26 ms·

Facebook testing notification to users about Apple privacy changes

446 points by asimpletune 6y ago

ArmandGrillet 6y ago
Wow, those encouragements are very weak. "Get ads that are more personalized", "Support businesses that rely on ads to reach customers": why would I support businesses relying on that when only 1 out of 5 ads in my feed is not garbage? These encouragements make me think that Facebook seems to believe that their ads are useful, which is a bit insane from a user perspective.
- tehjoker 6y ago
  Tech companies have been using this kind of rhetoric since the early 2000s. Back then, people were sympathetic to helping keep websites online, especially blogs and such owned by individuals. The line has lost its charm when it's turned into an inescapable global surveillance apparatus.
- 1123581321 6y ago
  I’m not on Facebook so I can’t speak to what you personally see. However, I think the “support small business” angle is going to be somewhat compelling. I have, for example, two friends who are starting a niche business, offering a good and ethical service, and reaching people in that niche through Facebook and Instagram ads. The customers they find love what they’re doing and happily paying. If I had Facebook, I could see doing my small part to help them find a few more of those types of good businesses succeed. I also kind of despise Facebook, hence no account, so I don’t mind if this permission screen fails. :)
  - bluesign 6y ago
    I bet for every one small business like your friend, there is 10 scammy business (something like selling 1$ item for 20$ with 40% discount) who is betting 10x more than your legit friend for impressions.
    - 1123581321 6y ago
      I’d love to see numbers if you have them. The idea that hurting bad small businesses is a positive externality is intriguing. I suppose we could hope that, opt-in or not, the move away from easy user tracking could benefit ethical businesses more than what you describe.
      - bluesign 6y ago
        Unfortunately I cannot share any data from the accounts I manage (mainly competitors are the shady ones), but simply you can go let's say instagram or facebook, and log the ads you saw (without clicking) in a single session (like first 20), then you can go check them. Probably what you will be interested will be almost at the end of the list, the first ones will be high margin products. To be honest, I don't see hope for ethical small business without user tracking. That's why Facebook is pushing that angle, even it is very small percentage on the overall. Big players will be almost not effected anyway.
  - purplecats 6y ago
    I have no empathy for them. I tried to advertise my dating business on there, and got insta-banned both times because they basically don't let you compete with their dating services.
    - ddoolin 6y ago
      Wow! Really. I'm currently working on a nascent dating business and that's kind of disappointing to hear as I was counting on being able to advertise through that channel. Thanks for sharing.
      - purplecats 6y ago
        advertising for dating services are nontrivial across most of the popular domains on the web. you need to contact support and go through special processes, even for Reddit Ads.
    - 1123581321 6y ago
      I agree that’s wrong. Sounds like potential fodder for some of the ongoing legal surrounding Facebook.
  - mrtksn 6y ago
    Were there no small businesses before FB and internet tracking? Is there any proof that FB actually helped out small business? Wouldn't showing ads for tech on a tech site and ads for women beauty products be shown on a site targeting women be a good replacement instead of profiling you and tracking you everywhere to determine that you might be a woman interested in JS IDE and Aloe Vera cream?
    - 1123581321 6y ago
      Those are good questions. I would love to see more browsing of independent websites. I think the question is what to do when people don't do that as much anymore, and other forms of marketing communication are too expensive for fledgling businesses.
- grishka 6y ago
  Have you ever talked to someone who works in adtech? They do sincerely believe that ads are helpful to people.
  - otabdeveloper4 6y ago
    Complaining about advertising is like complaining about money. Advertising is inevitable in any economy.
    - wtetzner 6y ago
      I'm OK with advertising existing, it's just the way in which it's being conducted that's objectionable.
  - lumost 6y ago
    I worked in ad-tech for years, ultimately the convincing data is that people actually do click on ads. They do buy the products, and they do this more often than they would have had we not shown the ads at all (for some market segments). I've often wondered if there is a population of users who simply hate ads to the extent that any impression will be net negative value to the advertiser, and what mechanisms could be used to stop showing them ads. There used to be services which let you purchase all of your own ads, but I think people want something more transparent which outright removes them from the services they use.
    - local_dev 6y ago
      >if there is a population of users who simply hate ads to the extent that any impression will be net negative value to the advertiser This segment of the population absolutely exists and I would guess that it is growing. Many people in my circle block ads on every device possible. Seeing any ad is an immediate negative impression for my group of friends. This is entirely anecdotal, but I've seen this same sentiment in many other circles and am hearing it more and more often.
    - grishka 6y ago
      > I've often wondered if there is a population of users who simply hate ads to the extent that any impression will be net negative value to the advertiser Yes, I would characterize myself as such. The best products gain their exposure through word of mouth, and don't need paid advertising. Incessantly raping my eyeballs with your brand would just make me hate it even more. Especially so if it's happening on my own electronic devices against my will. But then there are people who legitimately want to be advertised to — I know some personally. > I think people want something more transparent which outright removes them from the services they use. These are called ad blockers. I use them in some form on every device I own.
- gameman144 6y ago
  Agreed that a lot of ads are useless, but I've personally seen a few that I wouldn't have otherwise known about. For instance, there's a really cool used technical bookstore near me that I only discovered because I saw an ad for it. Also I would have missed a Humble Bundle that I really liked without an ad. Don't get me wrong, I probably hate the average ad more than most people (any Liberty Mutual ad just makes me angry), but to say that ads are not useful from a user perspective is a bit too absolute a position; for me, the good ones definitely are useful.
  - latexr 6y ago
    Would you say those occasionally useful ads are worth the added stress (extrapolating from your words: “hate”, “angry”) of having to see other ads? If you do, I dispute the claim you hate the average ad more than most people, as would millions of Adblock users.
    - gameman144 6y ago
      Meh, to me these feel like separate buckets. I dislike a lot of ads that I find to be irrelevant or patronizing, which is why I run uBlock online for most sites, but "stress from seeing bad ads" isn't the only factor here. It seems like there are three big possibilities: 1. I see ads, and some of them cater directly to me. In this case, I see a lot of irrelevant/patronizing ads, but also some ads that make me see a product or company I like. 2. I see ads, and none cater directly to me. I see a lot of irrelevant/patronizing ads, and fewer ads that show me a product or company I like (and especially fewer that can only afford to market to people that are likely to buy their product, e.g. a sale at a local toy train repair shop or something). 3. I see no ads at all. This is what I default to on the internet, except for some whitelisted sites. There is no stress from seeing bad ads. There is also no possibility of serendipitously finding a new product/company I want to try. A lot of people are strongly in camp #3. That's fine, I'm in camp #3 for most of the internet. However, given that I have found value out of some ads, it's hard to put "stress from bad ads" against "joy from products I found through ads" on a single scale. As such, I can empathize with camp #1. Likewise, I understand that camps #1 and #2 can be important monetization mechanisms for websites that I support, and I'm fine taking that hit in exchange for those websites still existing (as I'm sure most others are -- if ad-blockers disappeared overnight, my gut tells me that the average person wouldn't change many of their browsing habits by a lot.) To me it seems like the lesser of two evils that if a company needs to show me ads (in a privacy-respecting way), then I'd like more of those ads to be relevant. All that said, I'm happy to be wrong here, and maybe I underestimate how much other people hate bad ads too (and also, all the above options assume respect for privacy in ad-targeting, something that I don't have nearly enough insight to even make educated guesses on.)
JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago
The button saying "Ask App Not to Track": is it binding or non-binding? If I kindly asked an app to not track, I'm fairly certain the app would tell me to pound sand.
- Nextgrid 6y ago
  "Ask App Not to Track" just means the app will be denied access to the IDFA (which you can already do by turning on "Limit ad tracking" in settings). It's worded like that because this can't prevent the app from using something else (IP address or device fingerprinting) to track you.
  - JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago
    Is the discussion moot if users can be easily fingerprinted without IDFA? It makes life slightly more difficult for advertising partners and social media companies, but not impossible. It's just a small additional barrier to friction that buys Apple some good PR.
    - criddell 6y ago
      If it was irrelevant, Facebook wouldn't be worried.
    - Nextgrid 6y ago
      At least it’s a start.
    - K0nserv 6y ago
      That’s against Apple’s guidelines, violations of which will get your app kicked off the only distribution channel on iOS. We’ll have to see how this shakes out in reality, but as a deterrent it’s pretty strong.
      - JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago
        Apple might dislike Facebook, but it's difficult to imagine a world where it's removed from the App Store.
munchbunny 6y ago
I'm glad Apple is at least making sure users are aware that this is even a thing. While people on HN are much more likely to follow the issue and do something about it, a lot of laypeople are just vaguely aware that Facebook might be a privacy problem without really understanding what levers they have to manage it themselves.
- whammywon 6y ago
  Yes, but I think it would be a bit naïve to think that Apple is doing so out of the kindness of their hearts. Apple already has access to all the metrics that Facebook would be interested in. It seems to me like this is a set-up for Apple to force FB to buy the data directly from them.
  - judge2020 6y ago
    But Apple isn't selling any of that data (which is really just 'downloaded apps' - they don't have the web browsing habits that FB and GOOG have). Their financial interest here is selling privacy with the price being the ongoing commitment to buy Apple products.
    - whammywon 6y ago
      Perhaps, but who is to say that they don't have plans to branch out into that business? It's possible that they have no intent to do so, but a corporation's primary interest is making profit. And what would be a simple, yet significant, source of new revenue? Selling user data.
      - TimothyBJacobs 6y ago
        They tried offering an ad service called iAd that would do things the "Apple" way. No one used it.
  - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
    > it would be a bit naïve to think that Apple is doing so out of the kindness of their hearts Good. If they were doing it out of charity, a bit profit pressure, shareholder activism or change in management and the move is reversed. Being grounded in sound business logic and self-interest makes me trust it.
notyourwork 6y ago
Why would anyone agree to this? I don’t see a benefit to letting Facebook or any company track me across the internet. When did we ever decide this was what consumers wanted? Every time this topic comes up I check Facebooks stock price and realize how detached people are from facebooks revenue driven by the advertisement market.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- meekrohprocess 6y ago
  People like you and I didn't decide that it was what we wanted. We just have no other options, because the companies which impose the terms aggressively snuff out or buy up their competition. I would argue that people are accepting these terms under duress; "consent" is the wrong word. The market believes that Facebook et al will be able to continue enforcing their will unilaterally, and that is good for the companies, so their stocks go up.
  - randmeerkat 6y ago
    Everyone has options. I deleted FB years ago. No one actually needs FB.
    - meekrohprocess 6y ago
      I agree in principle, and so did I, but there's no denying that it puts a major crimp on your social life. It's wrong that people are forced to decide between accepting predatory terms or losing touch with friendly acquaintances. Also, if you own a small business, there's a real chance that you'd rely on Facebook for a significant portion of your business, because without a presence on their platforms you had may as well not exist.
      - umvi 6y ago
        > but there's no denying that it puts a major crimp on your social life In what way? Social lives existed before 2008 when FB went mainstream. I don't have a FB anymore, and I still text my friends for get-togethers.
bezout 6y ago
I think that this is going to end well if: - Facebook educates people about how the company uses their data - Apple doesn’t make it hard to access data for companies that got their users’ consent
bnj 6y ago
It's simultaneously remarkable and utterly unremarkable that Facebook has been dragged kicking and screaming into building a consent screen for this kind of tracking. Watching this tracking notification conflict unfold in the media has really helped me to refine where I stand on this: if a business depends on non-consensual tracking to be able to survive, then I'd prefer that the business has to fold before stripping users of their opportunity to understand and agree to the surveillance infrastructure at issue here.
- kibwen 6y ago
  You're more forgiving than I am. As far as I'm concerned, individual-targeted advertising has such inherently perverse incentives that even those starting out with good intentions (e.g. consensual opt-in) will eventually find themselves engaged in unethical, privacy-eroding behavior as a matter of course. Consider what would happen if you outlawed individual-targeted advertising. Ad relevancy falls overall. What then? Would ad companies like Google make less money? Not really. Overall advertising budgets are not dominated by the effectiveness of advertising, but by adversarial spending by their competitors. Companies have to spend money on ads because the competition is spending money on ads. It doesn't matter how absolutely effective the campaign is, as long as it's relatively more effective than your rival's. Would consumers spend less money? No, a consumer has a budget that is independent of the relevancy of the ads they see. The advertising industry thrived for a long time in the absence of individual user tracking. It could do so again.
  - imheretolearn 6y ago
    >> Overall advertising budgets are not dominated by the effectiveness of advertising, but by adversarial spending by their competitors I would like to know how this conclusion was reached. By that logic, the advertising industry would not really need individual targeting at all
    - panta 6y ago
      Individual ad targeting is needed only as soon as someone does it. It is not “needed” per se.
ruined 6y ago
do i get a consent screen if i don't have an account
- metalliqaz 6y ago
  if you don't have a FB account, why would you install the app?
  - code_duck 6y ago
    FB has been known to maintain marketing profiles for people who have never or no longer use their services.
  - rolph 6y ago
    in my case i would install so i can sniff the connections and suss out the code where possible, likely tuck all that away into a folder for development of a putative anti app.
yters 6y ago
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theonion.com/cias-facebook-program-dramatically-cut-agencys-costs-1819594988/amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theonion.com/cias-facebook-...
- reaperducer 6y ago
  Non-Amp link: https://www.theonion.com/cias-facebook-program-dramatically-cut-agencys-costs-1819594988 https://www.theonion.com/cias-facebook-program-dramatically-...
  - yters 6y ago
    I wonder if Google ever sanitizes web pages filtered through its amp servers.
- acheron 6y ago
  I thought the more appropriate one is https://www.theonion.com/entire-facebook-staff-laughs-as-man-tightens-privacy-se-1819571532 https://www.theonion.com/entire-facebook-staff-laughs-as-man...
tnt128 6y ago
Here is the logic, if you allow tracking, we would show your more relevant ads, if you don’t allow, we will spam the shit out of you. Either way, you see tons of ads, but allow tracking, you see ads more relevant. Of course that’s not how they word this. They framed it as a benefit, Notice how it’s worded - allowing for better personalized ad experience - I bet when worded this way, a good percentage of people will think, of course I want the ads to be more related to me and click allow.
- gowld 6y ago
  What's wrong with ads? Facebook costs money and effort to produce for its users to enjoy. I don't use FB, but people who do use presumably enjoy it.
  - cwkoss 6y ago
    Because Facebook's ads require a panopticon of surveillance across every page with a FB like button in order to function in current form. People are sending much more data to facebook than they realize, and are typically upset when they learn the scope of facebooks dragnet. If Facebook only used data from the Facebook platform itself (and none of their web of acquired companies), I think people would have much fewer objections to the tracking.
erentz 6y ago
What would happen if legislation were passed to ban all tracking, across the board? Perhaps also inclusive of limits on targeted advertising also (to reduce the incentive to gather personal data). It seems this kind of universal disarmament (so to speak) still leaves FB in the same dominant position from an advertising perspective. It has the same huge audience, and it’s advertising product is the same as everyone else. If so why wouldn’t FB be actively lobbying for this right now? (I’m just putting aside questions of monopoly, etc. Purely from an FB self interest stand point.)
- lumost 6y ago
  There are a few factors at play here when it comes to advertising. 1) Digital is taking over all ad-channels 2) Digital ads can be tracked and attributed ways that were never possible with traditional media 3) It turns out most non-targeted ads aren't actually that effective, and aggregate ad spend is falling. FB ads are effective and high value because of tracking. If tracking goes away, FB ad revenue will fall to that of banner advertising at roughly 1/100th to 1/10000th the price per impression that FB currently receives. Such a change would effectively force a rethink of the entire consumer technology business, and see FB/GOOG re-structure to some form of subscription revenue or shutdown large feature sets and product offerings which would no longer be tenable.
  - grishka 6y ago
    How much does Facebook earn from one user, $1 a year? No one would've died if they switched to a $1/year subscription model. People tend to respect companies that are honest with them. Except Facebook won't ever be able to regain its reputation, but still.
    - judge2020 6y ago
      https://mondaynote.com/the-arpus-of-the-big-four-dwarf-everybody-else-e5b02a579ed3#e27f:~:text=Facebook%E2%80%99s%20revenue%20per%20user%20is%20roaring.,does%20that%20with%20a%20free%20service https://mondaynote.com/the-arpus-of-the-big-four-dwarf-every.... Depends on the metric you use. > Facebook’s revenue per user is roaring. For Q4 2018 vs. Q4 2017, it’s global ARPU increased by 19 percent to $7.37, and the US-Canada ARPU by 30 percent to $35. Between 2011 and 2018, the social network global ARPU rose nearly 6x, while the US-Canada grew 11x. With a domestic revenue per user of $112, Facebook is the equivalent of a publisher charging $9 a month. It does that with a free service.
alex_young 6y ago
Can’t FB incentivize this a bit? I understand that they can’t gate the app with ad tracking approval, but what if they promised to provide you with discounts on the merchants this tracking promotes or something like that?
- sneak 6y ago
  Better: Opt in or your WhatsApp stops working.
  - nerdo 6y ago
    Opt in or get universally deplatformed and lose access to the banking system. Private companies btw.
United857 6y ago
Not unique to FB, these days it seems every news site has (at least) a nag popup if a ad blocker is detected, with many having a hard block on content.
- grishka 6y ago
  Disabling JS for that site helps and most news websites don't make any good use of it anyway.
  - metalliqaz 6y ago
    do you use a plugin for that?
    - grishka 6y ago
      Yes, this one: https://github.com/mtimkovich/one-click-javascript-toggle https://github.com/mtimkovich/one-click-javascript-toggle
mensetmanusman 6y ago
Usually Apple hates when App developers make any user prompts that points out changes Apple has made. I wonder if Apple will pull the Facebook app in response.
hourislate 6y ago
Do people who use facebook actually care about privacy? I can't understand why any user would want to be targeted by tailored ads or any ads for that matter? It's psychological warfare with the goal of separating you from your money. Stop spending, you'll realize you don't need all that shit they try to peddle. Less is more...
- judge2020 6y ago
  The difference is that this will show up for every app that uses FB's audience network to show and make money from ads, so many mobile games will have this show after install.
- edmundsauto 6y ago
  I think most people prefer ads to paying for something. The ads are only a means to what they care about.
- jraph 6y ago
  > Do people who use facebook actually care about privacy? Many people probably both use Facebook and care about privacy. Many probably would rather quit Facebook but think they can't because a part of their social life they think important is there. Or even a part of their education is (many students have a Facebook group for their class). I sympathize with you but it would help to try and understand people who care about privacy but still use Facebook if the goal is to solve this problem. I've had luck so far I haven't got trapped in Facebook though.
  - latexr 6y ago
    > Many probably would rather quit Facebook but think they can't because a part of their social life they think important is there. I like that you used “think” in there; it makes all the difference. As Mike Monteiro tweeted[1]: > I’ve heard excuses from people who want to quit Facebook but can’t that would make heroin addicts blush. [1]: https://twitter.com/monteiro/status/321048448889663488 https://twitter.com/monteiro/status/321048448889663488
- kin 6y ago
mensetmanusman 6y ago
I wish we had consent forms like this in regards to medical data. There is so much to be learned and gained if people were more sharing of aggregate data in this area.
grishka 6y ago
> Apple’s new prompt suggests there is a tradeoff between personalized advertising and privacy; when in fact, we can and do provide both. We provide both as long as you trust us.
Lammy 6y ago
I'm impressed (in a bad way) at the subtle emotional manipulation in the combination of "support businesses" and the header image they chose for this design.
- mtnGoat 6y ago
  i wonder if that would have even be a useful ploy if covid hadn't of damaged so many businesses in the last year. tugging on the ole heart strings.
blinktag 6y ago
I don’t know if the mockup is what will actually appear in production, but there is some psychology about showing a flower and a smiling black woman. The image plays first to trust (nature, a mother figure, the smile) and if that isn’t enough, secondly to guilt (I need to start trusting black women) to prime the user into accepting the prompt. Imagine if it were a cartoonish Mark Zuckerberg with his tight little smirk, and instead of a flower, a piggy bank. Facebook isn’t stupid or random. This image must have been very carefully developed and run past some of their staff PhDs. Assuming this is real.
metalliqaz 6y ago
Does Android have any analogue to this kind of tracking protection?
- metalliqaz 6y ago
  Ok I found that Google does have a GAID/AAID and you can hide it in Android under Settings -> Google Services -> Ads
rolph 6y ago
actual title: "Facebook testing notification to users about Apple privacy changes"
- dang 6y ago
  Yes, that was bad. Changed now. (Submitted title was "FB testing screen to encourage users to accept active tracking") Submitters: please follow the HN rules, which ask you "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
3gg 6y ago
Do not miss the Facebook articles linked from the page. "We disagree: personalization doesn’t have to come at the expense of privacy. We can do both, and we can do both well. We’ve built products that lead the industry in transparency and offer settings and controls to help people manage their privacy." "So if you recently bought a hiking backpack from a local outdoor gear supplier and are no longer looking for a new one, you can choose to remove the outdoor gear supplier from this list of businesses, and disconnect that information from your account." For a company that prides itself with transparency, you could start with not lying to people in such a blunt and despicable way. See, I don't want you to know that I bought a hiking backpack. Why should you know? Why do you think you are the arbitrer of the market, that people cannot do their own research and that small business need you? This is a false premise, and your position is a blatant JOKE that at this point is also sad and unremarkable. Stop lying to people, you sad surveillance capitalists. https://about.fb.com/news/2020/12/personalized-advertising-and-privacy-are-not-at-odds/ https://about.fb.com/news/2020/12/personalized-advertising-a... https://about.fb.com/news/2020/10/a-path-forward-for-privacy-and-online-advertising/ https://about.fb.com/news/2020/10/a-path-forward-for-privacy...
danShumway 6y ago
> "Apple’s new prompt suggests there is a tradeoff between personalized advertising and privacy; when in fact, we can and do provide both." It's a somewhat bold but not completely implausible claim to argue that highly personalized ads are compatible with privacy. There are theoretically schemes that could make that work. But it is, however, a wicked bold claim for Facebook to go a step farther say they are already currently providing both privacy and personalized advertising. Does anyone, at all, believe them when they say that?
midrus 6y ago
The more I know about Facebook, the more I like Apple
chrischen 6y ago
Facebook makes so much money off of tracking users... why don’t they just start paying us.
twostorytower 6y ago
I would hate to be the PM on this project. They would be lucky to get 5% conversion. That's still worth billions in the long run.
indymike 6y ago
In the end, they will end up asking each user until they consent.
comeonseriously 6y ago
That's all well and good, but does anyone believe that this won't be a broken feature? Edit: Also, I am absolutely positive that some of my family will agree because they'll think FB would not work correctly (update their feed) otherwise.
29athrowaway 6y ago
Myspace wasn't that bad after all.
wackget 6y ago
It's hugely ironic that this article is written/hosted by a website which runs entirely via the Google AMP platform. You can't read the article without going via Google's AMP servers, unless you use a website like https://printfriendly.com https://printfriendly.com to parse it for you.
- ffpip 6y ago
  Disable javascript for axios.com. You can do it with uBlock Origin. Then simple click Firefox's reader mode icon. Even if the page is blank, just click the reader mode icon.
2Gkashmiri 6y ago
what... benefit can facebook offer to its sheeps now with this consent screen? pennies?
moolcool 6y ago
"Support business which rely on ads to reach customers" Well if you put it that way... still no.
Havoc 6y ago
>Ask App Not to Track Gotta love how they flipped that phrasing around from facebook asking you for permission to you requesting something from them. This whole thing reeks of having been A/B tested to death for max psychological manipulation without straying into territory where they can be accused of aggressive dark patterns.
- RL_Quine 6y ago
  That's the text provided by apple.
  - Havoc 6y ago
    I see. Then my comment was misguided
imheretolearn 6y ago
I am happy that this is happening. It was about time someone gave it back to FB. FB has time and again crossed boundaries for which it has had to apologize everytime. It seems like they cannot regulate themselves so someone from the outside has to step in. I hope this changes the individual tracking landscape a bit even though the Big G is still a larger issue that needs to be addressed
kerng 6y ago
To be honest, I dont accept the argument that extremly detailed tracking is the only way to show relevant ads. High level information is probably enough and I'm sure FB would still make tons of money by even showing random ads. Makes you wonder if there is actually another reason for collecting all that data? Like building AI and ML models for other purposes.
- cwkoss 6y ago
  If regulations don't prevent them from doing so, I expect FB to pivot into Surveillance As A Service for authoritarian states.
0x0 6y ago
So I guess you should click "Allow" in the first facebook-designed prompt, to trigger the second Apple iOS level system prompt, and click "Don't allow" there, to actually register the do-not-track request to be enforced on the OS/API level? If you just click "Don't allow" on the first FB screen, it doesn't look like iOS will know about the do-not-track preference at all?
yalogin 6y ago
I am really surprised the amount of tantrums FB is throwing in this saga. This is a golden opportunity for them to reset their platform and change their brand in the world. Large businesses don't get these kind of opportunities often and this is something, I thought, they will seize. I really thought they will build security/privacy into their platform and weed things out. They could have gone to a paid model in some cases and doubled down on privacy in others. They would have lost revenue in the short term but would be great in the long term. However, they are doubling down on the catering to fear mongering, cult marketing type things and kicking and screaming without much to show.
- Balgair 6y ago
  Likely this is because they do not have other options. Ever since 2016, they have been 'alerted' that their stack is fragile to regulation and other outside forces. Zuck has been hauled up in front of Congress a few times now over many things, including the tracking issues. The C-suite is very much aware of the problems. I suppose they are trying to throw a fit now, and then relax to their secondary position when they must. But knowing how large bureaucracies (don't) work, there is no fall-back position. There is no 'there' anymore.
golondon 6y ago
if FB stops using IDFA completely and just create the profile out of the logged in user ID, wouldn't that be enough? At the end of the day, mobile Facebook app gets most of its data from FB servers? So, If someone has liked /YellowBirds page and spent 2 hours on /BirdsBirdsBirds page, you kinda get they are into the birds? Wouldn't that already provide looots of information? If they don't use IDFA, I guess they would loose capability of linking the events from different apps. I don't know targeted advertising world that much, but is that a big deal? I think even without cross app tracking, FB has capability to provide quite detailed targeting. I'm not sure why they reacted this aggressive, feels to me like there is egos involved, possibly Zuck struggling to accept Tim can force him to do something. Other thing I wonder is how this notification going to look like in the apps using FB SDKs.
DLay 6y ago
Are all the smaller social media companies like Twitter, SnapChat, TikTok, and Reddit struggling with Apple’s new rules too?
albanberg 6y ago
It would be great to see the public bombard these companies with a demand for privacy. Petitions/demonstrations/email campaigns...whatever it takes.
racl101 6y ago
I'm ok with Facebook having to beg for my permission to use my data instead of just taking what they want without telling me.
cellar_door 6y ago
lol @ people who think Apple pushing back on FB tracking is out of their goodness of heart. They want FB to introduce a subscription model so they can rake in that sweet 30% commission. I am in favor of more consumer options, always prefer subscriptions to ads/tracking, and am a huge fan of Apple products. The issue is more that 30% commission is extortionate imo.
temp667 6y ago
Thank goodness we've all been conditioned by the EU cookie consent screens to say yes to every damn popup that pops up! Seriously - the EU is bombarding us with damn cookie notice screens. I wish apple had been more in charge of the web than these EU folks.
cronix 6y ago
From what I gather, Apple has been using IDFA since 2012. It's baked into the OS and Apple generates the ID. It was enabled by default. Before IDFA, Apple used UDID. My question is why did the privacy focused Apple ever include such a thing in the first place? They provided the tools. Others, like FB, used it and were profiting. I'm no fan of FB (I don't have an account) but it seems the blame is being laid at the wrong feet? https://branch.io/idfa/ https://branch.io/idfa/
bluelu 6y ago
I know that this is unpopular here, but a lot of people (including me) don't mind that they get targeted ads. If you fear for abuse, then there should be clear laws what should not be allowed and severe punishment for this. But forbidding facebook to track behaviour and then allowing apple to do so (e.g. they even track what programs you run, is just wrong. Who knows, maybe apple will even start its own "privacy" network later on.
karmakaze 6y ago
A horrible thought experiment: What if FB only maintained their Android mobile app and made iOS second class, gradually lagging in features and operational support/stability? If that experiment 'succeeds', Instagram could follow. What do you suppose would be the outcome?
- jlawer 6y ago
  It might make some hard core Facebook users shift to android. They will get lower engagement metrics from iOS users (the smart thing to do is to try again with moving to a web app). But the declining engagement of iOS customers will likely hurt Facebook monetarily more then the lack of fidelity with targeting. The problem is the iOS demographic often correlates with one of the most valuable to advertise to. While targeting will become harder again, which might hurt prices, overall its not like that ad spend is going to go away. Targeting will become more coarse-grained, but at the end of the day, facebook has so many on platform data sources, that it remains quite profitable to serve them.
  - karmakaze 6y ago
    Perhaps better as an all-at-once: if you want FB or Instagram not on iOS. If Instagram 'influencers' are in fact that and can only reach their network on Android they wouldn't really have a choice. Of course I wish a shift did happen, but driven by consumer values (right to repair, appstore policies) to a more open platform.
xtat 6y ago
File under "in-app PR"
f6v 6y ago
I met my fair share of wantepreneurs in the last couple years. The majority has no business plan and even no intention of making money. However, they’ve got an answer if you ask them: “We’re going to sell the data!”. This idea of collecting and selling the data to someone just became so deeply rooted into their minds.

446 points by asimpletune 6y ago

Wow, those encouragements are very weak. "Get ads that are more personalized", "Support businesses that rely on ads to reach customers": why would I support businesses relying on that when only 1 out of 5 ads in my feed is not garbage? These encouragements make me think that Facebook seems to believe that their ads are useful, which is a bit insane from a user perspective.

tehjoker 6y ago
Tech companies have been using this kind of rhetoric since the early 2000s. Back then, people were sympathetic to helping keep websites online, especially blogs and such owned by individuals. The line has lost its charm when it's turned into an inescapable global surveillance apparatus.
1123581321 6y ago
I’m not on Facebook so I can’t speak to what you personally see. However, I think the “support small business” angle is going to be somewhat compelling. I have, for example, two friends who are starting a niche business, offering a good and ethical service, and reaching people in that niche through Facebook and Instagram ads. The customers they find love what they’re doing and happily paying. If I had Facebook, I could see doing my small part to help them find a few more of those types of good businesses succeed. I also kind of despise Facebook, hence no account, so I don’t mind if this permission screen fails. :)
- bluesign 6y ago
  I bet for every one small business like your friend, there is 10 scammy business (something like selling 1$ item for 20$ with 40% discount) who is betting 10x more than your legit friend for impressions.
  - 1123581321 6y ago
    I’d love to see numbers if you have them. The idea that hurting bad small businesses is a positive externality is intriguing. I suppose we could hope that, opt-in or not, the move away from easy user tracking could benefit ethical businesses more than what you describe.
    - bluesign 6y ago
      Unfortunately I cannot share any data from the accounts I manage (mainly competitors are the shady ones), but simply you can go let's say instagram or facebook, and log the ads you saw (without clicking) in a single session (like first 20), then you can go check them. Probably what you will be interested will be almost at the end of the list, the first ones will be high margin products. To be honest, I don't see hope for ethical small business without user tracking. That's why Facebook is pushing that angle, even it is very small percentage on the overall. Big players will be almost not effected anyway.
- purplecats 6y ago
  I have no empathy for them. I tried to advertise my dating business on there, and got insta-banned both times because they basically don't let you compete with their dating services.
  - ddoolin 6y ago
    Wow! Really. I'm currently working on a nascent dating business and that's kind of disappointing to hear as I was counting on being able to advertise through that channel. Thanks for sharing.
    - purplecats 6y ago
      advertising for dating services are nontrivial across most of the popular domains on the web. you need to contact support and go through special processes, even for Reddit Ads.
  - 1123581321 6y ago
    I agree that’s wrong. Sounds like potential fodder for some of the ongoing legal surrounding Facebook.
- mrtksn 6y ago
  Were there no small businesses before FB and internet tracking? Is there any proof that FB actually helped out small business? Wouldn't showing ads for tech on a tech site and ads for women beauty products be shown on a site targeting women be a good replacement instead of profiling you and tracking you everywhere to determine that you might be a woman interested in JS IDE and Aloe Vera cream?
  - 1123581321 6y ago
    Those are good questions. I would love to see more browsing of independent websites. I think the question is what to do when people don't do that as much anymore, and other forms of marketing communication are too expensive for fledgling businesses.
grishka 6y ago
Have you ever talked to someone who works in adtech? They do sincerely believe that ads are helpful to people.
- otabdeveloper4 6y ago
  Complaining about advertising is like complaining about money. Advertising is inevitable in any economy.
  - wtetzner 6y ago
    I'm OK with advertising existing, it's just the way in which it's being conducted that's objectionable.
- lumost 6y ago
  I worked in ad-tech for years, ultimately the convincing data is that people actually do click on ads. They do buy the products, and they do this more often than they would have had we not shown the ads at all (for some market segments). I've often wondered if there is a population of users who simply hate ads to the extent that any impression will be net negative value to the advertiser, and what mechanisms could be used to stop showing them ads. There used to be services which let you purchase all of your own ads, but I think people want something more transparent which outright removes them from the services they use.
  - local_dev 6y ago
    >if there is a population of users who simply hate ads to the extent that any impression will be net negative value to the advertiser This segment of the population absolutely exists and I would guess that it is growing. Many people in my circle block ads on every device possible. Seeing any ad is an immediate negative impression for my group of friends. This is entirely anecdotal, but I've seen this same sentiment in many other circles and am hearing it more and more often.
  - grishka 6y ago
    > I've often wondered if there is a population of users who simply hate ads to the extent that any impression will be net negative value to the advertiser Yes, I would characterize myself as such. The best products gain their exposure through word of mouth, and don't need paid advertising. Incessantly raping my eyeballs with your brand would just make me hate it even more. Especially so if it's happening on my own electronic devices against my will. But then there are people who legitimately want to be advertised to — I know some personally. > I think people want something more transparent which outright removes them from the services they use. These are called ad blockers. I use them in some form on every device I own.
gameman144 6y ago
Agreed that a lot of ads are useless, but I've personally seen a few that I wouldn't have otherwise known about. For instance, there's a really cool used technical bookstore near me that I only discovered because I saw an ad for it. Also I would have missed a Humble Bundle that I really liked without an ad. Don't get me wrong, I probably hate the average ad more than most people (any Liberty Mutual ad just makes me angry), but to say that ads are not useful from a user perspective is a bit too absolute a position; for me, the good ones definitely are useful.
- latexr 6y ago
  Would you say those occasionally useful ads are worth the added stress (extrapolating from your words: “hate”, “angry”) of having to see other ads? If you do, I dispute the claim you hate the average ad more than most people, as would millions of Adblock users.
  - gameman144 6y ago
    Meh, to me these feel like separate buckets. I dislike a lot of ads that I find to be irrelevant or patronizing, which is why I run uBlock online for most sites, but "stress from seeing bad ads" isn't the only factor here. It seems like there are three big possibilities: 1. I see ads, and some of them cater directly to me. In this case, I see a lot of irrelevant/patronizing ads, but also some ads that make me see a product or company I like. 2. I see ads, and none cater directly to me. I see a lot of irrelevant/patronizing ads, and fewer ads that show me a product or company I like (and especially fewer that can only afford to market to people that are likely to buy their product, e.g. a sale at a local toy train repair shop or something). 3. I see no ads at all. This is what I default to on the internet, except for some whitelisted sites. There is no stress from seeing bad ads. There is also no possibility of serendipitously finding a new product/company I want to try. A lot of people are strongly in camp #3. That's fine, I'm in camp #3 for most of the internet. However, given that I have found value out of some ads, it's hard to put "stress from bad ads" against "joy from products I found through ads" on a single scale. As such, I can empathize with camp #1. Likewise, I understand that camps #1 and #2 can be important monetization mechanisms for websites that I support, and I'm fine taking that hit in exchange for those websites still existing (as I'm sure most others are -- if ad-blockers disappeared overnight, my gut tells me that the average person wouldn't change many of their browsing habits by a lot.) To me it seems like the lesser of two evils that if a company needs to show me ads (in a privacy-respecting way), then I'd like more of those ads to be relevant. All that said, I'm happy to be wrong here, and maybe I underestimate how much other people hate bad ads too (and also, all the above options assume respect for privacy in ad-targeting, something that I don't have nearly enough insight to even make educated guesses on.)

JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago

The button saying "Ask App Not to Track": is it binding or non-binding? If I kindly asked an app to not track, I'm fairly certain the app would tell me to pound sand.

Nextgrid 6y ago
"Ask App Not to Track" just means the app will be denied access to the IDFA (which you can already do by turning on "Limit ad tracking" in settings). It's worded like that because this can't prevent the app from using something else (IP address or device fingerprinting) to track you.
- JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago
  Is the discussion moot if users can be easily fingerprinted without IDFA? It makes life slightly more difficult for advertising partners and social media companies, but not impossible. It's just a small additional barrier to friction that buys Apple some good PR.
  - criddell 6y ago
    If it was irrelevant, Facebook wouldn't be worried.
  - Nextgrid 6y ago
    At least it’s a start.
  - K0nserv 6y ago
    That’s against Apple’s guidelines, violations of which will get your app kicked off the only distribution channel on iOS. We’ll have to see how this shakes out in reality, but as a deterrent it’s pretty strong.
    - JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago
      Apple might dislike Facebook, but it's difficult to imagine a world where it's removed from the App Store.

munchbunny 6y ago

I'm glad Apple is at least making sure users are aware that this is even a thing. While people on HN are much more likely to follow the issue and do something about it, a lot of laypeople are just vaguely aware that Facebook might be a privacy problem without really understanding what levers they have to manage it themselves.

whammywon 6y ago
Yes, but I think it would be a bit naïve to think that Apple is doing so out of the kindness of their hearts. Apple already has access to all the metrics that Facebook would be interested in. It seems to me like this is a set-up for Apple to force FB to buy the data directly from them.
- judge2020 6y ago
  But Apple isn't selling any of that data (which is really just 'downloaded apps' - they don't have the web browsing habits that FB and GOOG have). Their financial interest here is selling privacy with the price being the ongoing commitment to buy Apple products.
  - whammywon 6y ago
    Perhaps, but who is to say that they don't have plans to branch out into that business? It's possible that they have no intent to do so, but a corporation's primary interest is making profit. And what would be a simple, yet significant, source of new revenue? Selling user data.
    - TimothyBJacobs 6y ago
      They tried offering an ad service called iAd that would do things the "Apple" way. No one used it.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > it would be a bit naïve to think that Apple is doing so out of the kindness of their hearts Good. If they were doing it out of charity, a bit profit pressure, shareholder activism or change in management and the move is reversed. Being grounded in sound business logic and self-interest makes me trust it.

notyourwork 6y ago

Why would anyone agree to this? I don’t see a benefit to letting Facebook or any company track me across the internet. When did we ever decide this was what consumers wanted? Every time this topic comes up I check Facebooks stock price and realize how detached people are from facebooks revenue driven by the advertisement market.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
meekrohprocess 6y ago
People like you and I didn't decide that it was what we wanted. We just have no other options, because the companies which impose the terms aggressively snuff out or buy up their competition. I would argue that people are accepting these terms under duress; "consent" is the wrong word. The market believes that Facebook et al will be able to continue enforcing their will unilaterally, and that is good for the companies, so their stocks go up.
- randmeerkat 6y ago
  Everyone has options. I deleted FB years ago. No one actually needs FB.
  - meekrohprocess 6y ago
    I agree in principle, and so did I, but there's no denying that it puts a major crimp on your social life. It's wrong that people are forced to decide between accepting predatory terms or losing touch with friendly acquaintances. Also, if you own a small business, there's a real chance that you'd rely on Facebook for a significant portion of your business, because without a presence on their platforms you had may as well not exist.
    - umvi 6y ago
      > but there's no denying that it puts a major crimp on your social life In what way? Social lives existed before 2008 when FB went mainstream. I don't have a FB anymore, and I still text my friends for get-togethers.

bezout 6y ago

I think that this is going to end well if: - Facebook educates people about how the company uses their data - Apple doesn’t make it hard to access data for companies that got their users’ consent

bnj 6y ago

It's simultaneously remarkable and utterly unremarkable that Facebook has been dragged kicking and screaming into building a consent screen for this kind of tracking. Watching this tracking notification conflict unfold in the media has really helped me to refine where I stand on this: if a business depends on non-consensual tracking to be able to survive, then I'd prefer that the business has to fold before stripping users of their opportunity to understand and agree to the surveillance infrastructure at issue here.

kibwen 6y ago
You're more forgiving than I am. As far as I'm concerned, individual-targeted advertising has such inherently perverse incentives that even those starting out with good intentions (e.g. consensual opt-in) will eventually find themselves engaged in unethical, privacy-eroding behavior as a matter of course. Consider what would happen if you outlawed individual-targeted advertising. Ad relevancy falls overall. What then? Would ad companies like Google make less money? Not really. Overall advertising budgets are not dominated by the effectiveness of advertising, but by adversarial spending by their competitors. Companies have to spend money on ads because the competition is spending money on ads. It doesn't matter how absolutely effective the campaign is, as long as it's relatively more effective than your rival's. Would consumers spend less money? No, a consumer has a budget that is independent of the relevancy of the ads they see. The advertising industry thrived for a long time in the absence of individual user tracking. It could do so again.
- imheretolearn 6y ago
  >> Overall advertising budgets are not dominated by the effectiveness of advertising, but by adversarial spending by their competitors I would like to know how this conclusion was reached. By that logic, the advertising industry would not really need individual targeting at all
  - panta 6y ago
    Individual ad targeting is needed only as soon as someone does it. It is not “needed” per se.

ruined 6y ago

do i get a consent screen if i don't have an account

metalliqaz 6y ago
if you don't have a FB account, why would you install the app?
- code_duck 6y ago
  FB has been known to maintain marketing profiles for people who have never or no longer use their services.
- rolph 6y ago
  in my case i would install so i can sniff the connections and suss out the code where possible, likely tuck all that away into a folder for development of a putative anti app.

yters 6y ago

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theonion.com/cias-facebook-program-dramatically-cut-agencys-costs-1819594988/amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theonion.com/cias-facebook-...

reaperducer 6y ago
Non-Amp link: https://www.theonion.com/cias-facebook-program-dramatically-cut-agencys-costs-1819594988 https://www.theonion.com/cias-facebook-program-dramatically-...
- yters 6y ago
  I wonder if Google ever sanitizes web pages filtered through its amp servers.
acheron 6y ago
I thought the more appropriate one is https://www.theonion.com/entire-facebook-staff-laughs-as-man-tightens-privacy-se-1819571532 https://www.theonion.com/entire-facebook-staff-laughs-as-man...

tnt128 6y ago

Here is the logic, if you allow tracking, we would show your more relevant ads, if you don’t allow, we will spam the shit out of you. Either way, you see tons of ads, but allow tracking, you see ads more relevant. Of course that’s not how they word this. They framed it as a benefit, Notice how it’s worded - allowing for better personalized ad experience - I bet when worded this way, a good percentage of people will think, of course I want the ads to be more related to me and click allow.

gowld 6y ago
What's wrong with ads? Facebook costs money and effort to produce for its users to enjoy. I don't use FB, but people who do use presumably enjoy it.
- cwkoss 6y ago
  Because Facebook's ads require a panopticon of surveillance across every page with a FB like button in order to function in current form. People are sending much more data to facebook than they realize, and are typically upset when they learn the scope of facebooks dragnet. If Facebook only used data from the Facebook platform itself (and none of their web of acquired companies), I think people would have much fewer objections to the tracking.

erentz 6y ago

What would happen if legislation were passed to ban all tracking, across the board? Perhaps also inclusive of limits on targeted advertising also (to reduce the incentive to gather personal data). It seems this kind of universal disarmament (so to speak) still leaves FB in the same dominant position from an advertising perspective. It has the same huge audience, and it’s advertising product is the same as everyone else. If so why wouldn’t FB be actively lobbying for this right now? (I’m just putting aside questions of monopoly, etc. Purely from an FB self interest stand point.)

lumost 6y ago
There are a few factors at play here when it comes to advertising. 1) Digital is taking over all ad-channels 2) Digital ads can be tracked and attributed ways that were never possible with traditional media 3) It turns out most non-targeted ads aren't actually that effective, and aggregate ad spend is falling. FB ads are effective and high value because of tracking. If tracking goes away, FB ad revenue will fall to that of banner advertising at roughly 1/100th to 1/10000th the price per impression that FB currently receives. Such a change would effectively force a rethink of the entire consumer technology business, and see FB/GOOG re-structure to some form of subscription revenue or shutdown large feature sets and product offerings which would no longer be tenable.
- grishka 6y ago
  How much does Facebook earn from one user, $1 a year? No one would've died if they switched to a $1/year subscription model. People tend to respect companies that are honest with them. Except Facebook won't ever be able to regain its reputation, but still.
  - judge2020 6y ago
    https://mondaynote.com/the-arpus-of-the-big-four-dwarf-everybody-else-e5b02a579ed3#e27f:~:text=Facebook%E2%80%99s%20revenue%20per%20user%20is%20roaring.,does%20that%20with%20a%20free%20service https://mondaynote.com/the-arpus-of-the-big-four-dwarf-every.... Depends on the metric you use. > Facebook’s revenue per user is roaring. For Q4 2018 vs. Q4 2017, it’s global ARPU increased by 19 percent to $7.37, and the US-Canada ARPU by 30 percent to $35. Between 2011 and 2018, the social network global ARPU rose nearly 6x, while the US-Canada grew 11x. With a domestic revenue per user of $112, Facebook is the equivalent of a publisher charging $9 a month. It does that with a free service.

alex_young 6y ago

Can’t FB incentivize this a bit? I understand that they can’t gate the app with ad tracking approval, but what if they promised to provide you with discounts on the merchants this tracking promotes or something like that?

sneak 6y ago
Better: Opt in or your WhatsApp stops working.
- nerdo 6y ago
  Opt in or get universally deplatformed and lose access to the banking system. Private companies btw.

United857 6y ago

Not unique to FB, these days it seems every news site has (at least) a nag popup if a ad blocker is detected, with many having a hard block on content.

grishka 6y ago
Disabling JS for that site helps and most news websites don't make any good use of it anyway.
- metalliqaz 6y ago
  do you use a plugin for that?
  - grishka 6y ago
    Yes, this one: https://github.com/mtimkovich/one-click-javascript-toggle https://github.com/mtimkovich/one-click-javascript-toggle

mensetmanusman 6y ago

Usually Apple hates when App developers make any user prompts that points out changes Apple has made. I wonder if Apple will pull the Facebook app in response.

hourislate 6y ago

Do people who use facebook actually care about privacy? I can't understand why any user would want to be targeted by tailored ads or any ads for that matter? It's psychological warfare with the goal of separating you from your money. Stop spending, you'll realize you don't need all that shit they try to peddle. Less is more...

judge2020 6y ago
The difference is that this will show up for every app that uses FB's audience network to show and make money from ads, so many mobile games will have this show after install.
edmundsauto 6y ago
I think most people prefer ads to paying for something. The ads are only a means to what they care about.
jraph 6y ago
> Do people who use facebook actually care about privacy? Many people probably both use Facebook and care about privacy. Many probably would rather quit Facebook but think they can't because a part of their social life they think important is there. Or even a part of their education is (many students have a Facebook group for their class). I sympathize with you but it would help to try and understand people who care about privacy but still use Facebook if the goal is to solve this problem. I've had luck so far I haven't got trapped in Facebook though.
- latexr 6y ago
  > Many probably would rather quit Facebook but think they can't because a part of their social life they think important is there. I like that you used “think” in there; it makes all the difference. As Mike Monteiro tweeted[1]: > I’ve heard excuses from people who want to quit Facebook but can’t that would make heroin addicts blush. [1]: https://twitter.com/monteiro/status/321048448889663488 https://twitter.com/monteiro/status/321048448889663488
kin 6y ago

mensetmanusman 6y ago

I wish we had consent forms like this in regards to medical data. There is so much to be learned and gained if people were more sharing of aggregate data in this area.

grishka 6y ago

> Apple’s new prompt suggests there is a tradeoff between personalized advertising and privacy; when in fact, we can and do provide both. We provide both as long as you trust us.

Lammy 6y ago

I'm impressed (in a bad way) at the subtle emotional manipulation in the combination of "support businesses" and the header image they chose for this design.

mtnGoat 6y ago
i wonder if that would have even be a useful ploy if covid hadn't of damaged so many businesses in the last year. tugging on the ole heart strings.

blinktag 6y ago

I don’t know if the mockup is what will actually appear in production, but there is some psychology about showing a flower and a smiling black woman. The image plays first to trust (nature, a mother figure, the smile) and if that isn’t enough, secondly to guilt (I need to start trusting black women) to prime the user into accepting the prompt. Imagine if it were a cartoonish Mark Zuckerberg with his tight little smirk, and instead of a flower, a piggy bank. Facebook isn’t stupid or random. This image must have been very carefully developed and run past some of their staff PhDs. Assuming this is real.

metalliqaz 6y ago

Does Android have any analogue to this kind of tracking protection?

metalliqaz 6y ago
Ok I found that Google does have a GAID/AAID and you can hide it in Android under Settings -> Google Services -> Ads

rolph 6y ago

actual title: "Facebook testing notification to users about Apple privacy changes"

dang 6y ago
Yes, that was bad. Changed now. (Submitted title was "FB testing screen to encourage users to accept active tracking") Submitters: please follow the HN rules, which ask you "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

3gg 6y ago

Do not miss the Facebook articles linked from the page. "We disagree: personalization doesn’t have to come at the expense of privacy. We can do both, and we can do both well. We’ve built products that lead the industry in transparency and offer settings and controls to help people manage their privacy." "So if you recently bought a hiking backpack from a local outdoor gear supplier and are no longer looking for a new one, you can choose to remove the outdoor gear supplier from this list of businesses, and disconnect that information from your account." For a company that prides itself with transparency, you could start with not lying to people in such a blunt and despicable way. See, I don't want you to know that I bought a hiking backpack. Why should you know? Why do you think you are the arbitrer of the market, that people cannot do their own research and that small business need you? This is a false premise, and your position is a blatant JOKE that at this point is also sad and unremarkable. Stop lying to people, you sad surveillance capitalists. https://about.fb.com/news/2020/12/personalized-advertising-and-privacy-are-not-at-odds/ https://about.fb.com/news/2020/12/personalized-advertising-a... https://about.fb.com/news/2020/10/a-path-forward-for-privacy-and-online-advertising/ https://about.fb.com/news/2020/10/a-path-forward-for-privacy...

danShumway 6y ago

> "Apple’s new prompt suggests there is a tradeoff between personalized advertising and privacy; when in fact, we can and do provide both." It's a somewhat bold but not completely implausible claim to argue that highly personalized ads are compatible with privacy. There are theoretically schemes that could make that work. But it is, however, a wicked bold claim for Facebook to go a step farther say they are already currently providing both privacy and personalized advertising. Does anyone, at all, believe them when they say that?

midrus 6y ago

The more I know about Facebook, the more I like Apple

chrischen 6y ago

Facebook makes so much money off of tracking users... why don’t they just start paying us.

twostorytower 6y ago

I would hate to be the PM on this project. They would be lucky to get 5% conversion. That's still worth billions in the long run.

indymike 6y ago

In the end, they will end up asking each user until they consent.

comeonseriously 6y ago

That's all well and good, but does anyone believe that this won't be a broken feature? Edit: Also, I am absolutely positive that some of my family will agree because they'll think FB would not work correctly (update their feed) otherwise.

29athrowaway 6y ago

Myspace wasn't that bad after all.

wackget 6y ago

It's hugely ironic that this article is written/hosted by a website which runs entirely via the Google AMP platform. You can't read the article without going via Google's AMP servers, unless you use a website like https://printfriendly.com https://printfriendly.com to parse it for you.

ffpip 6y ago
Disable javascript for axios.com. You can do it with uBlock Origin. Then simple click Firefox's reader mode icon. Even if the page is blank, just click the reader mode icon.

2Gkashmiri 6y ago

what... benefit can facebook offer to its sheeps now with this consent screen? pennies?

moolcool 6y ago

"Support business which rely on ads to reach customers" Well if you put it that way... still no.

Havoc 6y ago

>Ask App Not to Track Gotta love how they flipped that phrasing around from facebook asking you for permission to you requesting something from them. This whole thing reeks of having been A/B tested to death for max psychological manipulation without straying into territory where they can be accused of aggressive dark patterns.

RL_Quine 6y ago
That's the text provided by apple.
- Havoc 6y ago
  I see. Then my comment was misguided

imheretolearn 6y ago

I am happy that this is happening. It was about time someone gave it back to FB. FB has time and again crossed boundaries for which it has had to apologize everytime. It seems like they cannot regulate themselves so someone from the outside has to step in. I hope this changes the individual tracking landscape a bit even though the Big G is still a larger issue that needs to be addressed

kerng 6y ago

To be honest, I dont accept the argument that extremly detailed tracking is the only way to show relevant ads. High level information is probably enough and I'm sure FB would still make tons of money by even showing random ads. Makes you wonder if there is actually another reason for collecting all that data? Like building AI and ML models for other purposes.

cwkoss 6y ago
If regulations don't prevent them from doing so, I expect FB to pivot into Surveillance As A Service for authoritarian states.

0x0 6y ago

So I guess you should click "Allow" in the first facebook-designed prompt, to trigger the second Apple iOS level system prompt, and click "Don't allow" there, to actually register the do-not-track request to be enforced on the OS/API level? If you just click "Don't allow" on the first FB screen, it doesn't look like iOS will know about the do-not-track preference at all?

yalogin 6y ago

I am really surprised the amount of tantrums FB is throwing in this saga. This is a golden opportunity for them to reset their platform and change their brand in the world. Large businesses don't get these kind of opportunities often and this is something, I thought, they will seize. I really thought they will build security/privacy into their platform and weed things out. They could have gone to a paid model in some cases and doubled down on privacy in others. They would have lost revenue in the short term but would be great in the long term. However, they are doubling down on the catering to fear mongering, cult marketing type things and kicking and screaming without much to show.

Balgair 6y ago
Likely this is because they do not have other options. Ever since 2016, they have been 'alerted' that their stack is fragile to regulation and other outside forces. Zuck has been hauled up in front of Congress a few times now over many things, including the tracking issues. The C-suite is very much aware of the problems. I suppose they are trying to throw a fit now, and then relax to their secondary position when they must. But knowing how large bureaucracies (don't) work, there is no fall-back position. There is no 'there' anymore.

golondon 6y ago

if FB stops using IDFA completely and just create the profile out of the logged in user ID, wouldn't that be enough? At the end of the day, mobile Facebook app gets most of its data from FB servers? So, If someone has liked /YellowBirds page and spent 2 hours on /BirdsBirdsBirds page, you kinda get they are into the birds? Wouldn't that already provide looots of information? If they don't use IDFA, I guess they would loose capability of linking the events from different apps. I don't know targeted advertising world that much, but is that a big deal? I think even without cross app tracking, FB has capability to provide quite detailed targeting. I'm not sure why they reacted this aggressive, feels to me like there is egos involved, possibly Zuck struggling to accept Tim can force him to do something. Other thing I wonder is how this notification going to look like in the apps using FB SDKs.

DLay 6y ago

Are all the smaller social media companies like Twitter, SnapChat, TikTok, and Reddit struggling with Apple’s new rules too?

albanberg 6y ago

It would be great to see the public bombard these companies with a demand for privacy. Petitions/demonstrations/email campaigns...whatever it takes.

racl101 6y ago

I'm ok with Facebook having to beg for my permission to use my data instead of just taking what they want without telling me.

cellar_door 6y ago

lol @ people who think Apple pushing back on FB tracking is out of their goodness of heart. They want FB to introduce a subscription model so they can rake in that sweet 30% commission. I am in favor of more consumer options, always prefer subscriptions to ads/tracking, and am a huge fan of Apple products. The issue is more that 30% commission is extortionate imo.

temp667 6y ago

Thank goodness we've all been conditioned by the EU cookie consent screens to say yes to every damn popup that pops up! Seriously - the EU is bombarding us with damn cookie notice screens. I wish apple had been more in charge of the web than these EU folks.

cronix 6y ago

From what I gather, Apple has been using IDFA since 2012. It's baked into the OS and Apple generates the ID. It was enabled by default. Before IDFA, Apple used UDID. My question is why did the privacy focused Apple ever include such a thing in the first place? They provided the tools. Others, like FB, used it and were profiting. I'm no fan of FB (I don't have an account) but it seems the blame is being laid at the wrong feet? https://branch.io/idfa/ https://branch.io/idfa/

bluelu 6y ago

I know that this is unpopular here, but a lot of people (including me) don't mind that they get targeted ads. If you fear for abuse, then there should be clear laws what should not be allowed and severe punishment for this. But forbidding facebook to track behaviour and then allowing apple to do so (e.g. they even track what programs you run, is just wrong. Who knows, maybe apple will even start its own "privacy" network later on.

karmakaze 6y ago

A horrible thought experiment: What if FB only maintained their Android mobile app and made iOS second class, gradually lagging in features and operational support/stability? If that experiment 'succeeds', Instagram could follow. What do you suppose would be the outcome?

jlawer 6y ago
It might make some hard core Facebook users shift to android. They will get lower engagement metrics from iOS users (the smart thing to do is to try again with moving to a web app). But the declining engagement of iOS customers will likely hurt Facebook monetarily more then the lack of fidelity with targeting. The problem is the iOS demographic often correlates with one of the most valuable to advertise to. While targeting will become harder again, which might hurt prices, overall its not like that ad spend is going to go away. Targeting will become more coarse-grained, but at the end of the day, facebook has so many on platform data sources, that it remains quite profitable to serve them.
- karmakaze 6y ago
  Perhaps better as an all-at-once: if you want FB or Instagram not on iOS. If Instagram 'influencers' are in fact that and can only reach their network on Android they wouldn't really have a choice. Of course I wish a shift did happen, but driven by consumer values (right to repair, appstore policies) to a more open platform.

xtat 6y ago

File under "in-app PR"

f6v 6y ago

I met my fair share of wantepreneurs in the last couple years. The majority has no business plan and even no intention of making money. However, they’ve got an answer if you ask them: “We’re going to sell the data!”. This idea of collecting and selling the data to someone just became so deeply rooted into their minds.