5 ms·

I feel like I'm in the minority here -- but I don't understand the problem. Software developers want to know whether their existing marketing methods are effec

I feel like I'm in the minority here -- but I don't understand the problem. Software developers want to know whether their existing marketing methods are effective. The FB SDK helps with this. You always have the choice to not install the app (if you don't want to). This also helps developers make sure their marketing is effective and reaching the right people, which seems like a win-win to me.

saagarjha 6y ago
It is not clear to users which apps use the Facebook SDK, so they can’t avoid them even if they wanted to. And so many do include it that it’s hard to find alternative apps…
smacktoward 6y ago
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” - Upton Sinclair (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upton_Sinclair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upton_Sinclair)
- dang 6y ago
  It's probably time to retire Upton to the Internet Hall of Fame next to Betteridge.
Barrin92 6y ago
>The FB SDK helps with this. You always have the choice to not install the app (if you don't want to). up until now I wasn't even aware of the facebook sdk or that say, spotify is sharing my data with facebook even if I don't use their login option so it's pretty hard to make a informed decision. Is this even legal under GDPR?
- petre 6y ago
  > Is this even legal under GDPR? I guess you could always complain about it to your country's data protection watchdog and then we'll all find out?
- Nextgrid 6y ago
  To the best of my knowledge, no. Even if we assume advertising attribution falls under legitimate interest (which isn’t certain), it would still only allow them to call out to Facebook once after install to report whether the app was installed from an ad. As of right now the Facebook SDK calls out every single time the app is opened or brought back in foreground.
ballenf 6y ago
Usually when you say “win-win”, one of the wins is for each side.
Nicksil 6y ago
>Software developers want to know whether their existing marketing methods are effective. The FB SDK helps with this. As you mention, this is something the software developer want, not necessarily the user. >You always have the choice to not install the app (if you don't want to). This argument may have some teeth if directed toward a user in our industry. Depending on the scope of the particular software in question, the majority of users is likely to be those outside the software industry; the layman. The argument falls flat when the other person doesn't have the necessary understanding to be able to perform thoughtful analysis. >This also helps developers make sure their marketing is effective and reaching the right people, which seems like a win-win to me. That may be one reason this practice is in-use. I don't see how it makes the difference: the software developer continues these practices with no consideration of their user, much less the user's consent or indication anything is going on at all. It's all about what the software developer wants, not the user and that's not OK.
- mewpmewp2 6y ago
  User benefits from effective marketing. If software dev knows who their audience is better it means product will reach the correct customers more efficiently. It is win for everybody.
  - josefx 6y ago
    It has to say something about the effectiveness of your marketing if the only way you even observe it having an effect is by installing spyware on every users system.
    - manigandham 6y ago
      Nobody said it was the only way, but better measurement means optimizing ad spend to better target users and lower prices.
  - oarsinsync 6y ago
    Marketing platform and the product being marketed benefit from effective marketing. That the user was “sold” to is not inherently positive. Not all products are good. Not all users can afford products they’re buying. Not all users necessarily understand they’re paying in ways they’re unaware of. Straying away from social media in this example, cigarettes and alcohol feel like good candidates here.
yumraj 6y ago
> You always have the choice to not install the app (if you don't want to). Before this article came out was this information available to the users to help them in making this decision. No, it was not! Hence the problem.
- marcus_holmes 6y ago
  I think it's pretty clear that if you're not paying for the application, then you're the product not the customer. Even the most ignorant users have probably got that message by now. If the app is paid-for, it's less forgivable to be using this kind of spyware.
  - ric2b 6y ago
    Your flawed logic applies whether it's paid or not: just don't install it. Apparently you don't think actually knowing if the app includes the SDK is relevant, this is victim blaming of the highest tier.
  - Nextgrid 6y ago
    Spotify is a paid app that includes it.
nikofeyn 6y ago
> Software developers want to know whether their existing marketing methods are effective. so what?
omk 6y ago
The user has not explicitly allowed this information to be collected, yet the software developer wants to. That I think is the definition of spyware. If I were to project this pattern 10 steps further, a software developer may want to know the gender and emotional state of the user installing their software using the front camera. That would also be a spyware, but it's on the higher end of the spyware spectrum.
Joeri 6y ago
What’s wrong are two things: lack of transparency and lack of choice. They could just ask where people got the app, and offer them a choice not to disclose, but they choose to not offer the user that choice and to not transparently communicate the choice has been withheld. That’s user-hostile. The problem with saying “just don’t install the app” is that you have to be informed first, and that even then you have no real choice. If you want to take part in digital social networks you must surrender control and privacy. If your data is a valuable commodity you should be able to decide who gets what, just like you decide with your money. But you can’t, not really.
Jare 6y ago
> You always have the choice to not install the app You also have the choice to consider the practice questionable, unethical, a systemic problem once it becomes widespread; to highlight it in public posts and forums, to protest how widespread it has become, to believe that it should be illegal in the context of consumer and privacy protections, to lobby for making it illegal, etc.
sneak 6y ago
The problem is that it happens silently and without consent of the owner of the hardware. It’s win-win for facebook and the app developer. It’s only lose for the actual user.

saagarjha 6y ago

It is not clear to users which apps use the Facebook SDK, so they can’t avoid them even if they wanted to. And so many do include it that it’s hard to find alternative apps…

smacktoward 6y ago

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” - Upton Sinclair (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upton_Sinclair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upton_Sinclair)

dang 6y ago
It's probably time to retire Upton to the Internet Hall of Fame next to Betteridge.

Barrin92 6y ago

>The FB SDK helps with this. You always have the choice to not install the app (if you don't want to). up until now I wasn't even aware of the facebook sdk or that say, spotify is sharing my data with facebook even if I don't use their login option so it's pretty hard to make a informed decision. Is this even legal under GDPR?

petre 6y ago
> Is this even legal under GDPR? I guess you could always complain about it to your country's data protection watchdog and then we'll all find out?
Nextgrid 6y ago
To the best of my knowledge, no. Even if we assume advertising attribution falls under legitimate interest (which isn’t certain), it would still only allow them to call out to Facebook once after install to report whether the app was installed from an ad. As of right now the Facebook SDK calls out every single time the app is opened or brought back in foreground.

ballenf 6y ago

Usually when you say “win-win”, one of the wins is for each side.

Nicksil 6y ago

>Software developers want to know whether their existing marketing methods are effective. The FB SDK helps with this. As you mention, this is something the software developer want, not necessarily the user. >You always have the choice to not install the app (if you don't want to). This argument may have some teeth if directed toward a user in our industry. Depending on the scope of the particular software in question, the majority of users is likely to be those outside the software industry; the layman. The argument falls flat when the other person doesn't have the necessary understanding to be able to perform thoughtful analysis. >This also helps developers make sure their marketing is effective and reaching the right people, which seems like a win-win to me. That may be one reason this practice is in-use. I don't see how it makes the difference: the software developer continues these practices with no consideration of their user, much less the user's consent or indication anything is going on at all. It's all about what the software developer wants, not the user and that's not OK.

mewpmewp2 6y ago
User benefits from effective marketing. If software dev knows who their audience is better it means product will reach the correct customers more efficiently. It is win for everybody.
- josefx 6y ago
  It has to say something about the effectiveness of your marketing if the only way you even observe it having an effect is by installing spyware on every users system.
  - manigandham 6y ago
    Nobody said it was the only way, but better measurement means optimizing ad spend to better target users and lower prices.
- oarsinsync 6y ago
  Marketing platform and the product being marketed benefit from effective marketing. That the user was “sold” to is not inherently positive. Not all products are good. Not all users can afford products they’re buying. Not all users necessarily understand they’re paying in ways they’re unaware of. Straying away from social media in this example, cigarettes and alcohol feel like good candidates here.

yumraj 6y ago

> You always have the choice to not install the app (if you don't want to). Before this article came out was this information available to the users to help them in making this decision. No, it was not! Hence the problem.

marcus_holmes 6y ago
I think it's pretty clear that if you're not paying for the application, then you're the product not the customer. Even the most ignorant users have probably got that message by now. If the app is paid-for, it's less forgivable to be using this kind of spyware.
- ric2b 6y ago
  Your flawed logic applies whether it's paid or not: just don't install it. Apparently you don't think actually knowing if the app includes the SDK is relevant, this is victim blaming of the highest tier.
- Nextgrid 6y ago
  Spotify is a paid app that includes it.

nikofeyn 6y ago

> Software developers want to know whether their existing marketing methods are effective. so what?

omk 6y ago

The user has not explicitly allowed this information to be collected, yet the software developer wants to. That I think is the definition of spyware. If I were to project this pattern 10 steps further, a software developer may want to know the gender and emotional state of the user installing their software using the front camera. That would also be a spyware, but it's on the higher end of the spyware spectrum.

Joeri 6y ago

What’s wrong are two things: lack of transparency and lack of choice. They could just ask where people got the app, and offer them a choice not to disclose, but they choose to not offer the user that choice and to not transparently communicate the choice has been withheld. That’s user-hostile. The problem with saying “just don’t install the app” is that you have to be informed first, and that even then you have no real choice. If you want to take part in digital social networks you must surrender control and privacy. If your data is a valuable commodity you should be able to decide who gets what, just like you decide with your money. But you can’t, not really.

Jare 6y ago

> You always have the choice to not install the app You also have the choice to consider the practice questionable, unethical, a systemic problem once it becomes widespread; to highlight it in public posts and forums, to protest how widespread it has become, to believe that it should be illegal in the context of consumer and privacy protections, to lobby for making it illegal, etc.

sneak 6y ago

The problem is that it happens silently and without consent of the owner of the hardware. It’s win-win for facebook and the app developer. It’s only lose for the actual user.