19 ms·

I have zero sympathy for Facebook. If they claim to care so much about small businesses, they should start by committing to change how they respond to any upsta

by kbos87 6y ago

I have zero sympathy for Facebook. If they claim to care so much about small businesses, they should start by committing to change how they respond to any upstart social app that dares encroach on what they see as their territory. That being said - and it pains me to say this - but there is absolutely truth to the fact that the style of targeting now possible on FB & Instagram has enabled an entire world of very small, hyper-niche businesses that otherwise wouldn't exist. Ten years ago, there wasn't any way to reach very granular audiences the way there is today. There was massively broad and massively expensive brand advertising, there were poorly targeted display networks, and there were effective but prohibitively expensive direct response channels like AdWords - none of which were viable if you were selling, say, dog leashes to people with a penchant for the outdoors. That isn't to dismiss Facebook's culpability for the liberties they take with their users' personal data, and they certainly didn't build their ad network out of altruism for small businesses, despite what you may think from the position the ad takes. Facebook's access to user data should be curtailed significantly, and sadly, businesses likely will suffer. There doesn't seem to be a good, evident third option just yet.

mojo982 6y ago
Thank you for the well written comment. You gave me a new perspective that changed my viewpoint.
CubsFan1060 6y ago
I'm sure there are a lot of businesses that can exist by knowing everything about me. And, frankly, I think it's ok if they do... as long as they have my permission. The nice thing is that this is what this change does. It makes it more clear who, and what, is sharing information about me. A world where we have apps and websites that pop up with an alert "This website will share information about you with Facebook, even if you don't login. This information may be able to identify you", seems reasonable to me.
- violetgarden 6y ago
  I had a minimal Facebook account that I wasn’t really using, so I deleted it. Before deleting, I downloaded the third party vendors that Facebook shared data with and was shocked. I almost am never logged in to Facebook and yet here was Home Depot, the company I get face wash from, etc all linked back to my account somehow, and I had no idea.
  - CubsFan1060 6y ago
    Interesting. How do you get that information?
    - philk10 6y ago
      probably using this FB tool -https://techcrunch.com/2020/01/28/all-users-can-now-access-facebooks-tool-for-controlling-which-apps-and-sites-can-share-data-for-ad-targeting/ https://techcrunch.com/2020/01/28/all-users-can-now-access-f...
  - ben_w 6y ago
    Are there any other stores near you that you could’ve used instead of Home Depot? The reason I’m suggesting in your particular case that this might have been a lucky guess rather than invasive Detective-Sherlock-type inference is that when I did the same to Twitter, I discovered that they thought I was interested in soccer (I’m not) and three languages I don’t speak and have never attempted to learn.
    - hungryforcodes 6y ago
      It wouldn't have made a difference. The problem is pervasive. I looked at my list on Facebook of the same data and also was shocked. It was hard for me to find websites I HADN'T visited. The most disturbing were entries for when I visited my online bank. What my bank needs to report to Facebook is a mystery to me.
    - violetgarden 6y ago
      That’s true! Some might be lucky. The face wash brand I use is pretty distinctive and not sold everywhere, and that was on the report, so I feel like there is a lot of truth in the products being linked back to me.
- CubsFan1060 6y ago
  Ugh. The more I think about this the more complicated it becomes. I think most people would be pretty ok saying "I'm a part of a classic car community on Facebook, so I get ads on Facebook for classic car things". I think people would be less ok with "I played a game on my phone while standing in an auto shop. Now I'm getting car ads on my news site because game accessed my location, shared with facebook, who then shared with news site" I don't know how to make these different use cases clear without having pages and pages of explanation that nobody will read.
  - elondaits 6y ago
    I don't mind that my ads are targeted based on my location, content of my messages, etc. ... What I mind is that nobody can assure who the buyers of my data are, or what they're really using it for. Facebook says "small businesses", but there are no guarantees it's not your government, a foreign government, your employer, your insurance company, a scammer, etc.
    - ebetica0 6y ago
      But Facebook never sells the data itself, it only sells targeting capabilities. The government can only say "display this ad to people who fit these categories", but they can never see those identities.
      - CubsFan1060 6y ago
        Are you sure about that? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Analytica_data_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Ana...
      - theshrike79 6y ago
        The targeting capabilities are never fully revealed, even if you check the "why was I displayed this ad". It's always something generic like "reaching people who are over 15 and located in $country". ...then why the fuck is the ad about the exact same thing I was browsing 20 seconds ago on my work laptop or chatted about with my friend on Messenger? I've even got ads on FB properties about products I chatted on IRC with someone I've got no connections on FB with, but most likely our graphs have merged somehow. This is easy to test, turn off all blockers and go browse for some product you normally don't look for. A bread maker or a washer-dryer combo. Then count the seconds you start getting ads for that exact type of product on FB/IG.
- aerosmile 6y ago
  This response reminds me a bit of how politicians talk to each other. Politician A says: "I feel bad for SMBs that will suffer if we prioritize privacy." Politician B responds: "I totally agree. They should just simply ask me for my permission, that seems fair, no?" Politician B is likely aware that asking for permission is going to cause the outcome that Politician A is predicting and is unhappy about, so in a way they are saying: "My privacy is more important to me than the SMBs' ability to survive." Which, to be clear, is a perfectly reasonable answer, and one that the majority of people will support. Except, that's not what they are saying. Their response ignores the inverse correlation between the two choices and paints a picture that represents the best of both worlds. Really smart and really effective - you help other supporters of your view ignore its downside and make them feel better about continuing to support it. I've been asking myself why people argue this way, and PG's article titled Refragmentation [1] helped me understand some aspects of the new world we're living in. An alternative explanation is that it is - ironically given the context - all Facebook's fault which has been reinforcing the echo chambers of ideologies. If you believe that the Earth is flat and you wanted to find some validation, Facebook will be happy to do that for you. Just search for "flat Earth", join the biggest Facebook group on that topic [2], and within days you'll start getting content (and friend suggestions) that will make it hard to escape that alternate reality. They will feed you with convincing arguments that are better than what you can come up with, so that the next time someone says: "Dude, what about the ISS?", you'll be able to say, "I agree with you and think you bring up a valid point. I also think that [insert an argument that cannot coexist with the concept of the ISS]." I am longing for the days when people would openly disagree with each other, because that forced them to actually listen to the arguments and then address them as opposed to talking to each other like politicians do, whose job depends on getting their constituents to support them even when their ideology is wrong. [1] http://www.paulgraham.com/re.html http://www.paulgraham.com/re.html [2] https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794 https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794
  - pseudalopex 6y ago
    We're supposed to assume good faith here. Politician B can believe most people will opt in. Politician A has a history of claiming the tracking is consensual and still hasn't plainly retracted the claim.
ChuckNorris89 6y ago
To play the devil's advocate, most small business in my area of Europe(bars, cafes, bands, jazz/rock halls, shops, restaurants and even dentists) rely on Facebook for reaching out to their customers or audience, organizing and advertising events and even for customer support via Facebook Messenger to the point where their Facebook page has replaced their main website as it's more alive since it's easier for their staff to use and keep up to date vs a dedicated website. If I would give up my Facebook account, I would miss out on a lot of events that happend in town(pre covid).
- saagarjha 6y ago
  Maybe it’s because Facebook has killed anyone’s desire to check out a website, penalizing those that don’t have an entry on the platform?
  - aminozuur 6y ago
    Many people prefer looking at the companies Facebook page, rather than the website. Sometimes, websites are designed poorly and can confuse the visitor. Meanwhile, the Facebook page shows customer ratings, posts, comments, reactions, and other useful information.
    - mobilio 6y ago
      I know that even some people calls to their ISP complaining that "internet is down". When ISP support trying to figure what's going on they found that actually Facebook as service is down. But people think that Facebook IS The Internet.
    - zepto 6y ago
      That just seems like an opportunity for competition in the space of website builders for small business.
      - bonoboTP 6y ago
        But people already know Facebook and know the concepts (pages, comments, posts, users, profile pics, groups), so there's much less friction. To many people, "making a website" sounds like a big complicated scary thing that only big serious players do.
barkerja 6y ago
> There doesn't seem to be a good, evident third option just yet. I think a good middle ground here is an opt-out approach on Apple's end. Force the user to make a cognitive choice here with a clear understanding of what their choice means. Communication is key. Some users may very well appreciate and value the hyper-relevant advertisements they see on services, and remain opted-in to the sharing of tracking data. I personally know many people who have bought many things they value greatly that they discovered through advertisements on various social networks. At the end of the day, it should be the choice of the user; not the system (Apple/iOS, Google/Android, etc.) or the relying third parties (Facebook, etc.)
- zepto 6y ago
  That’s exactly what Apple is planning to implement, and what Facebook opposes. When given a choice, 70% of people opt-out. This is terrifying to Facebook.
  - datavirtue 6y ago
    Yeah, the Apple users opt out making it easier for everyone else to do so. Facebook is on shakey ground.
  - OzCrimson 6y ago
    I think there should be an opt-IN model. Opting out can be made confusing and difficult and time-consuming. I've gone to websites that list over 300 3rd parties that they share data with. Opting out means going to every one of those 3rd parties one at a time and hunting for their opt-out link. And those come with a warning: If you clear your cookies, you'll have to do this again. And the opt-out only applies on this browser on this device. Suddenly, the consumer has a part-time job that they didn't ask for.
    - zepto 6y ago
      My understanding is that Apple is going to present the option to the user. They won’t have to search for it. Whether there is an actual default or just a pair of options, I don’t know.
marcinzm 6y ago
I'm curious as why Facebook is so much more effective, and I agree from personal experience that it is. In theory a display ad network has all the user web browsing behavior so should have a good user profile. So the ads should be almost as targeted. However the ad format is very different and I believe that benefits Facebook greatly in terms of smaller businesses (more constrained creative so less work, interactive, can respond to users, etc.). edit: Also, a display ad shown across the web will never blend in with the style of every webpage it's shown on while a Facebook ad will inherently do so.
- kbos87 6y ago
  I think that you are right that the ad formats on Facebook are a lot more effective, but I'd also argue that they have orders of magnitude more data, and more opportunities to serve ads to anyone because of their scale. Most ad networks have a semi-random set of properties and limited ability to track and tailor when compared to what is possible when you are logged into an app and spending all of your time there.
mam2 6y ago
I mostly agree but to oppose you first paragraph, I have always though that treating one person who behave differently to what it advocates for the other person as some kind of "ultimate sin" was kind of, i don't know, "naive" or weird, hard to find the exact words. It's usually a better strategy for that person. It'sl ike drugs: it's a good thing it's forbidden, but it's also a good thing it's available to anyone who spend 5 minutes searching for it. The end result is not that bad overall
viktorcode 6y ago
If a business exists solely due to the fact that general population isn't aware they are being tracked across the web, then it is game over. No business built on unawareness is long term sustainable.
- dcolkitt 6y ago
  This presupposes that consumers are unaware rather than apathetic. Only one in six baby boomers have ever even bothered[1] to adjust the privacy settings on their phone. That takes all of five minutes, and most can't be bothered. [1] https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/retail-distribution/sharing-personal-information-consumer-privacy-concerns.html https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/retail-dis...
  - pseudalopex 6y ago
    It's a conditional statement. Those businesses will suffer if people care and become aware. They won't suffer if people are aware and don't care. The survey only covered the the last 12 months. How often do you have to adjust your phone settings? 47% of all respondents adjusted their phone privacy settings. Why single out the oldest group? 64% deleted or didn't download specific apps because of privacy concerns. At least 28% refused to take another survey because of privacy concerns. Who knows how many refused to take that survey? It was 2016. Only about 60% of Americans had a smart phone.[1] You presuppose people are apathetic not resigned. "Google has most of my email because it has all of yours."[2] [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/201183/forecast-of-smartphone-penetration-in-the-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/201183/forecast-of-smart... [2] https://mako.cc/copyrighteous/google-has-most-of-my-email-because-it-has-all-of-yours https://mako.cc/copyrighteous/google-has-most-of-my-email-be...
    - pseudalopex 6y ago
      61% of iPhone users said default privacy settings were a significant factor. Half of iPhone users didn't know about IDFA. 61% of the half who did didn't know how to disable it.[1] [1] https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/blog/what-half-of-iphone-users-dont-know-about-their-privacy-new-poll/ https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/blog/what-half-of-iphone-u...
mdorazio 6y ago
To me personally there's a faulty assumption baked into your comment that traditional advertising is needed for this interaction at all. For example, if I'm searching for a good dog leash I would much rather go looking for the best one that fits my needs based on reviews, community comments, maybe some YouTube impression videos, etc. rather than trust that the one thrust into my face via an ad is actually the best.
- JKCalhoun 6y ago
  Exactly. Why shop at all if we can just have a stream of door-to-door solicitors come to the front door of our homes with there wares and pitches? Something I think we can all get behind.
Dirlewanger 6y ago
This is a band-aid that needs to be ripped off. If a business is dependent on these kinds of ad networks, it was never a sound business to begin with, and deserves to suffer and hopefully die off.
gigatexal 6y ago
Haha, yeah. FB's business model is everything wrong with us as people and capitalism: exacerbating the worst in us for greater engagement and clicks driving more and more to the FB ad machine. F that. I wish Apple would go whole hog and drop the hammer on all tracking even going so far as to ban it from apps in the store, heck, don't stop there: make sign in with apple a requirement for all apps that require some sort of login and do away with social logins altogether.
cactus2093 6y ago
I am always surprised by the extent to which advertising seems to rely much more on tracking instead of context. I have a bunch of different interests and hobbies, and a lot of the time I spend online is very easy to match to a fairly specific category - for instance, if I'm reading or watching videos about music production, advertise music software to me. If I'm reading about hikes or other outdoors type content, advertise outdoor gear to me. If I search travel destinations, advertise new suitcases to me. Instead most of these behaviors of what I do go into a big pool of data about me, and then whenever they want in the future these music software companies or outdoor gear companies or suitcase companies can choose to advertise to me, even if they weren't willing to bid above the current price at the time I viewed this content. But there's probably a fall-off in effectiveness, if you wait and advertise to me weeks later I might be less likely to convert if that thing isn't top of mind for me right then. So just anecdotally, it's not clear to me that niche businesses won't be able to exist with content-based advertising instead of tracking. A lot has changed in the past 10+ years on the internet, so it's not exactly easy to prove causality that tracking is what allows these businesses to exist today. Obviously FB knows better than anyone what works and they're upset with this change, so I'm sure advertising will take a hit, but I'm interested to see how it plays out and cautiously optimistic that it won't just kill niche businesses. Edit: another example I just thought of is the Litter Robot, a high tech cat litter box. This must be a very high margin product because they are one of the most aggressive brands I've seen tracking me online, I've happened across their site a couple of times and then I see no other ads on Youtube or other sites for many days afterwards. I honestly do plan to buy one for my cats at some point, I just haven't pulled the trigger yet. So the ads probably will convert eventually. But I don't spend that much time viewing content about cats online (watching a random cute cat video online is probably not that highly correlated with being a cat owner). This might be the perfect example of a seemingly very useful, niche business that wouldn't be able to survive without ad targeting
- sjs382 6y ago
  > I am always surprised by the extent to which advertising seems to rely much more on tracking instead of context. I miss contextual advertising.
- pseudalopex 6y ago
wcarron 6y ago
> That being said - and it pains me to say this - but there is absolutely truth to the fact that the style of targeting now possible on FB & Instagram has enabled an entire world of very small, hyper-niche businesses that otherwise wouldn't exist. Businesses like that have no right to exist if their business model depends entirely on the invasion and flagrant abuse of privacy. Even if we assume that these businesses exist thanks to facebook, the ends do not justify the means. The economic value added doesn't offset the privacy violations. It doesn't "make up" for it. > Facebook's access to user data should be curtailed significantly, and sadly, businesses likely will suffer. There doesn't seem to be a good, evident third option just yet. There doesn't need to be a third option. Facebook and businesses who rely on such granular data, which is able to be gathered only by massively violating privacy, can and should pay equally massive penalties and/or be wiped out. Yes, people are behind those businesses, and rely on data collection/tracking for their livelihoods, but honestly, they deserve no sympathy. They can get a job at Subway instead. The ends do not, and have never, justified the means. Whatever apple can do to drive a stake through the heart of Facebook (and goog and others, honestly), is a positive.
- yunohn 6y ago
  I feel like you’ve misinterpreted OP. Even after they explained themselves with clear disclaimers. They meant that online ads have enabled small businesses to target niche clientele and make cool things, without burning money competing for adspace with everyone else. This is absolutely true, you can ask lots of people, including tech nerds on HN who buy off Instagram ads.
  - JKCalhoun 6y ago
    > They meant that online ads have enabled small businesses to target niche clientele and make cool things I feel they did acknowledge this. But added that this doesn't justify privacy invasion on a massive scale - something your not countering.
    - yunohn 6y ago
      > business model depends entirely on the invasion and flagrant abuse of privacy OP’s acknowledgment is not entirely valid - their business models don’t rely on ads per se. Rather the nature of capital and free markets leads to them being snuffed out by bigger ones.
dabbledash 6y ago
People should be able to opt in to what they want, but as far as I’m concerned if a company can only exist by subjecting me to constant surveillance it doesn’t need to exist.

by kbos87 6y ago

mojo982 6y ago

Thank you for the well written comment. You gave me a new perspective that changed my viewpoint.

CubsFan1060 6y ago

I'm sure there are a lot of businesses that can exist by knowing everything about me. And, frankly, I think it's ok if they do... as long as they have my permission. The nice thing is that this is what this change does. It makes it more clear who, and what, is sharing information about me. A world where we have apps and websites that pop up with an alert "This website will share information about you with Facebook, even if you don't login. This information may be able to identify you", seems reasonable to me.

violetgarden 6y ago
I had a minimal Facebook account that I wasn’t really using, so I deleted it. Before deleting, I downloaded the third party vendors that Facebook shared data with and was shocked. I almost am never logged in to Facebook and yet here was Home Depot, the company I get face wash from, etc all linked back to my account somehow, and I had no idea.
- CubsFan1060 6y ago
  Interesting. How do you get that information?
  - philk10 6y ago
    probably using this FB tool -https://techcrunch.com/2020/01/28/all-users-can-now-access-facebooks-tool-for-controlling-which-apps-and-sites-can-share-data-for-ad-targeting/ https://techcrunch.com/2020/01/28/all-users-can-now-access-f...
- ben_w 6y ago
  Are there any other stores near you that you could’ve used instead of Home Depot? The reason I’m suggesting in your particular case that this might have been a lucky guess rather than invasive Detective-Sherlock-type inference is that when I did the same to Twitter, I discovered that they thought I was interested in soccer (I’m not) and three languages I don’t speak and have never attempted to learn.
  - hungryforcodes 6y ago
    It wouldn't have made a difference. The problem is pervasive. I looked at my list on Facebook of the same data and also was shocked. It was hard for me to find websites I HADN'T visited. The most disturbing were entries for when I visited my online bank. What my bank needs to report to Facebook is a mystery to me.
  - violetgarden 6y ago
    That’s true! Some might be lucky. The face wash brand I use is pretty distinctive and not sold everywhere, and that was on the report, so I feel like there is a lot of truth in the products being linked back to me.
CubsFan1060 6y ago
Ugh. The more I think about this the more complicated it becomes. I think most people would be pretty ok saying "I'm a part of a classic car community on Facebook, so I get ads on Facebook for classic car things". I think people would be less ok with "I played a game on my phone while standing in an auto shop. Now I'm getting car ads on my news site because game accessed my location, shared with facebook, who then shared with news site" I don't know how to make these different use cases clear without having pages and pages of explanation that nobody will read.
- elondaits 6y ago
  I don't mind that my ads are targeted based on my location, content of my messages, etc. ... What I mind is that nobody can assure who the buyers of my data are, or what they're really using it for. Facebook says "small businesses", but there are no guarantees it's not your government, a foreign government, your employer, your insurance company, a scammer, etc.
  - ebetica0 6y ago
    But Facebook never sells the data itself, it only sells targeting capabilities. The government can only say "display this ad to people who fit these categories", but they can never see those identities.
    - CubsFan1060 6y ago
      Are you sure about that? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Analytica_data_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Ana...
    - theshrike79 6y ago
      The targeting capabilities are never fully revealed, even if you check the "why was I displayed this ad". It's always something generic like "reaching people who are over 15 and located in $country". ...then why the fuck is the ad about the exact same thing I was browsing 20 seconds ago on my work laptop or chatted about with my friend on Messenger? I've even got ads on FB properties about products I chatted on IRC with someone I've got no connections on FB with, but most likely our graphs have merged somehow. This is easy to test, turn off all blockers and go browse for some product you normally don't look for. A bread maker or a washer-dryer combo. Then count the seconds you start getting ads for that exact type of product on FB/IG.
aerosmile 6y ago
This response reminds me a bit of how politicians talk to each other. Politician A says: "I feel bad for SMBs that will suffer if we prioritize privacy." Politician B responds: "I totally agree. They should just simply ask me for my permission, that seems fair, no?" Politician B is likely aware that asking for permission is going to cause the outcome that Politician A is predicting and is unhappy about, so in a way they are saying: "My privacy is more important to me than the SMBs' ability to survive." Which, to be clear, is a perfectly reasonable answer, and one that the majority of people will support. Except, that's not what they are saying. Their response ignores the inverse correlation between the two choices and paints a picture that represents the best of both worlds. Really smart and really effective - you help other supporters of your view ignore its downside and make them feel better about continuing to support it. I've been asking myself why people argue this way, and PG's article titled Refragmentation [1] helped me understand some aspects of the new world we're living in. An alternative explanation is that it is - ironically given the context - all Facebook's fault which has been reinforcing the echo chambers of ideologies. If you believe that the Earth is flat and you wanted to find some validation, Facebook will be happy to do that for you. Just search for "flat Earth", join the biggest Facebook group on that topic [2], and within days you'll start getting content (and friend suggestions) that will make it hard to escape that alternate reality. They will feed you with convincing arguments that are better than what you can come up with, so that the next time someone says: "Dude, what about the ISS?", you'll be able to say, "I agree with you and think you bring up a valid point. I also think that [insert an argument that cannot coexist with the concept of the ISS]." I am longing for the days when people would openly disagree with each other, because that forced them to actually listen to the arguments and then address them as opposed to talking to each other like politicians do, whose job depends on getting their constituents to support them even when their ideology is wrong. [1] http://www.paulgraham.com/re.html http://www.paulgraham.com/re.html [2] https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794 https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794
- pseudalopex 6y ago
  We're supposed to assume good faith here. Politician B can believe most people will opt in. Politician A has a history of claiming the tracking is consensual and still hasn't plainly retracted the claim.

ChuckNorris89 6y ago

To play the devil's advocate, most small business in my area of Europe(bars, cafes, bands, jazz/rock halls, shops, restaurants and even dentists) rely on Facebook for reaching out to their customers or audience, organizing and advertising events and even for customer support via Facebook Messenger to the point where their Facebook page has replaced their main website as it's more alive since it's easier for their staff to use and keep up to date vs a dedicated website. If I would give up my Facebook account, I would miss out on a lot of events that happend in town(pre covid).

saagarjha 6y ago
Maybe it’s because Facebook has killed anyone’s desire to check out a website, penalizing those that don’t have an entry on the platform?
- aminozuur 6y ago
  Many people prefer looking at the companies Facebook page, rather than the website. Sometimes, websites are designed poorly and can confuse the visitor. Meanwhile, the Facebook page shows customer ratings, posts, comments, reactions, and other useful information.
  - mobilio 6y ago
    I know that even some people calls to their ISP complaining that "internet is down". When ISP support trying to figure what's going on they found that actually Facebook as service is down. But people think that Facebook IS The Internet.
  - zepto 6y ago
    That just seems like an opportunity for competition in the space of website builders for small business.
    - bonoboTP 6y ago
      But people already know Facebook and know the concepts (pages, comments, posts, users, profile pics, groups), so there's much less friction. To many people, "making a website" sounds like a big complicated scary thing that only big serious players do.

barkerja 6y ago

> There doesn't seem to be a good, evident third option just yet. I think a good middle ground here is an opt-out approach on Apple's end. Force the user to make a cognitive choice here with a clear understanding of what their choice means. Communication is key. Some users may very well appreciate and value the hyper-relevant advertisements they see on services, and remain opted-in to the sharing of tracking data. I personally know many people who have bought many things they value greatly that they discovered through advertisements on various social networks. At the end of the day, it should be the choice of the user; not the system (Apple/iOS, Google/Android, etc.) or the relying third parties (Facebook, etc.)

zepto 6y ago
That’s exactly what Apple is planning to implement, and what Facebook opposes. When given a choice, 70% of people opt-out. This is terrifying to Facebook.
- datavirtue 6y ago
  Yeah, the Apple users opt out making it easier for everyone else to do so. Facebook is on shakey ground.
- OzCrimson 6y ago
  I think there should be an opt-IN model. Opting out can be made confusing and difficult and time-consuming. I've gone to websites that list over 300 3rd parties that they share data with. Opting out means going to every one of those 3rd parties one at a time and hunting for their opt-out link. And those come with a warning: If you clear your cookies, you'll have to do this again. And the opt-out only applies on this browser on this device. Suddenly, the consumer has a part-time job that they didn't ask for.
  - zepto 6y ago
    My understanding is that Apple is going to present the option to the user. They won’t have to search for it. Whether there is an actual default or just a pair of options, I don’t know.

marcinzm 6y ago

I'm curious as why Facebook is so much more effective, and I agree from personal experience that it is. In theory a display ad network has all the user web browsing behavior so should have a good user profile. So the ads should be almost as targeted. However the ad format is very different and I believe that benefits Facebook greatly in terms of smaller businesses (more constrained creative so less work, interactive, can respond to users, etc.). edit: Also, a display ad shown across the web will never blend in with the style of every webpage it's shown on while a Facebook ad will inherently do so.

kbos87 6y ago
I think that you are right that the ad formats on Facebook are a lot more effective, but I'd also argue that they have orders of magnitude more data, and more opportunities to serve ads to anyone because of their scale. Most ad networks have a semi-random set of properties and limited ability to track and tailor when compared to what is possible when you are logged into an app and spending all of your time there.

mam2 6y ago

I mostly agree but to oppose you first paragraph, I have always though that treating one person who behave differently to what it advocates for the other person as some kind of "ultimate sin" was kind of, i don't know, "naive" or weird, hard to find the exact words. It's usually a better strategy for that person. It'sl ike drugs: it's a good thing it's forbidden, but it's also a good thing it's available to anyone who spend 5 minutes searching for it. The end result is not that bad overall

viktorcode 6y ago

If a business exists solely due to the fact that general population isn't aware they are being tracked across the web, then it is game over. No business built on unawareness is long term sustainable.

dcolkitt 6y ago
This presupposes that consumers are unaware rather than apathetic. Only one in six baby boomers have ever even bothered[1] to adjust the privacy settings on their phone. That takes all of five minutes, and most can't be bothered. [1] https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/retail-distribution/sharing-personal-information-consumer-privacy-concerns.html https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/retail-dis...
- pseudalopex 6y ago
  It's a conditional statement. Those businesses will suffer if people care and become aware. They won't suffer if people are aware and don't care. The survey only covered the the last 12 months. How often do you have to adjust your phone settings? 47% of all respondents adjusted their phone privacy settings. Why single out the oldest group? 64% deleted or didn't download specific apps because of privacy concerns. At least 28% refused to take another survey because of privacy concerns. Who knows how many refused to take that survey? It was 2016. Only about 60% of Americans had a smart phone.[1] You presuppose people are apathetic not resigned. "Google has most of my email because it has all of yours."[2] [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/201183/forecast-of-smartphone-penetration-in-the-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/201183/forecast-of-smart... [2] https://mako.cc/copyrighteous/google-has-most-of-my-email-because-it-has-all-of-yours https://mako.cc/copyrighteous/google-has-most-of-my-email-be...
  - pseudalopex 6y ago
    61% of iPhone users said default privacy settings were a significant factor. Half of iPhone users didn't know about IDFA. 61% of the half who did didn't know how to disable it.[1] [1] https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/blog/what-half-of-iphone-users-dont-know-about-their-privacy-new-poll/ https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/blog/what-half-of-iphone-u...

mdorazio 6y ago

To me personally there's a faulty assumption baked into your comment that traditional advertising is needed for this interaction at all. For example, if I'm searching for a good dog leash I would much rather go looking for the best one that fits my needs based on reviews, community comments, maybe some YouTube impression videos, etc. rather than trust that the one thrust into my face via an ad is actually the best.

JKCalhoun 6y ago
Exactly. Why shop at all if we can just have a stream of door-to-door solicitors come to the front door of our homes with there wares and pitches? Something I think we can all get behind.

Dirlewanger 6y ago

This is a band-aid that needs to be ripped off. If a business is dependent on these kinds of ad networks, it was never a sound business to begin with, and deserves to suffer and hopefully die off.

gigatexal 6y ago

Haha, yeah. FB's business model is everything wrong with us as people and capitalism: exacerbating the worst in us for greater engagement and clicks driving more and more to the FB ad machine. F that. I wish Apple would go whole hog and drop the hammer on all tracking even going so far as to ban it from apps in the store, heck, don't stop there: make sign in with apple a requirement for all apps that require some sort of login and do away with social logins altogether.

cactus2093 6y ago

I am always surprised by the extent to which advertising seems to rely much more on tracking instead of context. I have a bunch of different interests and hobbies, and a lot of the time I spend online is very easy to match to a fairly specific category - for instance, if I'm reading or watching videos about music production, advertise music software to me. If I'm reading about hikes or other outdoors type content, advertise outdoor gear to me. If I search travel destinations, advertise new suitcases to me. Instead most of these behaviors of what I do go into a big pool of data about me, and then whenever they want in the future these music software companies or outdoor gear companies or suitcase companies can choose to advertise to me, even if they weren't willing to bid above the current price at the time I viewed this content. But there's probably a fall-off in effectiveness, if you wait and advertise to me weeks later I might be less likely to convert if that thing isn't top of mind for me right then. So just anecdotally, it's not clear to me that niche businesses won't be able to exist with content-based advertising instead of tracking. A lot has changed in the past 10+ years on the internet, so it's not exactly easy to prove causality that tracking is what allows these businesses to exist today. Obviously FB knows better than anyone what works and they're upset with this change, so I'm sure advertising will take a hit, but I'm interested to see how it plays out and cautiously optimistic that it won't just kill niche businesses. Edit: another example I just thought of is the Litter Robot, a high tech cat litter box. This must be a very high margin product because they are one of the most aggressive brands I've seen tracking me online, I've happened across their site a couple of times and then I see no other ads on Youtube or other sites for many days afterwards. I honestly do plan to buy one for my cats at some point, I just haven't pulled the trigger yet. So the ads probably will convert eventually. But I don't spend that much time viewing content about cats online (watching a random cute cat video online is probably not that highly correlated with being a cat owner). This might be the perfect example of a seemingly very useful, niche business that wouldn't be able to survive without ad targeting

sjs382 6y ago
> I am always surprised by the extent to which advertising seems to rely much more on tracking instead of context. I miss contextual advertising.
pseudalopex 6y ago

wcarron 6y ago

> That being said - and it pains me to say this - but there is absolutely truth to the fact that the style of targeting now possible on FB & Instagram has enabled an entire world of very small, hyper-niche businesses that otherwise wouldn't exist. Businesses like that have no right to exist if their business model depends entirely on the invasion and flagrant abuse of privacy. Even if we assume that these businesses exist thanks to facebook, the ends do not justify the means. The economic value added doesn't offset the privacy violations. It doesn't "make up" for it. > Facebook's access to user data should be curtailed significantly, and sadly, businesses likely will suffer. There doesn't seem to be a good, evident third option just yet. There doesn't need to be a third option. Facebook and businesses who rely on such granular data, which is able to be gathered only by massively violating privacy, can and should pay equally massive penalties and/or be wiped out. Yes, people are behind those businesses, and rely on data collection/tracking for their livelihoods, but honestly, they deserve no sympathy. They can get a job at Subway instead. The ends do not, and have never, justified the means. Whatever apple can do to drive a stake through the heart of Facebook (and goog and others, honestly), is a positive.

yunohn 6y ago
I feel like you’ve misinterpreted OP. Even after they explained themselves with clear disclaimers. They meant that online ads have enabled small businesses to target niche clientele and make cool things, without burning money competing for adspace with everyone else. This is absolutely true, you can ask lots of people, including tech nerds on HN who buy off Instagram ads.
- JKCalhoun 6y ago
  > They meant that online ads have enabled small businesses to target niche clientele and make cool things I feel they did acknowledge this. But added that this doesn't justify privacy invasion on a massive scale - something your not countering.
  - yunohn 6y ago
    > business model depends entirely on the invasion and flagrant abuse of privacy OP’s acknowledgment is not entirely valid - their business models don’t rely on ads per se. Rather the nature of capital and free markets leads to them being snuffed out by bigger ones.

dabbledash 6y ago

People should be able to opt in to what they want, but as far as I’m concerned if a company can only exist by subjecting me to constant surveillance it doesn’t need to exist.