14 ms·
Facebook Takes Out Newspaper Ads to Attack Apple's Strengthening iOS Privacy
- 3327 6y agoScrew Facebook. Really F-them, and all the employee's that choose to waste their lives there. If you know any - tell them what you feel and don't be shy. They should know. Facebook has done nothing good for society, Nothing good for the internet, nothing good for the truth, facts. And Nothing good for San Francisco or the ecosystem. As soon as developers had something going - Facebook killed it. Go ask around. Not politically correct? GO ahead down vote - as if make believe karma on HN is worth more than open opinions. There are many like me and many here that I know feel the same about this company. It lost its soul and became twisted along the way. May God have Mercy on them.
- fakedang 6y agoLost its soul and became twisted along the way? Not at all, Facebook was always like that from the start. Check its first pitch deck - they clearly mention classifying (college) users by their demographics and interests to advertise to them.
- bstar77 6y agoI guess I agree if you are talking about consumer stuff, but dev products like React are pretty amazing. Since React is open source and can be used in isolation, it’s relatively harmless in its current state and doesn’t empower Facebook’s problematic side. I would never work there myself, but most every employer is going to have some level of moral dilemma. Our issues with Facebook are just closer to our hearts. Did I just defend Facebook?
- only_friends 6y agoTell your god to take a hike. I agree about Facebook being evil tho.
- benjaminjosephw 6y agoThe fact that Facebook is open and proud of its end-user hostility in service to the business interests of advertisers is surely a turning point. What kind of professional integrity would allow someone to continue working on a product that doesn't even pretend to serve the best interests of its end-users? I seriously worry about the number of technology standards boards and governance groups that purport to represent the interests of end-users but are actually made up of (and lobbied by) people with this kind of "integrity".
- Lio 6y agoThey're like the tabaco industry complaining about having their products clearly labeled as adictive and carcenogenic. Doing so probably harmed small Mom & Pop tobaconist's bottom line too.
- pjmlp 6y agoThe same professional integrity from FOSS developers that profit from Facebook money, earned via such practices, by using Facebook sponsored projects.
- rusticpenn 6y agoDepends on who you define as the end user. If the end user is the advertiser, while the profiles are the product, their stand makes sense (Not arguing about ethics here).
- adamparsons 6y agoLike a squealing pig
- cageface 6y agoJust because there is now a multi-billion-dollar industry based on the abject betrayal of our privacy doesn’t mean the sociopaths who built it have any right whatsoever to continue getting away with it. This is fair enough as it goes but remember it's coming from one of the biggest cheerleaders of a company that became the richest in the world while taking away user freedoms we used to take for granted on general purpose computing devices. I'd love to see Facebook taken down several pegs but I think the rest of FAANG is overdue for some medicine too.
- vlkr 6y agoYou can easily replace your apple products, but not your social network apps. all your friends have to switch, too
- cageface 6y agoThis is getting harder and harder as Apple’s ecosystem becomes more comprehensive and more integrated. There are benefits of course but it’s pretty sticky. OTOH I dumped Facebook years ago and haven’t missed it for a second. WhatsApp has proven a lot harder to wean off of since my friends refuse to switch.
- collyw 6y agoI understand wanting to get rid of FB, but whats your reason for whatsapp? Whatsapp is end to end encrypted, so they can't get access to your messages, no? Is it just that they are owned by FB, or do you have greater security / privacy concerns that I am missing?
- bozzcl 6y agoSame boat here. I dumped WhatsApp mostly because it's owned by Facebook, which I consider a bit of a privacy risk by itself. On top of that, the app requests access to lots of permissions I don't understand the need for. Some examples: find accounts on the device, view WiFi connections, retrieve running apps, use biometric hardware.
- obilgic 6y agoWhenever they want to make a statement, they use newspaper ads, what does it tell you about FB Ads?
- aemreunal 6y agoI think Gruber's analysis is quite correct: Full-page issue messaging ads are about reaching very specific demographics in a conspicuous way. But in today’s world, it’s kind of transparent whom Facebook is targeting here: old white politicians. so I don't think those two are related.
- Veen 6y agoIs the implication that old black and Asian politicians don't read newspapers? Or that they don't have the same incentives to support Facebook?
- jumelles 6y agoJust that the majority of politicians, especially in the Senate, are older white men.
- Veen 6y agoYes, about 65 percent in the Senate, but what of it? The vast majority of older white men are not politicians, so this would not seem an effective way to reach them—it seems irrelevant to mention it. And if it is , in fact, politicians Facebook wants to reach why is it only the old white male ones? Surely Facebook wants to reach politicians of all demographics.
- hermitcrab 6y agoFacebook is a terrible company. I recommend reading this recent Atlantic article comparing Facebook to the nuclear doomsday machine. It may be a bit overblown in it's comparison, but I think it makes some very valid points: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2020/12/facebook-doomsday-machine/617384/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2020/12/faceb...
- appleflaxen 6y agoPlease include the other faces of facebook: Facebook, Instagram, Whatsapp, and Oculus all deserve your boycott.
- firloop 6y ago> Users can easily choose to keep providing Facebook (and anyone else) with all the information they want. Or they can choose not to. This part hits the nail on the head. Facebook is intentionally being misleading in this campaign. I’ve had the IDFA turned off on my phone for years. Now apps have to ask for it individually. If apps have to prompt to access it, and this benefits small businesses so much, wouldn’t people agree to it with the right framing? Why doesn’t Facebook provide a method in its tracking SDKs that shows an interstitial about how this is good for small business before asking users if they want to be tracked? Of course, Facebook would never do that. That’s because “informed consent” with adware doesn’t really exist... once people actually understand the scope of ad tracking networks... they don’t want it. I’m not even against the concept of targeted advertising. Facebook’s first party properties are fine venues for it. I’m even (generally) ok with an advertiser retargeting me based on information they have about me. I wish that Facebook was prohibited from scooping up data in every other app I use and combining it with other data that they purchase. You can have targeted advertising without a massive surveillance dragnet.
- qsort 6y agoSuper agree. I can't describe that ad in any other way than a sophisticated lie. They are making it look like Apple wants to take away choice from the user when it's exactly the other way around. They are careful to never mention what the iOS 14 updates are actually about, but a lie by omission is still a lie.
- bredren 6y agoI call it fundamental dishonesty. Some big problems for team fb: 1. It is difficult to recover from such an obviously dishonest position. 2. Users are supposed to be the customers, not small businesses. If users aren't the customers, they can't receive Facebook as a product "for free." 3. The current business model offers outsized returns because it leverages tech people don't want or don't yet know they don't want.
- zpeti 6y agoI am extremely torn about this thing, especially as I work in the privacy space. But it's hard to ignore the argument put forward by Ben Thompson that better tracking for facebook, actually tends to help small businesses. If you can't hyper target, you get ads for tooth paste, cars and deodorant (TV ads). If you can then you get ads for boutique florists in your area or gadgets you might actually like. I don't know what the solution is, because I want to be on small businesses side. And the issue with apple now is, I guarantee 99% of people will reject IDFA, because it is about personal data and it does sound bad. But the end result of this might not be that good for small business.
- wcerfgba 6y agoThe ad: https://twitter.com/DaveStangis/status/1339183289349918721/photo/1 https://twitter.com/DaveStangis/status/1339183289349918721/p...
- samizdis 6y agoThanks for posting that. I can't help thinking that FB has just invented some weird variant of the Streisand effect. The jaundiced yet vague wording states that many small businesses have, apparently, voiced concern over "Apple's forced software update" - but FB is so coy about providing any detail that this surely prompts the reader to seek more info.
- jarbus 6y agoThank you, don't know why I had to go this far down in the comments to find it. Should have been included in the article.
- jari_mustonen 6y ago> But in today’s world, it’s kind of transparent whom Facebook is targeting here: old white politicians. Is the word "white" here really that important. Is is true that within this issue there is an adversarial relationship between races and people of different skin color?
- yarcob 6y agoObviously the term is important to the author, else it wouldn't be there. The author wants to emphasize that the target audience of the ad is very narrow. In the authors view, Facebook is not trying to target younger, more diverse politicians, but rather older, conservative politicians, who happen to be mostly white. And in my opinion, the author is right and race is an important factor in this issue: There have been many reports that advertisers use Facebook to discriminate according to race, and minorities have rightfully complained loudly about that. It's definitely telling that Facebook targets what we assume to be a very conservative, narrow audience, rather than using their own platforms to spread the message: if they showed the ad on Facebook itself, or on Instagram, it would reach a much wider and more diverse audience. But that's not what they are doing.
- Barrin92 6y agoI'm not sure if the author just went for the slogan because "old white man" is basically just a phrase but his intent aside lobbyism, politics and the tech managerial class still are pretty damn white. With Facebook's very 'old and white' American userbase and lack of people of colour in leadership I think there actually is somewhat of an adversarial relationship. Was also visible in the behaviour of Facebook towards the outgoing administration.
- jsnell 6y agoYesterday's discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25441986 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25441986
- dr_faustus 6y agoThe hypocrisy is unbearable. Facebook is everything thats wrong with internet. A company that basically profits from people living out their worst instincts (xenophobia, misogyny, chauvinism, plain hate) and from fueling insecurities of vulnerable people (paranoia, body image issues, etc.). I recently switched to the IPhone after a decade of Android, mainly due to the much better privacy protection. I hope they go much further in that direction!
- pjmlp 6y agoSame applies to anyone using Facebook projects, paid via such practices.
- HatchedLake721 6y agoI'm with Apple here, but talking about Facebook, did you mean: > A company that basically profits from people being people ?
- tonyedgecombe 6y agoThey aren't neutral though, they clearly amplify it.
- rednerrus 6y agoDo they? It seems like they're just giving people what they want.
- mhh__ 6y agoThey've sort of been caught playing with people's emotions before, although there is also an effect where Facebook look particularly bad because of how un-(self)-selective their userbase is. Everyone has a Facebook account, there are very few features to let you use it like a traditional (say) forum. Debate on Facebook is effectively the Dunning-Kruger curve directly to your screen - not exactly that people are stupid as per se, but the level of knowledge on display is very small. The trendsetters aren't really on Facebook anymore, too. I absolutely love memes, and there are still good, creative, meme groups on Facebook however it's literally only a matter of time before the group gets shut down because of some unexplained reason. This once again has the effect of moving anyone willing to use their brain elsewhere. They definitely need regulating but they are also a victim of their own success.
- mrweasel 6y agoI don't understand Facebook. If personalised ads stand to lose 60% of their value, why not switch to contextual ads? Google is mainly contextual ads, with some personalisation mixed in I'd assume. If you're already on Facebooks platforms they know who you are, they have access to all the personal information that can be extracted from your Facebook account and activity. Shouldn't that be enough? What I read this as, is that Facebooks own data isn't actually that good, and they need data from source that aren't Facebook in order to provide value to their ads platform. It's the same issue every time Facebook complains about regulation or increased desire for privacy, they always end up in a situation where they devalue their own products and technology.
- olliej 6y agoGoogle moved away from contextual ads a decade ago. "Contextual" ads only happen on google search in the form of "sponsored" results.
- eoinboylan 6y agoThis just makes me want to stay on IOS even more.
- swiley 6y agoI love to hate on Apple, especially the damage they've done to the internet (to chat in particular) but this was definitely the right thing for them to do.
- HatchedLake721 6y agoWhat damage has Apple done to chat?
- flemhans 6y agoIn certain parts of the world, it's extremely hard to avoid the closed iMessage platform since 95% of users use it. And you have to use their closed software and hardware to participate in the network.
- HatchedLake721 6y agoAnd what damage does this do?
- swiley 6y agoApple effectively doesn't allow community maintained chat apps. The push server must be run by the same organization that publishes the app, there is no way to sign keys of responsible push relay operators or anything like that.
- Grustaf 6y ago> But in today’s world, it’s kind of transparent whom Facebook is targeting here: old white politicians. Why doesn't Facebook care about younger or non-white politicians? Are they already anti-tracking? Or hopelessly pro-Facebook? Seems pretty racist to ignore them.
- sbuk 6y agoI'd argue, that the target demographic here are the ones that likely consume their news through physical mediums, like news papers. I'd imagine younger politicians (there are sadly not many 'old' non-white politicians) consume their news online. No stats for this, or any sources, but I think it's a fairly reasonable assumption to make.
- Grustaf 6y agoYes I suppose it's a question of ad demographics here, though why place a newspaper ad if you just want to reach politicians, then just use your lobbyists. I'm sure they want to reach voters, not politicians. But either way, why say "old white" when the point is that they are old enough to read print media. They are targeted because they are old, not because of their color. Why bring race into it, except for virtue signalling? Besides, doesn't the ad appear on-line as well?
- sbuk 6y agoOf the 100 sitting senators, 9 are considered "minorities". Their average age is 56. The average age in the senate is 65, oldest is 87, and it is overwhelmingly white males, which is point being made. I doubt that a full-page broadsheet add carries the same impact online. It's very clear that the target demographic is older white men.
- Grustaf 6y agoI’m not really contesting the demographics of the senate here.
- TooCreative 6y agoSince everyone has the FB/Insta/WhatsApp apps installed, how can Apple prevent users from being tracked? I would think when a user visits a web page, that page can deliver an insane amount of fingerprinting data along with the IP to FB. So it is easy for FB to correlate it with the users accounts which are phoning home on the same IP. Other apps can send even more data to FB then a website. Seems hard to imagine FB can not figure out it is coming from the same phone.
- sonotmyname 6y agoEasy to imagine a world where not everyone has those apps installed - my home is a great example. Also, it’s easy to imagine a huge building full of people who all connect to the internet using one (or maybe a small handful) of nat’d IPs. Maybe we could call that an ‘office’... I look at it this way - if this cross-app tracking BS wasn’t so important to FB, they wouldn’t have their panties so wadded up about it.
- wdb 6y agoI think the privacy labels are a good thing. If you watch the labels for FB its while you know they do it, still shocking what they do with your personal information. See also: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/facebook/id284882215 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/facebook/id284882215 or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s12onXfbFTs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s12onXfbFTs
- lifeisstillgood 6y agoWhat is the price differential between contextual ads (you searched for "running shoe" have a nike advert) and personalised ads (you are Paul, we know you have a heart condition and low income and are going through a divorce - have an ad for this dating site while you search for running shoes) Duck Duck Go clearly think there is profit in contextual ads - and I would love to find out if there is any hard evidence out there either way? (other than the obvious Google and FB do personalised because it is more profitable. I know that and at FB scale a 1% profit improvement is worthwhile pursuit - but from society's POV that 1% diff may as well be irrelevant- it won't improve the mom and pop store bottom line enough for the damage it does.
- zpeti 6y agoThis is the million (or trillion) dollar question. I doubt its 1%. In fact I think its more like 2-3-4x revenue from personalised ads. Just a hunch. (side question - how do you do context ads for FB news feed? Because I can see it working well for youtube, if you know the topic of the video. Or google search, where you know the search. But I don't see how you can't NOT use personal ads in a newsfeed, whether on FB or twitter. There is no real context in a stream of random information)
- messutied 6y agoCan't you just use the context of the information? like put a technology related Ad right below a post related to technology, granted is not nearly as relevant, I think that's kind of like what Reddit does.
- jon-wood 6y agoI feel like whether particular data can be used for targeting should come down to whether there's a reasonable expectation of privacy. In the context of a Facebook news feed it seems reasonable to me that Facebook should have data on which news sources or groups I'm following, and so it's entirely reasonable for them to use that data for ad targeting. I don't feel like it's reasonable to expect that Facebook should have access to the history of all the websites I've visited, and data on the content of those websites, so it doesn't seem reasonable that they should be using that data to target ads at me. Similarly for Google, targeting ads based on things I've searched for on Google is entirely reasonable. Targeting them based on the fact Google Maps has picked up a BLE beacon saying I was in a particular shop seems a lot less reasonable - Google frankly have no business knowing that I was in that shop, especially given there's unlikely to be any signs up notifying me that my visit to that store is being tracked. I guess my underlying issue isn't in companies doing personalised ad targeting, its in the massive pools of seemingly unrelated data they're collecting to do that targeting. I've been immersed in the world of technology and aware of privacy issues around it for decades, and even I'm surprised by some of the things that are being correlated for the sake of a 0.25% increase in conversion rate. The average person doesn't have a hope of keeping track of what's being done, and changes like bringing that data collection front and centre when installed apps is a really positive move.
- FriedrichN 6y ago"At Facebook, small business is at the core of our business." Has someone here worked in marketing/PR? How can people write stuff like that and not feel incredibly dirty? This is a mostly honest question. Every time some super big company starts some campaign feigning compassion or act the victim I just want to barf.
- zpeti 6y agoThis isn't actually a lie. As much as you might hate FB using all your data for ads, that does actually mean that small businesses can hyper target their customers. I personally don't see any ads on FB for mass market products, like on TV (cards, detergent, back pain medicine etc). I see gadgets that are cool, clothes from small producers that are actually kind fo cool. They do actually help small businesses. As much evil as they do, you can't take this way from them.
- cwhiz 6y agoProve that hyper targeting is more effective.
- pfortuny 6y ago“At the core” being the relevant keyword...
- oblio 6y ago> They do actually help small businesses. As much evil as they do, you can't take this way from them. They help small businesses that make products... by killing all the small businesses that used to help these businesses sell their products (local newspapers, local magazines, local websites, local forums, and in general local advertising companies).
- ogre_codes 6y ago> I personally don't see any ads on FB for mass market products, This won't affect Facebook itself much at all, it's going to hit smaller apps who use Facebook's advertising in app. Haven't used Facebook in some time personally, but I can't recall much about advertising aside from the fact that it never interested me enough to actually click on it.
- akudha 6y agoPrivacy arguments, lying etc aside, how is taking out news paper ads to attack Apple a good idea? Apple may have problems, but they are infinitely better than Facebook in every metric imaginable. They make useful products, wildly profitable/bigger than Facebook can only dream of. Even if Facebook had facts on their side, this is a bad idea. Intentionally misleading ads against one of the world's richest, most capable, most arrogant company with an insanely good marketing machine and legal team - what exactly is Facebook attempting to achieve here? I don't understand this at all. They are picking a fight that doesn't make sense
- ogre_codes 6y agoThey are trying to sway opinions on the issue in their favor. My guess is they want small businesses owners or people who favor small businesses on their side of this issue. If you've used Facebook's advertising for your business or profited from advertisements in your app, this might be important.
- Razengan 6y agoRemember that this is the company whose app Instagram was secretly accessing your camera until that behavior was exposed in iOS 14: https://www.macrumors.com/2020/07/25/instagram-unexpectedly-accessing-camera/ https://www.macrumors.com/2020/07/25/instagram-unexpectedly-... WhatsApp was also randomly accessing photos. If you chose to only give an app access to some specific photos instead of all, it caused iOS 14 to ask you if you want to revise your selection every time the app accessed photos. This was happening at random times while using WhatsApp, even when you did not choose to send any photos to anybody at all. Also from Reddit: > Remember when Facebook was playing a silent audio file so it would continue running in the background and not get preempted by the OS?
- shrimpx 6y agoFacebook 2008: put all your private stuff on Facebook because it’s a better world when we’re all “connected”. Facebook 2020: oh, we monetize everyone’s private stuff because ... we’re a champion of small business. Facebook 2025: look, a bird!
- panacea 6y agoThis is the beginning of the end here for Facebook. Good riddance, and I hope you don't let the swinging door hit you on the way out.
- dartharva 6y agoThey seem to be going all-in with this campaign, complete with video cuts of reactions of "small business-owners" and whatnot: https://www.facebook.com/business/news/ios-14-apple-privacy-update-impacts-small-business-ads https://www.facebook.com/business/news/ios-14-apple-privacy-... This update seems to have touched a nerve for FB, and that to me means it's a good thing. I'm not a fan of Apple's restrictive ecosystem, but things like this that act in favor of user privacy deserve praise.
- runeks 6y agoFrom the link: > They’re not playing by their own rules. Apple’s own personalized ad platform isn't subject to the new iOS 14 policy. Is this true?
- pwinnski 6y agoNo, it is not.
- kergonath 6y agoI guess they are referring to ads in the App Store (as Apple does not have an ad network anymore). Even then that’s wrong, Apple does not track app usage for advertising purposes.
- throwaheyy 6y agoNot in the slightest. Apple is not tracking you across nearly every website you visit, like Facebook is.
- Rastonbury 6y agoThe pernicious nature of social media aside, Facebook also does not care about "small business" advertisers on its site. If you check some facebook ad groups, there's been big a random wave of bans for local businesses who spend hundreds or thousands on FB per month. They've also removed their live chat support, if you aren't a big account good luck speaking to a human and getting the ban reversed.
- unsignedchar 6y ago> Also worth pointing out: the apostrophe in the Facebook newspaper ad’s headline is wrong. A big old dumb quote mark. This is why I love reading Gruber
- jumelles 6y agoHe must hate Wikipedia's style guide.
- ph2082 6y agoAre there any research paper/studies available on benefits of online/mobile advertising for small businesses? Can't find anything useful on duckduckgo. Before fb/google small business seems to serve local demographies (mostly?), not sure how much they really benefitted by going/selling online. Eyeball-to-real-cash. Or may be they are just brain washed into online advertising benefits when there aren't any.
- cwhiz 6y agoThe world would be immeasurably better if Facebook vanished. What a cancer on humanity.
- mwexler 6y agoI felt some minor irony here... @ Most of the folks affected by these actions of Apple and FB don't read the physical paper; I sub to NYT online so never saw the ads. (But of course, it's not aimed at the people who might be impacted but the legislators who still love paper.) @ The newspaper sub is tied to my postal address. The ads are literally linked with pii... Which is the very thing the argument is about. (Well, I exaggerate, paper isn't tracking my actions, but still... ironic)
- motohagiography 6y agoStrange that with all the data about all the preferences in the world, the solution to their problem was to buy a newspaper ad because FB believes that the coalition they need to influence can still be reached directly that way.
- kgin 6y agoHas Apple announced when apps must be ready for this IDFA update?
- francoisp 6y agoThe small business support is a weak angle at best. There is a local small business that is dying/already dead that did just that and more: the local paper. I think History will look back as this and ascribe the craziness of these years to "social networking", and give Apple the white knight--good side, if they stay the course and prevail. I long for printed news that cannot change during the day, and for less influencers on influencing platforms.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- tomcam 6y ago> But in today’s world, it’s kind of transparent whom Facebook is targeting here: old white politicians. Because they’re all knuckle-dragging racists and completely identical in their thinking, amiright? Obviously politicians of every other race are free of bias or prejudice but the old white ones, well, you know what’s in their hearts. And it’s all bad intentions. Because they’re old and white, you see.
- ChildOfChaos 6y agoApple should sue Facebook for Slander. All apple is doing is giving users a choice and Facebook is twisting it to make Apple look bad as it effects there business, they are trying to paint Apple as the big corporate evil overlord by playing the small business card. Apple should grow some balls and double down.
- jkubicek 6y agoThis is being presented like Apple is eliminating the ability to perform hyper-specific ad targeting at individuals. No matter how locked down the Apple platform becomes, Facebook still knows exactly who my friends are, where I'm posting pictures from, what brands I've engaged with, that I really like outdoorsy pictures on Instagram. I'm fine with this, I'm engaging with Facebook and I expect them to use that data to target ads at me. What these changes in iOS affect is their ability to track me across my apps via the advertiser ID when I explicitly take steps to avoid being tracked (alternate email addresses, not entering my phone number). How can anyone defend Facebook's need to know everything I do on my phone despite me taking reasonable* steps to hide that information? * I feel the need to point out that my "reasonable" steps are for a moderately savvy user of technology. I'd guess that the vast majority of internet users aren't aware that Facebook knows everything you on almost any site you sign into with the same email address.
- musicale 6y agoThere are probably other tobacco-company inspired tactics they could try, like funding the social media institute to show that there is no harm from facebook and how it is a more accurate source of information than newspapers or other media; also how instagram posting is positively correlated with being more attractive than average humans. They could also sponsor courses in how to safely use social networking platforms.
- cush 6y agoThis strategy has never once backfired
- andrei_says_ 6y agoThis is one one hand incredibly satisfying to watch - seeing two multi billion companies decking it out in public. On the other hand, it is crystal clear that a non-million-pound-gorilla entity simply has no chance in protecting consumers from advanced surveillance capitalism.
- bergstromm466 6y agoI can’t help but think about the long game here. What complex PR strategies could potentially be employed here by Apple and Facebook together? I wonder if this ‘fight’ represents some sort of controlled opposition by Silicon Valley to win favorable regulation for the tech industry as a whole. By showing fake hostility/rivalry between Apple and Facebook, they can carefully control the overall narrative, and although this story focuses on a negative issue (which, let's be real, is not that much worse than the average person having already soured on Facebook), it could lead to premature, pro-corporate laws, rapidly lobbied for, and passed, through mostly tech illiterate senators (just look at all the senate hearings the past few years) [1]. To the average citizen, these new laws will seem like a transparent and proper attempt to address the problems in the tech/adtech space, but in reality they are psuedo-solutions, as they do not tackle the underlying root causes. In the end it allows the tech corps to slightly adjust their products (small concessions in the short term), after which they will slowly repurpose the old mechanisms into new shells, and continue with business as usual. I think a Prop22-inspired PR playbook is also in full motion here. This is corporate gaslighting of citizens in it’s most advanced form. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stXgn2iZAAY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stXgn2iZAAY