluntarily.
  - Nextgrid 6y ago
    Facebook Login can be implemented with plain oAuth without sending any data to Facebook until the user actually uses the FB Login feature. Regardless of which SDK features they use the SDK calls out to Facebook with the device's fingerprint and a persistent UUID every time the app is launched or brought back into foreground.
    - mhensley 6y ago
      Would 100% suggest going the basic OAuth route with FB, and not relying on their SDKs whenever possible. Been bit by Friday-afternoon-PST deployments that wreak havoc until work starts Monday too many times :/
      - DagAgren 6y ago
        Did anyone make any replacement login-only libraries for Facebook?
        agustif 6y ago
        It's not exactly what you want, but just yesterday I made AccountsJS work with Facebook OAuth.[1] I was glad today when watching this newsline, to have avoided the facebook SDK. I think OAuth is usually better because every major provider has some version of it and so you basically can implement them all the same or at least in a really similar fashion. 1. http://www.accountsjs.com/ http://www.accountsjs.com/
freeone3000 6y ago
Maybe they could try the novel method of charging money instead of buying ads to get users to show ads to.
- pikma 6y ago
  Apps that are based on a subscription model also advertise for their apps, the two issues are orthogonal.
- myko 6y ago
  That makes sense if you're talking about ads in the app, but that wasn't the discussion. The discussion is about the marketing folks running ads on Facebook for the app and wanting to know how effective those ads were.
- bitcrazy 6y ago
  For the average user out there, the fact is, most people only care about privacy when there's a breach/outage/scandal of some kind. Otherwise, the average person is not going to have "zomg fb is spyware" on their mind. If apps start charging money, there would be a significant drop in the # of average user installs. Then the app would only make money off of privacy focused users, which is comparatively small.
  - Nicksil 6y ago
    >For the average user out there, the fact is, most people only care about privacy when there's a breach/outage/scandal of some kind. Otherwise, the average person is not going to have "zomg fb is spyware" on their mind. Because they don't know. Like every industry, there are practices involved to which the layman is oblivious. It is important to remind ourselves that the reason the majority of users aren't vocalizing their concerns with these unsavory practices isn't because they don't care but because they don't know.
    - bitcrazy 6y ago
      The 'not knowing' part happens when the outrage is then transferred to any app which does integrate the FB SDK (like zoom). We as developers have sortof taken for granted that the FB/Google/etc SDKs can do no evil. Maybe that attitude should change, because public opinion certainly has.
Nicksil 6y ago
>If the software developer didn't get anything off you they wouldn't make the software available to you in the first place. A lot of software these days don't offer a way for casual users (read: not enterprise/small business) to pay for it. It's "free" or nothing.
pdonis 6y ago
If the software developer would charge a reasonable price directly to the user, they wouldn't have to use intrusive and unreliable libraries like Facebook SDK.
- badwolf 6y ago
  So they can charge directly to the user. They're still going to advertise to acquire that user though.
  - pdonis 6y ago
    > They're still going to advertise to acquire that user though. There would be no reason to put advertising in the app the user has already paid for.
mrmonkeyman 6y ago
I'd rather pay for the app directly actually.
ric2b 6y ago
And yet FOSS exists. And paid software (such as Spotify) still does shady stuff like reporting to Facebook that I'm a user of their app and the schedule on which I use it.

If the software developer didn't get anything off you they wouldn't make the software available to you in the first place.

by bzb3 6y ago

If the software developer didn't get anything off you they wouldn't make the software available to you in the first place.

ethanbond 6y ago

Fuck, I've been paying for Spotify as an act of charity?

mynameisvlad 6y ago
Spotify is actually using Facebook for login, though, so they don't necessarily use App Ads. The original commenter only said that it's the reason most (but not all) apps use the SDK.
- ethanbond 6y ago
  Ah. I'm thankful for the opportunity, err... requirement to trade my privacy for others to have one fewer password to deal with. And of course for Facebook to have more personal data to munch on.
  - mynameisvlad 6y ago
    I'm not really sure what the problem is here. You are perfectly free to not use Spotify, or any other app that chooses to utilize Facebook login or other components of the Facebook SDK. Spotify made their choice to use the SDK for whatever gains they get out of it, and as a customer you can choose to not use their service or app if you disagree with that. There's even comments in this HN thread that point you on how to do it on Android if you're so inclined.
    - ethbro 6y ago
      As with all things Facebook, the truth is that they're opaque as mud about what they do with data. I'd give more credence to "the market is making an informed choice" hypothesis if consumers were, in fact, informed.
    - admax88q 6y ago
      This is really just a variant of the "and yet you participate in society, hmmm" argument. At some point users are allowed to complain about shady behaviour done by huge corporations with resources they use to try to thrust their way into everyones lives.
      - edmundsauto 6y ago
        And at some point, companies are allowed to make their own decisions about how they want to instrument and monetize their products. This general complaint about not liking a component of someone else's software doesn't resonate with me at all. Not that you're wrong, but we just have different values. I sometimes will load a website that uses React when really it's just a static content site. It just gets tiring, and doesn't add to the conversation, when every discussion about an article that could be HTML devolves into that. I get that other people feel that way, and in many ways I share their values... But it becomes its own sideshow and hijacks the otherwise interesting conversations, without adding anything new.
        ta17711771 6y ago
        Does React report your personal data to Facebook?
        rendall 6y ago
        << I get that other people feel that way, and in many ways I share their values... But it becomes its own sideshow and hijacks the otherwise interesting conversations, without adding anything new. >> With sincere respect, I don't understand this argument, in general, whenever it comes up. Whenever I find a discussion unhelpful or tedious, I move on or mute it. Often, I've been in an interesting online discussion, and someone pipes up with the wish for everyone to stop talking about this topic because it's not interesting, when they have the tools available to not follow the discussion. Can you explain? Honest question.
        pferde 6y ago
        At the risk of getting downvotes for being snarky, it essentially boils down to the "Stop it, you're having fun wrong!" nerd stereotype.
    - fouc 6y ago
      There should be more visibility on where a user's data is going. User's should be informed, similar to malware sites, they should be informed "this website is sending your data to the following companies" etc.
    - danieldk 6y ago
      Spotify made their choice to use the SDK for whatever gains they get out of it, and as a customer you can choose to not use their service or app if you disagree with that. Wrong. At least for EU citizens. If Spotify are collecting data in this way (and not only using the SDK for Facebook Login), they are in violation of the GDPR. There must be clear unambiguous consent to collect the data in the form of an affirmative action of the user and it must be possible to use the app without giving consent, because the Facebook data collection is not essential for the app to operate. If they do share data with Facebook, Spotify should be scared, since they are definitely large enough to be on the radar of the EU or national bodies. Moreover, outside the EU it would be dumb for Spotify to say "just don't install the app if you don't agree". The 10 Euro per month that premium users pay is worth more than some Facebook tracking. (IANAL)
      - WesolyKubeczek 6y ago
        > If Spotify are collecting data in this way (and not only using the SDK for Facebook Login), they are in violation of the GDPR. It's kinda worse. They "only" open the gate wide and any of your data they can see is there for Facebook to take. It can feast on any data it can grab with the same permissions the main app has. Like a fucking virus from MS-DOS times infecting binaries, but this time developers are doing it quite voluntarily.
- Nextgrid 6y ago
  Facebook Login can be implemented with plain oAuth without sending any data to Facebook until the user actually uses the FB Login feature. Regardless of which SDK features they use the SDK calls out to Facebook with the device's fingerprint and a persistent UUID every time the app is launched or brought back into foreground.
  - mhensley 6y ago
    Would 100% suggest going the basic OAuth route with FB, and not relying on their SDKs whenever possible. Been bit by Friday-afternoon-PST deployments that wreak havoc until work starts Monday too many times :/
    - DagAgren 6y ago
      Did anyone make any replacement login-only libraries for Facebook?
      - agustif 6y ago
        It's not exactly what you want, but just yesterday I made AccountsJS work with Facebook OAuth.[1] I was glad today when watching this newsline, to have avoided the facebook SDK. I think OAuth is usually better because every major provider has some version of it and so you basically can implement them all the same or at least in a really similar fashion. 1. http://www.accountsjs.com/ http://www.accountsjs.com/

freeone3000 6y ago

Maybe they could try the novel method of charging money instead of buying ads to get users to show ads to.

pikma 6y ago
Apps that are based on a subscription model also advertise for their apps, the two issues are orthogonal.
myko 6y ago
That makes sense if you're talking about ads in the app, but that wasn't the discussion. The discussion is about the marketing folks running ads on Facebook for the app and wanting to know how effective those ads were.
bitcrazy 6y ago
For the average user out there, the fact is, most people only care about privacy when there's a breach/outage/scandal of some kind. Otherwise, the average person is not going to have "zomg fb is spyware" on their mind. If apps start charging money, there would be a significant drop in the # of average user installs. Then the app would only make money off of privacy focused users, which is comparatively small.
- Nicksil 6y ago
  >For the average user out there, the fact is, most people only care about privacy when there's a breach/outage/scandal of some kind. Otherwise, the average person is not going to have "zomg fb is spyware" on their mind. Because they don't know. Like every industry, there are practices involved to which the layman is oblivious. It is important to remind ourselves that the reason the majority of users aren't vocalizing their concerns with these unsavory practices isn't because they don't care but because they don't know.
  - bitcrazy 6y ago
    The 'not knowing' part happens when the outrage is then transferred to any app which does integrate the FB SDK (like zoom). We as developers have sortof taken for granted that the FB/Google/etc SDKs can do no evil. Maybe that attitude should change, because public opinion certainly has.

Nicksil 6y ago

>If the software developer didn't get anything off you they wouldn't make the software available to you in the first place. A lot of software these days don't offer a way for casual users (read: not enterprise/small business) to pay for it. It's "free" or nothing.

pdonis 6y ago

If the software developer would charge a reasonable price directly to the user, they wouldn't have to use intrusive and unreliable libraries like Facebook SDK.

badwolf 6y ago
So they can charge directly to the user. They're still going to advertise to acquire that user though.
- pdonis 6y ago
  > They're still going to advertise to acquire that user though. There would be no reason to put advertising in the app the user has already paid for.

mrmonkeyman 6y ago

I'd rather pay for the app directly actually.

ric2b 6y ago

And yet FOSS exists. And paid software (such as Spotify) still does shady stuff like reporting to Facebook that I'm a user of their app and the schedule on which I use it.