26 ms·
Facebook's Hypocrisy on Apple's New iOS 14 Privacy Feature
- cmauniada 6y agoI feel that the general public either doesn't care enough or doesn't know what they are signing up for when they use facebook. If facebook made it mandatory tomorrow that you must opt-in or you won't be able to use their services, almost everyone will opt-in. Its simple as that.
- overton 6y agoThe fact that Facebook can even make this kind of argument seriously in the public sphere is a sad commentary on the prevailing ideological environment. Everything ultimately has to come down to "economic cost" and "economic benefit." I truly hope we're able to transcend this way of understanding value someday.
- anupamchugh 6y ago> If Facebook really sees app tracking transparency as a threat, it's time for them to rethink their whole ad business model.
- cpeterso 6y agoHow much extra value can Facebook squeeze from users by tracking them across mobile apps? Facebook users already reveal so much personal information and behavioral signals on facebook.com, something almost no other ad tech companies have. Facebook should lean into app tracking transparency because it will hurt smaller ad tech companies more than it will hurt Facebook. They can garner some goodwill in the press, instead of their sad display about “protecting small businesses”.
- pm90 6y agoThe problem is that a lot of the lucrative demographic is leaving or is at least not actively engaged with Facebook. Advertisers like to know very specific details about the demographics they want to target and all that juicy user data from other apps is just too hard to give up. Note their competition: it’s Google. Google does the thing where they try to track everything and if Facebook doesn’t do the same their platform loses value. And so the arms race continues.
- croes 6y agoEnough extra value for an ad campaign against Apple. So maybe they get more information than you think.
- YetAnotherNick 6y agoYes, that's true. But I was once thinking how many developers are directly or indirectly dependent on ad money. I believe that there would be quite a significant ratio of developers who would lose their job if the ad or even if just the personalized ads are stopped. Even mozilla, which is most active privacy oriented organization could only pay their developers through ad money. Thoughts?
- IanSanders 6y agoThere are people who's livelihood depends on illegal drug trade, doesn't mean it should carry on
- Razengan 6y agoFacebook is the company that secretly accessed your camera [0] and did other unsavory mischief [1] [0] https://www.macrumors.com/2020/07/25/instagram-unexpectedly-accessing-camera/ https://www.macrumors.com/2020/07/25/instagram-unexpectedly-... [1] https://old.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/kenyhx/in_light_of_facebooks_whining_about_apple/gg3xwn9/ https://old.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/kenyhx/in_light_of_f...
- anupamchugh 6y agoFacebook is also a company that never stood by small businesses. Instead it demolished them through threats, acquisitions or blatant copying(read: Snapchat stories, TikTok Reels). Today, they're expecting those small businesses and consumers to rile up against Apple. Their whole marketing stunt is laughable!
- ngngngng 6y agoI'm currently torn between a pixel 5 and an iPhone 12 mini. This is definitely nudging me towards the iPhone.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- searchableguy 6y agoPixel 5 isn't a great phone. You should go for pixel 4a which is $349 at retail or iphone 12 mini. Safari ad blockers are severely crippled and you won't have any choice in browsers. Ublock origin is available on android with firefox which is something to consider if you browse on your phone often.
- praptak 6y agoIt's sad that consumers rely on one corporation to defend their privacy from other corporations.
- peteretep 6y ago> It's sad that consumers rely on one corporation to defend their privacy from other corporations. Alternative take: consumers care about privacy and so the market is providing alternatives.
- jl6 6y agoThe promise of protection has always been the foundation of peasant support for their local feudal lord.
- bnjemian 6y agoApt.
- pm90 6y agoThis seems true in any society. There will be power dynamics where fewer people will control and exploit larger numbers of people. The US has had a different experience post WW2 where power was institutionalized in Government agencies and unions but the recent anti Government hysteria seems to have broken that for good leaving the majority (once again) at the mercy of the wealthy and the powerful individuals.
- EthanJJackson 6y ago"It’s a no brainer that the search engine giant will be compelled to bring a similar anti-ad tracking feature on Android to keep the mobile ecosystem in sync." Huh? Perhaps I'm missing something, why would Google do the same? Seems out of their interests ...
- sniperjzp 6y agoBecause Android users will switch to iOS for better privacy, Google needs to develop something similar to keep the market share.
- pm90 6y agoIs there any reason to think users care about it enough to switch based solely on this feature? Apple has been posturing itself as the privacy-first platform and so far it doesn’t seem like Android/Google is stepping up to challenge that (afaik, would love to see evidence that they are).
- kmonsen 6y agoI don’t think google will do it until users start leaving in significant numbers at least. And that’s seems unlikely.
- searchableguy 6y agoAndroid updated its permission system after iOS. You had to agree to all the permissions an app needed before installing it but they changed it to be progressive like iOS and I think it's more flexible than iOS now. For example, my phone has the ability to disable network permission for single apps like wifi, vpn, data, etc from settings. > Is there any reason to think users care about it enough to switch based solely on this feature? People buying flagship android phones definitely. They cost as much as iphones. Others, I am not sure.
- bnjemian 6y agoIt may not be as clear cut as this – if an Android user cares about privacy, then they're probably using the OS in spite of its relatively poor privacy. Maybe this will be the one thing that for a small minority of those users makes them switch to iOS, but I'd expect that number to be closer to a rounding error. From that perspective, the upside for Google integrating a similar feature into Android seems comparatively small.
- ogre_codes 6y agoFacebook and Google have completely smashed the online advertising industry. The whole reason online advertising is so difficult to profit on is because Facebook and Google have sucked all the profit out of the room. The Open Web is a total shambles because of nonsense from Google and Facebook so many companies don't even have an alternative to fall back on... Now Facebook is claiming they are defending small business. What a joke. Anything which causes Facebook to make this much noise must be good.
- applerite987 6y agoBoth Google and Facebook have rigged online advertising. Apple is doing GOOD!
- TechBro8615 6y agoIs this supposed to be a parody of a Trump tweet? It’s pretty good!
- HenryBemis 6y ago> Apple is doing GOOD! only on the ad/privacy/security section. On the "we con you to buy a new $1000 phone every year by manipulating the CPU/battery so instead you paying $70 for a new battery, we skin you" they did pretty bad and I will never buy another Apple device for that. On the "we force you to buy our OWN UNIQUE cables because f... the global standards and nature" they are still doing pretty bad On the "look we are installing NFC on our phones, a true innovation" when other phone makers have been for years, but still don't let you use the device freely" not so good either. On the "you can only buy (iOS) apps from us and nobody else, yeah!" I don't find that so good either. So.. .there is a saying, there are two ways to have the tallest tower. Build the tallest tower, OR make sure the competition doesn't build theirs. There is a small(?) chance to try to cripple a lot of the competition's (ad) profits by introducing these controls. I am pro-privacy and exist outside the FB and Google ecosystems. Apple is doing that good, but they ain't saints. They still got plenty way to go to sainthood. They need to fix/correct plenty of things, and some are not fixable.
- 6y ago
- pm90 6y agoThe article doesn’t seem to make any factual claims about why Facebook is wrong in claiming that small businesses will be affected negatively by the disruption in personalized ads. It’s clear that making tracking opt in instead of opt out will make most users chose to not enable tracking leading to lesser personalized ads, which would affect the ability of smaller businesses to reach a targeted audience that they care about without needing to spend more than necessary. That’s the point being made by Facebook and I do see the logic there. I expected a better rebuttal to Facebooks argument.
- bnjemian 6y agoThey're not wrong; but the implied alternative argument is that individuals should have a right to privacy, which as a right supersedes the privilege of small businesses to serve targeted ads. To me that's a lot more compelling than what Facebook is advocating.
- pm90 6y agoThat makes sense to me, and I would like it if this was what was being argued, rather than trying to paint the company as evil or hypocritical.
- beagle3 6y agoBut they are being evil and hypocritical. Facebook does not care about small businesses - so instead of responding to the thin veil of "but think of the small businesses!", people are responding to the underlying concern that Facebook really has - their own welfare (which .. they have described in their quarterly filing to the SEC with estimated loss of revenue)
- pm90 6y agoI don’t necessarily disagree with the characterization per se but I don’t think it makes for a convincing argument to most people who don’t particularly care about morality when dealing with what a corporation does.
- vmception 6y agoFacebook tried gaslighting us and it backfired. Go take over a small island to sell them your opium, we're done here.
- iso947 6y agoI was looking to buy a kindle for Christmas The ones with adverts which are pushed were available for next day deliver. The ones with no adverts which I wanted weren’t available for months. In the end I didn’t buy a kindle. What is it with companies that want to splat adverts everywhere.
- easton 6y agoYou can buy a Kindle with ads and then pay the difference when you log into it to remove them. https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=GJHYWUURJ5A6YMBU https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=...
- PaulRobinson 6y agoAdvertising provides recurring long-term income that far exceeds the amount you're prepared to pay for most devices. Each individual online across all devices is worth about $200/year in advertising revenue ($200bn in global revenue over about a billion individuals). Take a share of that every year and you end up making more than you would have made on the device sale without that.
- sneak 6y ago> The biggest takeaway from this feud is that Google has surprisingly stayed silent all along. > It’s a no brainer that the search engine giant will be compelled to bring a similar anti-ad tracking feature on Android to keep the mobile ecosystem in sync. Google is an ad company, just like Facebook.
- engineeringwoke 6y agoYeah the whole point of that game with Android was to have unfettered access to personal data. They will never change that unless somebody or something twists their arm.
- zstring 6y agoI am surprised that no one talked about Apple's hypocrisy here. They will not be showing any of these warning to any of their application. If they are really interested in privacy then they should be doing for all the applications including their own.
- tpetry 6y agoAre they doing? Is the books or podcast app harvesting information for better app store ads? This is an honest question! I have not yet seen any hint for this, but that does not mean they dont do it.
- Klonoar 6y agoI've interviewed with the iCloud/CloudKit teams and I'm reasonably certain that the way they dogfood it internally means that they use the same setup we do, where the same ID isn't persisted across applications. People like to claim that Apple gets a free pass here but they legitimately do seem to build their apps more or less silo'd, as they should be. If you want the soundbite: if Apple tracked you across apps, their recommendation systems (be it app store or whatever) wouldn't royally suck. But they do. ;P
- lovecg 6y ago> If you want the soundbite: if Apple tracked you across apps, their recommendation systems (be it app store or whatever) wouldn't royally suck. But they do. ;P It’s honestly a breath of fresh air. There’s no sleazy salesman vibe that comes with a lot of overly personalized recommendations.
- djxfade 6y agoAnalytics is still allowed in iOS. The problem with Facebooks approach, is that they link that data with cookie tracking, making them able to track you around on all websites and apps that integrates a login with Facebook, or a share and like button.
- toper-centage 6y ago
- abtom 6y agoI highly doubt this blocking by Apple will have much of an impact on Facebook's tracking ability. For one, any time you use the internet via mobile data, Facebook (or any other site) will get your phone number, name and other personal data via your ISP. There have been several threads on HN regarding this in the past. When you're not, your IP address along with data via fingerprinting techniques would be more than enough to uniquely identify you. This is only likely to make it slightly harder to track the small fraction of users already taking strong measures to prevent being tracked.
- tchalla 6y agoLet’s assume that it wouldn’t impact Facebook’s tracking ability. If so, there’s nothing to worry for Facebook. It’s surprising that Facebook is engaging in a PR war with Apple for something that doesn’t impact their core business.
- abtom 6y agoYou could say it is cutting off the most accurate and cost efficient method for Facebook to track iOS users. A dozen other tracking methods still exist but they might be slightly worse in terms of cost/accuracy. Definitely something to cry about.
- tchalla 6y agoSo, it DOES have an impact on Facebook's tracking ability.
- dylan604 6y agoIf it has FB screaming this loudly, I'm guessing it is having much more impact at FB than you are giving it credit. If it meant nothing to FB, then they'd just look at the changes from Apple, and shrug it off. No public outcry necessary. This is not what FB is doing.
- abtom 6y agoThe US gov puts massive pressure on Apple and Google to insert backdoors into their phones even though third parties have forever been able to crack them. It's all about cost. The first party tracking enablement was given to Facebook for free since the beginning. Now it's being taken back. Now they need to pay ISPs and invest more strongly in fingerprinting efforts. I'm all for the move - it is a step in the right direction. But in isolation, it doesn't change much for end users - they are still being tracked at a similar level. Facebook is trying to spin it as an end to personalized ads as a whole, which it definitely isn't.
- sfifs 6y agoThere's much more to this than meets the eye. I believe the basic reason Apple delayed implemening the proposed iOS 14 IDFA policy change is that Apple has their own ads business for promotion of app store installs which was using a device identifier in exactly the the same way as other publishers for conversion attribution. However permissioning for this sharing with Apple is controlled under a different "default on" setting under Settings > Privacy > Apple Advertising than the one proposed for IDFA which is case by case permissions request. From what i am given to understand, due to this dichotomy, ad networks threatend Apple with anti-trust lawsuits if they went ahead as a classic argument of using an advantage in one market (device and OS they control) to unfairly shut out competition in another (ads) could be made. Now Apple will probably disable or remove this dichotomy in some way before they roll out the policy change but they probably will still have other problems. For instance their skadnetwork API [1] which they use for their app installs ads business and recommend to other ad networks supports only app installs conversion on their own app store and not other forms of conversion (eg. buying in e-commerce etc). But if they now restrict other forms of conversion attribution that used to be possible previously, could an argument again be made that they are using their dominance in one field to unfairly kill competition in another. I think the only way Apple can implement this policy change without wading into an antitrust minefield is to completely give up their own ads business. But i suspect it's quite lucrative, otherwise why wouldn't they already have shut it down? This is by no means a done deal. Let's get out the pop corn and watch the fun. [1] https://developer.apple.com/documentation/storekit/skadnetwork https://developer.apple.com/documentation/storekit/skadnetwo...
- dmje 6y ago"It’s a no brainer that the search engine giant will be compelled to bring a similar anti-ad tracking feature on Android to keep the mobile ecosystem in sync." Is this a no-brainer? I don't know the intricacies of the industry well enough, but seems this is a clincher...
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- string 6y agoEven if Facebook's claim were true, I have precisely zero sympathy for any company that runs ads anyway.
- yumraj 6y agoFacebook is like a thief that is unhappy that a building owner is putting locks so that it is not able to steal from the tenants.
- lovecg 6y agoJust swap the “building owner” with the “mafia boss” that demands 30% cut of the services you use for this protection.
- machiaweliczny 6y agoFunny because for most of people building owners charge more than 30% of salary.
- objclxt 6y agoFacebook doesn’t make its money off in-app purchases. Apple isn’t taking a cut of Facebook’s ad revenue. Your analogy really doesn’t hold.
- TedShiller 6y agoI don't understand Facebook's concern. Apple is merely allowing users to OPT IN to tracking. It doesn't matter if tracking is good for small business, because it's the users that are being tracked. And if Facebook tracking is so great for the users, then clearly every user will opt in. So why is Facebook worried? The only reason Facebook could be worried is if they know tracking is bad for users.
- fingerlocks 6y agoImagine for a moment that you want to advertise your new iPhone app on Facebook. It’s important to know if someone clicks an ad and downloads your app. That’s called a Conversion. It’s used to measure the effectiveness of the ad campaign and the value you gain from spending money on an ad. The flow of information from Facebook to iPhone app install needs some kind of per-user unique identifier. That’s unique ID is what Apple wants to remove, which breaks the advertising model in entirety. It also hurts small businesses that want to advertise on Facebook. Does that help understand the situation?
- nojito 6y agoWhere’s your proof that advertising or tracking conversions even works in the first place? https://freakonomics.com/podcast/advertising-part-2/ https://freakonomics.com/podcast/advertising-part-2/
- Aaargh20318 6y agoIf I put an ad in a newspaper, or a commercial on TV, and this ad results in a customer purchasing my product, they don't give me a 'unique ID' for the ad that triggered their purchase. Hell, the ads aren't even targeted to a specific user, only to the audience of a paper or TV network. Yet, when I open a paper or turn on the TV, there are plenty of paid advertisements. Why would the web need to be any different ? Don't charge for clicks, just charge for showing the ad. Don't target ads based on personal data collected from users, target them based on the content of the page they're shown on. You know, just like TV and print ads have always done.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- dustinmoris 6y agoSerious question, is anyone here on HN still actively using Facebook (not WhatsApp or Instagram)? Maybe I live in a bubble, but I literally don't know a single person, young or old, who still uses Facebook. Based on my personal experience I don't understand how this social network still has any relevance?
- hiq 6y agoSome had commented in the past that they still use some groups to interact with their local community (think parents and the school of their children). It was on HN so I guess it was in the US? Other features that are still relevant: the marketplace, events, and pages from businesses where complaining can actually lead to an answer. This year I was waiting for refunds from some sport events, and the only way for me to get some updates or at least know if other customers were happy with a 30% refund (!) was to check the Facebook page of the business. Businesses have a bigger pressure to answer since it's public: no answer to a lot of angry comments is bad for them.
- patatino 6y agoGood question, nobody close to me uses facebook anymore.
- Nextgrid 6y agoFacebook itself has lost relevance (though almost everyone I know has an account, even if they don't use it as much), but Facebook's other properties like Instagram or Whatsapp are still very popular.
- jerrygoyal 6y agoI use it mainly for fb groups 1. flat n flatmates groups - when moving to different city, this by far is the most efficient way to find genuine flats and flatmates (you can see the background profile of person which gives you some context). 2. to join niche communities like Notion group on fb.. kind people there helping each other out. I love hanging out there.
- Havoc 6y agoFB messenger yes
- beagle3 6y agoThere's even more hypocrisy than that in the whole thing: Facebook has -- by far -- the greatest audience reach of any media (except perhaps Google, depending on how you slice the data). Why would they put out ads in newspapers? Is this part of a play to deflect antitrust attention? Is it because newspaper reach to lawmakers is better than Facebooks? Is it because, per dollar spent, a newspaper is more effective at gaining mindshare? THe mind boggles. Regardless, FB's last quarterly filing indicated that the main business to get hurt from Apple's changes is ... FB, so these ads are obviously post-event rationalization about why it's bad for others as well (and it might be a bit, but ... I think it's good for society on average, with Apple being the big winner, FB being the big loser, some businesses being small losers and users being small winners)
- onlyrealcuzzo 6y agoAren't newspapers the traditional venue for this type of corporate announcement / ad?
- dkobia 6y agoAs an owner of a small business, Facebook's point about small businesses is not inconsequential. Targeted advertising does reduce the cost of advertising pretty significantly for any small business or startup. Without it we're left with brute force advertising that only large companies can afford. As a consumer I'm thrilled at possibly getting some control back and I will likely switch back to iOS. I am conflicted.
- fauigerzigerk 6y agoOn the other hand, small businesses have to pay Google/Facebook for the targeting. It's the targeting that shifts so much power and such a large share of profits to these two middlemen.
- dm319 6y agoWould this significantly impact on targeted advertising?
- dkobia 6y agoProbably. Both Google and Facebook have other ingenious ways to target however. The IDFA tag was low hanging fruit.
- bigphishy 6y agoMaking a claim like only large companies can afford "brute force advertising" is full of fallacies. There are many other methods marketing that do not use personalized "adtech." "Adtech" is a very small fraction of ways to engage you audience. To top that off, "adtech" is inaccurate, ineffective, and overpriced. Just think about all of the lies people put into their profiles, and all the ad blockers people have installed. We shouldn't accept that "adtech" is cheaper and more effective on face value, and we certainly shouldn't accept that the only alternative is to do mass "brute force advertising." e.g. look at what Tesla has done without spending any money on ads, they used Musk's twitter reputation to amasse great publicity. This method, among others thanks to the open internet, is available to all creative marketers.
- bluesign 6y ago
- joshsyn 6y agoI get lot of Junk ads from Facebook. Good riddance
- helsinkiandrew 6y agoWhilst anything that increases consumers privacy feels good, I wonder if this will increase the amount of advertising on the web. Targeting is being used because it works - if targeting can't be used then amount of advertising will increase to reach the same audience. Targeted ads do help small business - they let anyone advertise their business cheaply because the ads are getting to those that may be interested. Otherwise you have to advertise so widely only large companies can afford it and we'll be seeing wall to wall coca cola adverts.
- mentos 6y agoWhat if targeted ads are hurting small businesses by being too targeted? Maybe there is a chance that dentists advertising to just people who brush their teeth is missing a large part of their potential market?
- helsinkiandrew 6y agoTargeting works by adjusting itself to advertise more to people who look similar to those who have responded (clicked) on the adverts already.
- msiyer 6y agoThis is a stupid deal: User gives away data for free to these corporations and they sell it to make insane profits. Those that pay for such data pass on the costs to their customers. Eventually, it is the same user who gave away his data for free that pays too. Double taxation.
- daodedickinson 6y agoI finally am coming to understand I am just one of the millions of faceless idiots that're more and more surely gonna be rendered silenced or abused further or dead. No one has any privacy without at least a remote lot with a Faraday cage, which I don't know a way to ethically come to be able to afford.
- wil421 6y agoIs there a way to tell if an app is using the Facebook tracking SDK?
- cwhiz 6y agoOh poor poor Facebook. Someone is finally coming around to turn off their despicable surveillance apparatus. What a horrible company, run by horrible humans.
- forestwisp 6y agoMight be true, don't forget for a minute that Apple is just as much "a horrible company, run by horrible humans." Nevertheless, Apple doing this because they want to increase their profits from AppStore purchases is definitely a good thing for end user privacy so it's a good conclusion.
- cwhiz 6y agoThere is nothing stopping any app developer from displaying non-targeted advertising. And there is no evidence to support the idea that targeted advertising is actually more effective.
- intrasight 6y agoIsn't the case that you can already opt out, as I do, by just visiting facebook.com using Safari and AdGuard on iOS instead of installing the Facebook app? And doesn't this very public controversy now mean that everybody knows this? I'm not defending either side but just pointing out that we already have the choice.
- JW_00000 6y agoThis is talking about apps that use the Facebook SDK, which allows Facebook to track you across apps (and websites). This includes apps such as Dropbox, Spotify, Yelp, Duolingo, and many others [1]. [1] https://privacyinternational.org/blog/2758/appdata-update https://privacyinternational.org/blog/2758/appdata-update
- intrasight 6y agoThanks for clarifying. And that article was informative too. Understanding this further does make me less hesitant to side with Apple here. I use Duolingo (spinoff of my alma mater), and I understand that they depend upon ads to fund their business. But my understanding is that user consent is only needed to get the unique advertising id. So apps just need to be more creative with contextual ads, and get to know their users directly instead of depending on Facebook.
- ajnin 6y agoWe've reached a pretty sad point when whether a multi-billion dollar corporation gets to spy on millions (billions?) of people is decided by another multi-billion dollar corporation. It feels like we're moving closer every day to the cyberpunk trope of privatized everything, no government, and corporations running the show. Our governments are not doing their jobs.
- coward8675309 6y agoFacebook is being sleazy, but they're not being hypocritical. In America, casting yourself as the champion of Small Business™ is nearly a time-honored a tradition among scoundrels as is wrapping yourself in the American flag.
- coward8675309 6y agoI don't think Facebook is playing the long game very effectively. They and Google have more attention share of consumers than nearly anyone else, and they're going to benefit, relatively, from Apple's or the EU's or California's clamping down on the hoovering of personal data and identifiers vis-à-vis other actors in the mar-tech/e-commerce ecosystem.
- coward8675309 6y agoWhat we're witnessing, mercifully, is the strangling of programmatic advertising. So much of the app install business — the thing that is most at stake to Facebook here — is in free-to-play games, which are going to be plummeting in profitability as those apps become a less effective means for the delivery of programmatic ads. Programmatic advertising has so many negative externalities that we should all cheer the diminution of this industry. Breitbart and Infowars and a million other toxic cesspools pandering to all manner of human weakness wouldn't exist without programmatic, the means by which these sites both grow audiences and monetize themselves.
- bluesign 6y ago"plummeting in profitability" this part is to be seen, to be honest my guess is it will stay around the same range (if google would join I would even guess that it would go up after this change).
- jchonphoenix 6y agoApple is applying opt-in rules to everyone except themselves. You can't opt out of data collection for Apple apps and that data will power Apple ads. If this isn't anti competition I don't know what is.
- bluesign 6y agothis is about IDFA, not tracking on apps, tracking on ad networks. So still facebook can track you in facebook apps.
- jchonphoenix 6y agoYou should read the actual proposal. I think you have a few facts wrong. 1. Data sharing on app store downloads is now opt in. 2. Apple apps are exempt because they are managed by different settings. You cannot opt out. 3. FB and Apple both plan to use this data to target their ad networks.
- bluesign 6y ago1. It is not data share, it is advertising identifier (idfa) you will still have access to (idfv) vendor identifier. 2. Apple apps are not exempt. (Even weather app is asking for location permission after permission change about location, this is no different) 3. Yeah apple and google are after data from other applications, applications you installed, how much you are using, basically everything. Amount of idfa provides is unbelievable.
- solidsnack9000 6y agoWhat I wish this article would discuss is how, numerically, Facebook's claim about the impact on small businesses is wrong. One of the great faults of public dialogue today is the low standard of evidence -- effectively everything is the opinion page.
- dhruvkar 6y ago>> Attacking Apple through such campaigns only shows how less Facebook actually cares about user’s privacy. In fact, it clearly portrays that Facebook is only interested in retaining and monetizing off the user’s personal data to preserve their monopoly I don't understand naivete like this. Businesses are there to provide a product and in return, make money. They are entities that don't "care" about anything -- good or bad. OF COURSE they care about maintaining their competitive advantage. Which business doesn't? Why is that cause for outrage? It's like saying: "Monkeys are only interested in picking out lice and eating bananas. Shame on them." The personification of companies and the outrage over that personification just seems misinformed.