4 ms·

Well, well, well. Some months from now, let's revisit all the sentiments here and see if they still apply when Apple/Google/etc make a change that hurts some s

Well, well, well. Some months from now, let's revisit all the sentiments here and see if they still apply when Apple/Google/etc make a change that hurts some startup's bottom line. I'm guessing not so much praise and enthusiasm when it happens to someone else, instead of a big bad company like FB, right? We'll see...

goalieca 6y ago
I’m very happy with less targeted advertising. I realize the predominant model right now is free with advertising. It’s not a happy place.
- elliekelly 6y ago
  I don’t even mind the advertising. I mind the stalking. I would be more than willing to tolerate more ads if it meant fewer trackers.
- bilbo0s 6y ago
  So true. Even if Apple kills a small company dependent on targeted advertising, I would cheer. I'm not cheering because it's FB, I'm cheering because it strikes at targeted advertising. If you're a small company out tracking people to try to sell them an Oklahoma City Thunder dart board, I'm gonna cheer just as loudly when Apple sticks it to you.
myhf 6y ago
If "some startup's bottom line" depends on nonconsensual surveillance then they have ample warning to find a more sustainable business model.
- bilbo0s 6y ago
  I wouldn't even give them warning, they deserve no such consideration.
tl 6y ago
If a startup wants to track my actions outside of its sandbox, I want that startup to fail. On the other hand, when Apple implements policies that prevent companies of any size from building valuable things (see for example the outrage over 30%) then I've have a different sentiment.
bdcravens 6y ago
Depends on the startup. There were many who built on Twitter's API, and when Twitter dramatically limited access, it hurt those startup substantially. The overall sentiment here has been pretty cynical towards those who build on someone else's land. Moreover, if it's a startup with the same ethics as Facebook, it will likely be applauded as preventing the next Facebook.
ary 6y ago
> Well, well, well. Some months from now, let's revisit all the sentiments here and see if they still apply when Apple/Google/etc make a change that hurts some startup's bottom line. You seem to think context doesn't matter. If a startup makes a privacy invasive product and "Apple/Google/etc" put protections in place that harm that product then they've done a service to their customers. This is not a problem. We can judge their other actions as necessary and in context.

goalieca 6y ago

I’m very happy with less targeted advertising. I realize the predominant model right now is free with advertising. It’s not a happy place.

elliekelly 6y ago
I don’t even mind the advertising. I mind the stalking. I would be more than willing to tolerate more ads if it meant fewer trackers.
bilbo0s 6y ago
So true. Even if Apple kills a small company dependent on targeted advertising, I would cheer. I'm not cheering because it's FB, I'm cheering because it strikes at targeted advertising. If you're a small company out tracking people to try to sell them an Oklahoma City Thunder dart board, I'm gonna cheer just as loudly when Apple sticks it to you.

myhf 6y ago

If "some startup's bottom line" depends on nonconsensual surveillance then they have ample warning to find a more sustainable business model.

bilbo0s 6y ago
I wouldn't even give them warning, they deserve no such consideration.

tl 6y ago

If a startup wants to track my actions outside of its sandbox, I want that startup to fail. On the other hand, when Apple implements policies that prevent companies of any size from building valuable things (see for example the outrage over 30%) then I've have a different sentiment.

bdcravens 6y ago

Depends on the startup. There were many who built on Twitter's API, and when Twitter dramatically limited access, it hurt those startup substantially. The overall sentiment here has been pretty cynical towards those who build on someone else's land. Moreover, if it's a startup with the same ethics as Facebook, it will likely be applauded as preventing the next Facebook.

ary 6y ago

> Well, well, well. Some months from now, let's revisit all the sentiments here and see if they still apply when Apple/Google/etc make a change that hurts some startup's bottom line. You seem to think context doesn't matter. If a startup makes a privacy invasive product and "Apple/Google/etc" put protections in place that harm that product then they've done a service to their customers. This is not a problem. We can judge their other actions as necessary and in context.