12 ms·
Facebook Employees Say Apple Fight Is “Self Serving”
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- neallindsay 6y agoThe article says some Facebook employees are complaining about Facebook's actions. Based on the link text here (Facebook Employees Say Apple Fight Is “Self Serving”) I thought they were complaining about Apple's actions.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- vmception 6y agoI read the headline and assumed it was Facebook employees complaining about Facebook's actions.
- b4mboozler 6y agothe underestimated power between words and meaning and why context matters, for full disclosure: I assumed the opposite
- CobrastanJorji 6y agoOf course it's self serving. It's possible that it's true, though I disagree, but Facebook ain't running full-page ads in major newspapers because it feels strongly about it from an ethical perspective.
- Waterluvian 6y agoAre corporations capable of ethics? I'd love to read about any good examples of a large company acting in an ethical way that was objectively harmful to its bottom line (factoring in the financial benefit of PR stunts).
- JKCalhoun 6y ago> factoring in the financial benefit of PR stunts That makes it a little difficult to argue with you, doesn't it? Many companies recycle (use recycled goods) where non-recycling (non-recycled goods) would be cheaper. But you can just spin that as PR that offsets the added cost. I guess at the end of the day do I care if it is PR?
- Waterluvian 6y agoI thought that too when I wrote that line. What I'm aiming for, I think, is intent.
- CobrastanJorji 6y agoNewman's Own is a for-profit corporation that gives 100% of its profits to charity (about 5% of revenue). All 501(c)(3)s are corporations. They largely exist to achieve ethical, charitable goals.
- ummonk 6y ago"They largely exist to achieve ethical, charitable goals." I wouldn't go that far. There are certainly 501(c)(3)s that actually focus on charitable goals, but many are just focused on enriching their execs and tax avoidance.
- mmcdermott 6y agoI guess I would argue that, for the purposes of ethics, corporations don't exist. They are just people-groups organized (more in a flocking sense than a regiment) around some particular goal. So, to rephrase the question, can an arbitrary collection of human beings behave ethically? The answer largely depends on your worldview, of course, but all unethical actions are taken by humans. Sure, it is a useful mental model to think of a corporation as a gestalt whole for some things, but that's all it is - a mental model.
- fake-name 6y ago
- harry8 6y ago>Facebook ain't running full-page ads in major newspapers because it feels strongly about it from an ethical perspective. Why do they need to do this at all? Surely as a vendor of advertising they can use their own to greater and cheaper effect? Or is their advertising not quite what they claim?
- fumar 6y agoI am sure it is hard to change internal FB momentum. Facebook prioritized user data access at all costs over the last decade. Apple is pressuring all app developers to be transparent with consumers and explain what user data is collected. Users can opt out. That is the crux of the issue for Facebook. They want users to continue sharing data and they don't want anyone grant users the option to opt-out. Excuse my rhetoric but that is weak argument for a feature that will benefit consumers. It will not stop marketers from investing in FB ads. But, it does put the onus on FB to develop privacy centric advertising capabilities. That is a good thing.
- factorialboy 6y agoI can't buy the Apple "good samaritan" act. Apple is not fighting for privacy. Only recently, due to an apple service outage, most of this community were reminded that apple logs everything done on their manufactured devices including trivial acts such as opening an app (note I avoided saying "their devices" because it is our device that we purchase). They track what apps you open and use, siri is always listening, they control what apps can be installed via appstores, the entire ecosystem is a lock-in, forget about hardware upgrades or right to repair. Facebook isn't the lesser evil. It is the less potent evil.
- sneak 6y agoI'm the author of the article that seemed to alert everyone to Apple logging that app launch data. Apple does indeed care a lot about user privacy. The system that was logging that data was an effort to prevent malware on end user systems. They are taking steps to encrypt the data, and I would be unsurprised if they use bloom filters to keep the list of apps clientside only. The privacy issue with Apple isn't that Apple is some shade of "evil", it's that Apple takes the view that your data is safe with Apple because they won't misuse it, and that they know how to keep it safe. In the age of warrantless FISA orders (known to some as PRISM, which we know thanks to Ed Snowden) mentioned and counted explicitly in Apple's own "transparency report", we now know that that isn't true. Apple knows it, too. If the government can take any of your store user data at any time without a warrant, at what point after you have become painfully and totally aware of this fact do you become complicit in the fact that you are part of the state surveillance apparatus? At what point do you have a moral obligation to stop collecting data from your customers, knowing that if you save it, it will be available to the state, without a warrant, for all time? This is the issue with Apple, not some lack of focus on customer privacy. Apple cares a lot about customer privacy, but they seem to have punted on the fact that Apple having customer data also means that the state surveillance organizations have access to all of that same data, as well. Apple's surveillance-enabling lack of end to end cryptography (or the backdoors they've placed in the end-to-end encrypted parts like iMessage) is the real issue here. I don't think Apple wants to surveil your non-e2e iCloud Photos or nudes in iMessage attachments in your non-e2e iCloud device backup to sell ads or something - but they know or should know that the state does want to surveil this information, and they definitely know that the US government victimized 30,000 Apple users in that fashion last year, without a warrant. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusive-idUSKBN1ZK1CT https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusiv...
- the-dude 6y agoImagine Apple blocking out Facebook like they did with Flash.
- KaiserPro 6y agoinstagram drives a good percentage of camera upgrades, sadly.
- netsharc 6y agoHmm... Apple already has a "social network" with iMessage. It would be interesting if they made an Instagram competitor, so you can publish photos/videos for friends. But I guess the main pull of Instagram is that you can reach the general public and be "an influencer".
- JKCalhoun 6y agoYou can already share "Abums" from Photos in the Apple ecosystem. Yeah, not the same thing.
- zepto 6y agoiMessage meets nobody’s definition of a ‘social network’. It’s a chat app / messenger.
- throwaway744678 6y agoAnyone remember Ping? Now, that was a real social network!
- nomel 6y ago> instagram drives a good percentage of camera upgrades, sadly. How is that sad? People who enjoy a social networking site mostly about photos need cameras. Making a purchase based on real world examples of something that you find interesting/enjoy is not a negative thing. The capabilities of the new phone cameras are often very noticeable and very different, especially recently with low light, wide angle, good HDR, and portrait modes, which could only be found in dedicated cameras, which these people are not interested in. That's the progression and normalization of "high tech". That's fine.
- mimikatz 6y agoI'm starting to think the company I work for might just be in it for the money.
- vmception 6y agowoah there, your California mandated board member might quit with that talk
- julienfr112 6y agoIs there a meme for that ? like the dog in fire saying "this is fine" ?
- joejerryronnie 6y agoBoth companies are being hypocritical. FB is of course trying to spin their image to be the “champion of small business”, when the only thing they care about is ad revenue. And the only reason Apple is so pro-user privacy is because their business model doesn’t depend on user data, i.e. they don’t have skin in the game. If FB was smart, they would attack Apple as supporting the death of middle-class America by outsourcing their labor to overseas sweat shops and being in bed with the CCP.
- Gibbon1 6y agoAlso Apples management hates the idea of fb spying on them. Just like everyone else but even more so.
- Nbox9 6y agoSoftware companies do not have moral high ground to attack hardware companies for labor practices because software companies benefit from cheap and plentiful hardware. If Facebook was only able to be accessed by hardware produced by fair labor practices then they would not have a social network worth talking about. In addition, I doubt Facebook’s Portal and Oculus series of hardware have significantly better labor practices than Apple.
- joejerryronnie 6y agoI’m pointing out that neither company here has the moral high ground. If you’re bashing FB but defending Apple, then you too, are being hypocritical.
- amanaplanacanal 6y agoI think it’s perfectly reasonable to defend Apple for this particular stance without having to marry them.
- JKCalhoun 6y agoYes, something FB has no skin in the game regarding. Of course, how many of their customers use Apple hardware?
- mtnGoat 6y agoisn't every business decision self-serving in a capitalist business? i mean lets be honest, facebook didn't get to be its size by being nice and altruistic(nor did any of the other FAANG'ish companies).
- tyrust 6y ago> In response to the discussion on his post, Levy [Facebook’s vice president for ads] said the campaign was “not about our business model.” > “That’s Apple’s marketing working and convincing you to scapegoat us so they can decide how the internet should work — even beyond their devices,” he wrote. “I’m an optimist who works in technology because I think tech can be a lever for democratizing access and giving opportunity. Including for businesses. And if you think this is going to stop with personalized ads . . . well, then I disagree.” Allowing users to choose whether they want to be tracked passes the decision of "how the internet should work" from companies that sell ads to the users. It sounds like Levy just wants to remain in control of that decision. Then he has the audacity to mention "democracy" despite wanting to remove power from the majority of the affected people.
- JKCalhoun 6y agoSlippery slope argument. "Sure, it's tracking today, but next they'll want to make it illegal to browse without an iCloud account!" Shrill.
- handedness 6y agoAs if Facebook needs Apple's help to look bad. While I'm under no illusion that Apple is somehow the lone bastion of mega-corporate ethics, Facebook's interests don't align with mine in any way. Apple's interests do to some non-zero degree, so in this particular instance I don't have an issue with Apple pursuing their interests at the expense of Facebook's.
- prox 6y agoAt least with Apple it’s a product and I can vote with my wallet. With Facebook the client is the advertiser, exactly what this campaign is all about. I don’t have the feeling the users interests are Facebooks interest beyond a shallow need to keep governments of their back.
- laurent92 6y agoI like when people say « Apple products are way overpriced! » – That is the price point when the company sells the raw iPhone with no partnerships inside. In 2006 most phones were feature phones, locked-in with the phone operator. Apple’s strategy has always been to be independent. It costs more to the end-user, but the end-user is the sole buyer. Their strategy is the same with Facebook: Thanks to their independence, Apple can decide in favor of the consumer.
- agildehaus 6y agoI wouldn't mind a return to less commercialized web and I certainly wouldn't mind one where privacy-invading ads weren't required to be competitive.
- yelling_cat 6y agoOf course Facebook's fight is self-serving, and of course they'll spin that fight in whatever way will gain them the most public sympathy for it. Anyone even casually familiar with the company would have expected them to try to stop Apple's changes outright rather than agreeing to any kind of compromise that might impact their bottom line. The only surprise here is that people who work for the company have been surprised at its response.
- spoonjim 6y agoOf course it's self serving, that doesn't mean it's not right or that others can't benefit from it. For example, companies fighting Apple on the App Store 30% cut are self serving, but them winning that fight will directly benefit me.
- user-the-name 6y agoHow does Facebook winning the fight against Apple asking you to opt in to being tracked help you?
- bryanrasmussen 6y agothey said fighting apple on the 30% cut benefited them, Facebook fighting Apple asking you to opt in might benefit other companies (than Facebook)
- TedShiller 6y agoIt's actually user-serving. Users want to be a part of the decision of whether or not and how they are tracked by ad networks. Always.
- cronix 6y agoI might be inclined to believe you if they weren't, at the same time, pocketing around $8-12 BILLION a year[1] to keep Google as the default search engine. They are privacy-centric when it serves them in the public eye (FB currently has shit reputation) on one hand but will happily accept cash to keep the stock price up in the other hand. [1] https://www.npr.org/2020/10/22/926290942/google-paid-apple-billions-to-dominate-search-on-iphones-justice-department-says https://www.npr.org/2020/10/22/926290942/google-paid-apple-b...
- xondono 6y agoI might be inclined to believe you if that meant Google is the only choice. The first thing I recommend anyone with an iDevice is to switch to ddg.
- cronix 6y agoRight, Apple is asking you to opt-in for facebook tracking you, but opt-out of Google tracking you. Why aren't both opt-in if user-privacy is the true motive? One company pays 8 Billion for that, the other doesn't?
- colejohnson66 6y agoWell, the rumors are that Apple is working on their own search engine... Remember the Apple Maps fiasco with iOS 6? That was because Google wanted more data on the users and Apple refused. So Google left and the whole story was spun as Apple’s fault by the media.
- xondono 6y agoI don’t care for the default as long as the choice is there. Facebook wants to take that choice from users.
- TedShiller 6y agoI don't understand why Facebook is worried about Apple's changes. After all, if Facebook tracking is indeed good for users, then users will overwhelmingly and enthusiastically opt-in.
- KaiserPro 6y agoFacebook might have a point, however the PR team really are so utterly stuck in their own bubble they have failed to understand that they've not done the legwork. The problem is that internally the Comms people believe the shit they post on workplace, which is that facebook is all about supporting small businesses. The issue is that they are so ineffectual that most people only know this when they sit through the 2 day bootcamp induction. If they want to pull this kind of stunt off then they needed to have spent the last six months bombarding print and TV with their success stories. But they haven't, they've just reached out and referenced numbers that only true believers know. Basically Facebook's PR appears to be amateurish and unable to understand how to interpret public sentiment. for a company supposedly so good at data, they are sure as shit terrible about commissioning and understanding opinion polls.
- fakedang 6y agoIsn't Nick Clegg part of their PR/Spokesperson team? That explains a lot.
- bengale 6y agoI’d take a guess that the reason their current ad campaign is coming across so tone deaf is because a lot of Facebook employees are having to spin themselves a story to justify their own morality while working there. This story is now meeting reality and surprise surprise it doesn’t line up.
- brundolf 6y agoThis is obvious to everyone on the outside. I'm glad some Facebook employees see it too.