3 ms·

You’re just expressing that you have some beef with the company, not making an argument about the lawsuit. You could similarly talk about how Apple depends on s

You’re just expressing that you have some beef with the company, not making an argument about the lawsuit. You could similarly talk about how Apple depends on sweatshops to increase margins.

zepto 6y ago
Erm, no - nothing I just said is about expressive a beef. It’s just a description of Facebook’s core business. If Apple does use ‘sweatshops’, which they clearly do to some extent, that is a marginal part of their business, and not part of their business model at all. Selling Ads is what Facebook gets paid for. Targetting ads is why they can charge a premium for those ads. Keeping users engaged to content is how they reliably deliver a large volume of ads. This is their business.
- dhnajsjdnd 6y ago
  You said: > by tracking user behavior without consent so that they. can sell targeted ads, and by keeping users engaged with the ad delivery platform by presenting content algorithmically selected to provoke emotional reactions. Some things in here are the core business model, others are implementation choices that don’t have to be true (like the sweatshops). I don’t think it’s reasonable to say that the lawsuit should fail because they didn’t lead it with a list of complaints people have about the company (not would I expect Apple to include the same in their response).
  - zepto 6y ago
    “others are implementation choices that don’t have to be true” Are you able to identify one of these implementation choices that don’t have to be true?
    - dhnajsjdnd 6y ago
      Sure, “tracking without consent” is an easy one.
      - zepto 6y ago
        It seems like Zuckerberg disagrees with you on that. He seems to think it is a very important part of their business. I’d like to believe you are right and it’s just an implementation choice, but Facebook seems very determined to be able to continue the practice.
        dhnajsjdnd 6y ago
        I expect the lawsuit will be about how Apple is requiring users to opt-in for companies to be able to track ad conversions in some places but not others. Will require opt-in to track: Facebook ad conversion to buy an item in Wish’s store Facebook ad conversion to buy an app from App Store Won’t require opt-in to track: Amazon ad conversion to buy an item from a store on Amazon Apple App Store ad conversion to buy an app from the App Store Facebook’s proposed remedy might be removing the opt-in requirement, or adding the same requirement uniformly to create a level playing field.
        zepto 6y ago
        Why would this be relevant if tracking without consent is just an implementation choice? Why even bother with a lawsuit over it if it’s not an important part of their business? Wouldn’t they just let users opt-out if the wanted to? In any case, I think we have established that my characterization of facebook’s business was accurate. They wouldn’t be seeking remedies for something that wasn’t important to them.
        dhnajsjdnd 6y ago
        Because enough money is at stake to make it worthwhile to pay the lawyers, I’d imagine. > Wouldn’t they just let users opt-out of the wanted to? Users already could opt-out. I imagine the lawsuit will be about Apple’s recent changes, which unevenly apply an opt-in requirement that arguably picks winners and losers (see above). > In any case, I think we have established that my characterization of facebook’s business was accurate. They wouldn’t be seeking remedies for something that wasn’t important to them. Your claim is that Facebook is trying to mislead people about the lawsuit, and I don’t think you’ve established that at all.

You’re just expressing that you have some beef with the company, not making an argument about the lawsuit. You could similarly talk about how Apple depends on sweatshops to increase margins.

zepto 6y ago

Erm, no - nothing I just said is about expressive a beef. It’s just a description of Facebook’s core business. If Apple does use ‘sweatshops’, which they clearly do to some extent, that is a marginal part of their business, and not part of their business model at all. Selling Ads is what Facebook gets paid for. Targetting ads is why they can charge a premium for those ads. Keeping users engaged to content is how they reliably deliver a large volume of ads. This is their business.

dhnajsjdnd 6y ago
You said: > by tracking user behavior without consent so that they. can sell targeted ads, and by keeping users engaged with the ad delivery platform by presenting content algorithmically selected to provoke emotional reactions. Some things in here are the core business model, others are implementation choices that don’t have to be true (like the sweatshops). I don’t think it’s reasonable to say that the lawsuit should fail because they didn’t lead it with a list of complaints people have about the company (not would I expect Apple to include the same in their response).
- zepto 6y ago
  “others are implementation choices that don’t have to be true” Are you able to identify one of these implementation choices that don’t have to be true?
  - dhnajsjdnd 6y ago
    Sure, “tracking without consent” is an easy one.
    - zepto 6y ago
      It seems like Zuckerberg disagrees with you on that. He seems to think it is a very important part of their business. I’d like to believe you are right and it’s just an implementation choice, but Facebook seems very determined to be able to continue the practice.
      - dhnajsjdnd 6y ago
        I expect the lawsuit will be about how Apple is requiring users to opt-in for companies to be able to track ad conversions in some places but not others. Will require opt-in to track: Facebook ad conversion to buy an item in Wish’s store Facebook ad conversion to buy an app from App Store Won’t require opt-in to track: Amazon ad conversion to buy an item from a store on Amazon Apple App Store ad conversion to buy an app from the App Store Facebook’s proposed remedy might be removing the opt-in requirement, or adding the same requirement uniformly to create a level playing field.
        zepto 6y ago
        Why would this be relevant if tracking without consent is just an implementation choice? Why even bother with a lawsuit over it if it’s not an important part of their business? Wouldn’t they just let users opt-out if the wanted to? In any case, I think we have established that my characterization of facebook’s business was accurate. They wouldn’t be seeking remedies for something that wasn’t important to them.
        dhnajsjdnd 6y ago
        Because enough money is at stake to make it worthwhile to pay the lawyers, I’d imagine. > Wouldn’t they just let users opt-out of the wanted to? Users already could opt-out. I imagine the lawsuit will be about Apple’s recent changes, which unevenly apply an opt-in requirement that arguably picks winners and losers (see above). > In any case, I think we have established that my characterization of facebook’s business was accurate. They wouldn’t be seeking remedies for something that wasn’t important to them. Your claim is that Facebook is trying to mislead people about the lawsuit, and I don’t think you’ve established that at all.