12 ms·

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 con

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.
      - ska 6y ago
        > In what way? In the obvious way for some people? It's disingenuous to pretend that opting out of FB doesn't have negative social consequences for some (many?) people, and dismissing their concerns probably isn't a good way to change anyone's mind.
      - MonAlternatiu 6y ago
        A lot of my friends use social media to stay in touch. Not being on social media would keep me out of the loop, which is not desirable. I try to restrict its usage as much as possible though.
        umvi 6y ago
        Collect alternative methods of staying in touch with friends you care about before leaving social media (phone numbers, email addresses, mailing addresses, etc.)
        ryandrake 6y ago
        Yea. If your friends will abandon you just because you’re not on social media anymore, then I have bad news for you: they probably aren’t really your friends. When I ditched Facebook about 10 years ago, I lost contact with a whole bunch of people who weren't really part of my life anyway, they were simply "names I recognized." My social life actually got better after dropping social media simply because I'm spending less time scrolling in front of a screen.
        MonAlternatiu 6y ago
        > If your friends will abandon you just because you’re not on social media anymore That's a very binary view of the world that I don't share. But that's not a topic I want to get into. Can you keep in touch with a certain group of friends through non-social media platforms? Absolutely. I do it daily, but that's not the point. The point is that staying away from these social media platforms reduces your ability to have a social life. It's quite like saying that you decrease your chances of finding work without a driving license or cellphone number. I could probably get away without social media today (modulo telegram/whatsapp). But at what point would I surrender? Most people of my generation use it, and it looks like newer generations will have even higher usages.
    - cmorgan31 6y ago
      Yes, valid points. Also don't think they should hold social interactions hostage in an effort to not lose their grip on selling your attention span. If their product is worth paying for or the individuals in question are too cheap to pay for it without using ads then so be it. Let them monetize on ads, but I don't expect anyone to give a shit about small businesses profiting off our data. I didn't agree to support them by selling my data so I don't feel any emotional attachment to their situation.
    - logifail 6y ago
      > if you own a small business, there's a real chance that you'd rely on Facebook for a significant portion of your business Source? Even if this is true for some types of small business, in some markets, it's a bit of a stretch to claim this applies across the board.
    - madeofpalk 6y ago
      > but there's no denying that it puts a major crimp on your social life. I completely deny that. I deleted Facebook when I was 25 and never once missed it. It never once put a crimp on my social life because my social life was never really organised around facebook in the first place. I still wanted to keep in touch with friends, and they wanted to keep in touch with me, without facebook.
    - mr_toad 6y ago
      > Also, if you own a small business Unless it’s a one person business, have the office administrator do it. No need to bother with every detail.
    - ogre_codes 6y ago
      > It's wrong that people are forced to decide between accepting predatory terms or losing touch with friendly acquaintances. Yes and no. While I've lost touch with a few older friends I don't do anything with, I've learned that reaching out by iMessage and SMS is welcomed by a lot of people. Instead of talking to people the lazy way and posting on Facebook, I text them individually or in small groups and the response tends to be much warmer and ignored less often. I've always thought I was bugging people, but I've found that many friends appreciate the more personal approach.
  - dTal 6y ago
    It's very narrow-minded to assume that because you don't need Facebook, no one does. Facebook clearly provides some value, or no one would use it at all. Some people can't afford not to take advantage of that value. You can't tell a small business "don't use Facebook for social media outreach, it's evil and monopolistic" when the alternative is being outcompeted by those who do.
    - phito 6y ago
      Totally agree. I have a very niche small business (you can check my comment history) and all the community is on facebook, it has completely replaced forums. I don't have a choice, I need facebook and instagram otherwise I wouldn't be able to reach them.
    - intrasight 6y ago
      Also, remember that this is only about the FB app - and only on iOS. You can use only the FB site like I do and have all tracking and ads disabled.
  - _jal 6y ago
    I never signed up in the first place. But I don't go to a school that posts assignments on FB (I have heard of this quite a bit), my workplace doesn't use it (ditto) and I'm in a comfortable-enough place that putting up with the passive aggression from family and friends when they whine about my comm preferences is no big deal. Yes, everyone has options. But not everyone operates under the same pressures.
  - ska 6y ago
    > No one actually needs FB. No one actually needs a car either. Or to eat industrially produced food. Or etc. etc. "Nobody actually needs X" where X is a thing that empirically a huge percentage of people do, is I suspect never a compelling argument. edit: bordercases brings up a good point, I picked particularly entrenched/difficult areas for examples but it wasn't necessary. My point was more about the futility of observing a common behavior and rejecting it superficially, so perhaps I should have used "Nobody needs a smart phone" or "No family of 4 needs a >2000sq/ft house" or the like as examples.
    - bordercases 6y ago
      Categorically yes, but the connotation is that it's still possible for the vast majority of people to get rid of Facebook and still lead a satisfying life. I can buy this. I can reason that it's likely true from e.g. the hedonic setpoint. There are a lot of people that were happy before Facebook and will be happy after Facebook is gone. Facebook is only ~15 years old and it deals mostly with aggregating text-based communications from people that feel the compulsion to post almost entirely because it's there. And they don't need Facebook, they just need the functions it provides; there was a time when these functions would have been split up into separate services until they were acquihired or integrated. And although Facebook is monolithic, its monopoly is primarily enforced by network effects and conventions. Shit happens, like stock rallies or privacy scares. Facebook might still be around but the exodus of e.g. WhatsApp to Signal still shows the power of close substitutes to challenge what is "necessary". There's also nothing fallacious in your counterargument. Both cars and industrial farming are being challenged in their own right. Cars for issues behind pollution and sprawl (resulting in ride-sharing, electric cars and transit) and industrial farming for its ethics and chemical impact on the environment (organic food, veganism, greater awareness of bioaccumulation of pesticides and microplastics). In educated circles these have become widely considered as Good Things, but would involve challenging the assumption that things we take for granted as necessary are actually so. That's just progress.
    - zepto 6y ago
      “No one actually needs a car either. Or to eat industrially produced food. Or etc. etc.“ This is a false equivalence. Facebook is nowhere near at that level of need yet.
  - samstave 6y ago
    I absolutely detest FB - and I don't like the fact that you can't determine if FB is tracking you even when you do not use it.
  - dfxm12 6y ago
    Is Facebook still creating shadow profiles? Whether or not you have an account with them, they might still be harvesting data about you. An individual can't really "delete FB".
  - OkGoDoIt 6y ago
    Actually I run a live theater venue and the vast majority of our tickets are purchased through a combination of Facebook advertising and Facebook event pages. There’s no getting around that. I had deleted Facebook but needed to reinstate my account once I got involved in the theater industry. It’s really frustrating actually. Facebook is the Comcast of social media, you don’t really want to use them and you know they’re abusing you, but you don’t really have a choice.
reaperducer 6y ago
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. People don't drive stocks. Banks and bots do. Except for GameStop. But that's a different fish.
- flatline 6y ago
  If you think that’s all retail driven I have a bridge to sell you...
sneak 6y ago
Millions of people already agreed to this: this is how every iPhone works right now, and always has. Apple shipped this tracking feature in the first place.
- Nextgrid 6y ago
  They didn't agreed per-se, it was just a default and Apple should be shamed for this.
naiveai 6y ago
So that the ads are more personalized. I know this sounds weird, but if I'm going to get ads anyway, I'd like them to potentially be products I'm going to maybe have a use for and might make my life easier. I get the privacy implications, but asking "why would anyone agree to this" is kind of narrow-minded.
- dvfjsdhgfv 6y ago
  Tracking aside, I prefer not to have "personalized" ads for two reasons. First, they create another bubble based on their perception of me. Second, their personalization is so poor I sometimes wonder how come advertisers believe them. And this is all assuming you actually want to see ads. I don't. It's only when I need to buy something I enter the buying mode: I disable adblockers and start doing research - this is the only small window when ads are allowed to bother me.
  - ryanianian 6y ago
    If ads weren't clickbait, obnoxious, or misleading (and didn't violate your privacy) you may find yourself more open to seeing them. Even if they're not always super relevant to you and only you. Respectful advertising will always have its place whenever the buyer has a choice. It's when the companies selling those ads learn how to manipulate their audience that the 'respectful' parts of the equation get dropped and consumers start to push back. My Kindle shows me ads. I could pay to opt out, but I actually like the way it handles them. My (former) Alexa on the other hand was IN MY FACE with ads whenever I wanted to even just set a timer. That is grossly disrespectful of me as a human being, so it was shown the door.
    - HenryBemis 6y ago
      > My Kindle shows me ads I have no experience on Kindles, but on my Amazon Fire HD, I have rooted it, uninstall 50-60% of the bloatware, I have installed "NoRoot Firewall" to cut down on the unwanted comms between my tablet and Amazon, and I now have a perfectly functioning tablet for reading. Extra tip: install ReadEra and you can read the non-Kindle-app pdf, mobi, epub, etc.
drran 6y ago
Better ads.
- dredmorbius 6y ago
  </s>>
ATsch 6y ago
This is said so often it's become a platitude, but: Your free labor of creating and curating things people want to look at is the product. It's the companies bidding on access to content you're willing to look at, in hopes of changing your behaviour, that are the consumers.
mensetmanusman 6y ago
I would rather get advertisements about tech toys than get advertisements about debeers diamonds.
- Nextgrid 6y ago
  I'm the opposite. I spend 8+ hours a day in the tech world; if the "tech toy" is any good chances are I already know about it and/or have it. If I absolutely have to see ads (which I don't - haven't seen online ads for years) the last thing I want is more tech. I'd rather see ads for stuff I don't actually know about.
- criddell 6y ago
  If HN were supported by non-tracking ads, do you think you would be more likely to see an add for a tech toy or a diamond here?
  - mensetmanusman 6y ago
    I hope it would be ads about recent companies Y has helped start :)
dr-detroit 6y ago
Facebook is a dying sexapp platform and they are hoping to.... save face. YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAHH
otabdeveloper4 6y ago
You're not the consumer here. You're not paying for anything.
- catacombs 6y ago
  > You're not the consumer here. You're not paying for anything. But you are the PRODUCT.
- throwaway2245 6y ago
  You are quite literally the consumer - you consume the service. You're just not the one paying for what the service is.
newscracker 6y ago
> Why would anyone agree to this? To help small businesses that thrive because of Facebook and to show the finger to greedy corporations like Apple. /s That’s kinda how Facebook will paint this, without directly mentioning its disgust for Apple in the message prompt. Facebook will also paint a picture of it being the protector of privacy of the user and how it doesn’t “sell” information. There will be a lot of smoke and mirrors, for sure.
idreyn 6y ago
I'm a simple man -- if I see a button with a primary intent color standing between me and my content I've been conditioned to press it, often before I realize what I'm doing or reading the accompanying text. Probably tens of millions of people will do the same here.
- Wowfunhappy 6y ago
  Remember though that this doesn't replace Apple's prompt!
  - idreyn 6y ago
    That's true, I forgot about that. I appreciate that those prompts don't highlight a particular option which tends to force you to read them. I wonder how often Apple will allow apps to re-request this permission when it's been denied; I have a handful of iOS apps that are constantly asking me to grant permission to see more of my photos, and I wish they'd rate-limit that kind of abuse.
    - dmitrygr 6y ago
      It actually is. A while ago, someone (i think fb) produced an article that showed that to avoid the issue, they find it is best to show user their own similar screen, and only if the user clicks "yes", show the OS screen (cause for that one you only get one chance). I suspect you're seeing the apps' first "app-made" screen and not the OS one. Look carefully. If so, click yes there, and NO on the OS screen.
      - roblabla 6y ago
        Wouldn't this be against the Apple TOS? Might want to report application that are using this kind of dark pattern.
        monadic3 6y ago
        If it is, virtually every app on my phone is in violation.
retrac 6y ago
Why would anyone ever agree to the terms in most software EULAs?
- Wowfunhappy 6y ago
  Because otherwise you can't use the software?
fabatka 6y ago
Why would anyone read this and think about the implications? I may be overly pessimistic, but I think the average user just sees this modal as a potential obstacle between him/her and the content their brain tells them to consume. I know my first instinct would be to go on the path that minimizes the risk that I don't get to do the things I set out to do.
rdiddly 6y ago
So that the ads you don't want, are also creepily specific to things you mentioned recently? :D
adrr 6y ago
More relevant ads would be the benefit for the user.
PeterStuer 6y ago
Why would anyone agree to this? Because the opt-out is hidden under the third pane behind the per party 1 by 1 drop-downs of the opt-outs for "legitimate interests", in a list of 120 "vendors" that require individual sub-pane drop downs and a radio button all having an "agree to selected" button that will immediately negate all your previous selections and just blast you to the content as if you "agreed to all".
- HotHotLava 6y ago
  There's no opt-out, that's the whole point of the change.
- ogre_codes 6y ago
  If it was opt out, Facebook could get away with this. Apple is forcing their hand so people are presented with a fairly straight forward choice.
api 6y ago
To see the dancing bunny, of course. (There's a term "dancing bunny attack" for putting interesting content behind a confirmation dialog you want people to click. Facebook kind of does that implicitly. All they have to do is hide appealing content behind this option.)
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
m463 6y ago
> Why would anyone agree to this? And that is the entire story of dark patterns.
godelski 6y ago
There's weird cases. In my DnD group only one person has not switched to Signal and they refuse to. Their answer is that "I can't fight them so why switch?" Which weirds me out since this is exactly how you fight tracking. Btw, this is someone who has a PhD in computer science so it isn't like they are tech illiterate. But I've seen several people like this and honestly I don't understand. I think at this point a lot of people are now apathetic and have given up. And we know people like to double down on good or bad positions when faced with adversaries. Doing things like "switching to Signal" (when you already have most of your friends there) and "using an adblocker" seem like very simple things that easily respond to "what can I do about it?"
- purplecats 6y ago
  wow what a weak mindset your friend has
chias 6y ago
I think a big factor is that you don't have an easy choice. Notice it's not "Allow" or "Reject", it's "Allow" or "Ask us not to". The only "Reject" is to flat out not use Facebook, and probably throw a few related domains into a blackholed HOSTS file. That's a steeper price than most are willing to pay.
ljm 6y ago
They're essentially asking their users to bail them out by trying to garner sympathy towards the nebulous 'small businesses' who probably wouldn't notice any difference anyway. Unless FB threw a bunch of them under the bus first and then tried to blame Apple for it. FB aren't entitled to a user's entire internet presence (digital and physical) just because the user doesn't pay for the account.

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.
    - ska 6y ago
      > In what way? In the obvious way for some people? It's disingenuous to pretend that opting out of FB doesn't have negative social consequences for some (many?) people, and dismissing their concerns probably isn't a good way to change anyone's mind.
    - MonAlternatiu 6y ago
      A lot of my friends use social media to stay in touch. Not being on social media would keep me out of the loop, which is not desirable. I try to restrict its usage as much as possible though.
      - umvi 6y ago
        Collect alternative methods of staying in touch with friends you care about before leaving social media (phone numbers, email addresses, mailing addresses, etc.)
        ryandrake 6y ago
        Yea. If your friends will abandon you just because you’re not on social media anymore, then I have bad news for you: they probably aren’t really your friends. When I ditched Facebook about 10 years ago, I lost contact with a whole bunch of people who weren't really part of my life anyway, they were simply "names I recognized." My social life actually got better after dropping social media simply because I'm spending less time scrolling in front of a screen.
        MonAlternatiu 6y ago
        > If your friends will abandon you just because you’re not on social media anymore That's a very binary view of the world that I don't share. But that's not a topic I want to get into. Can you keep in touch with a certain group of friends through non-social media platforms? Absolutely. I do it daily, but that's not the point. The point is that staying away from these social media platforms reduces your ability to have a social life. It's quite like saying that you decrease your chances of finding work without a driving license or cellphone number. I could probably get away without social media today (modulo telegram/whatsapp). But at what point would I surrender? Most people of my generation use it, and it looks like newer generations will have even higher usages.
  - cmorgan31 6y ago
    Yes, valid points. Also don't think they should hold social interactions hostage in an effort to not lose their grip on selling your attention span. If their product is worth paying for or the individuals in question are too cheap to pay for it without using ads then so be it. Let them monetize on ads, but I don't expect anyone to give a shit about small businesses profiting off our data. I didn't agree to support them by selling my data so I don't feel any emotional attachment to their situation.
  - logifail 6y ago
    > if you own a small business, there's a real chance that you'd rely on Facebook for a significant portion of your business Source? Even if this is true for some types of small business, in some markets, it's a bit of a stretch to claim this applies across the board.
  - madeofpalk 6y ago
    > but there's no denying that it puts a major crimp on your social life. I completely deny that. I deleted Facebook when I was 25 and never once missed it. It never once put a crimp on my social life because my social life was never really organised around facebook in the first place. I still wanted to keep in touch with friends, and they wanted to keep in touch with me, without facebook.
  - mr_toad 6y ago
    > Also, if you own a small business Unless it’s a one person business, have the office administrator do it. No need to bother with every detail.
  - ogre_codes 6y ago
    > It's wrong that people are forced to decide between accepting predatory terms or losing touch with friendly acquaintances. Yes and no. While I've lost touch with a few older friends I don't do anything with, I've learned that reaching out by iMessage and SMS is welcomed by a lot of people. Instead of talking to people the lazy way and posting on Facebook, I text them individually or in small groups and the response tends to be much warmer and ignored less often. I've always thought I was bugging people, but I've found that many friends appreciate the more personal approach.
- dTal 6y ago
  It's very narrow-minded to assume that because you don't need Facebook, no one does. Facebook clearly provides some value, or no one would use it at all. Some people can't afford not to take advantage of that value. You can't tell a small business "don't use Facebook for social media outreach, it's evil and monopolistic" when the alternative is being outcompeted by those who do.
  - phito 6y ago
    Totally agree. I have a very niche small business (you can check my comment history) and all the community is on facebook, it has completely replaced forums. I don't have a choice, I need facebook and instagram otherwise I wouldn't be able to reach them.
  - intrasight 6y ago
    Also, remember that this is only about the FB app - and only on iOS. You can use only the FB site like I do and have all tracking and ads disabled.
- _jal 6y ago
  I never signed up in the first place. But I don't go to a school that posts assignments on FB (I have heard of this quite a bit), my workplace doesn't use it (ditto) and I'm in a comfortable-enough place that putting up with the passive aggression from family and friends when they whine about my comm preferences is no big deal. Yes, everyone has options. But not everyone operates under the same pressures.
- ska 6y ago
  > No one actually needs FB. No one actually needs a car either. Or to eat industrially produced food. Or etc. etc. "Nobody actually needs X" where X is a thing that empirically a huge percentage of people do, is I suspect never a compelling argument. edit: bordercases brings up a good point, I picked particularly entrenched/difficult areas for examples but it wasn't necessary. My point was more about the futility of observing a common behavior and rejecting it superficially, so perhaps I should have used "Nobody needs a smart phone" or "No family of 4 needs a >2000sq/ft house" or the like as examples.
  - bordercases 6y ago
    Categorically yes, but the connotation is that it's still possible for the vast majority of people to get rid of Facebook and still lead a satisfying life. I can buy this. I can reason that it's likely true from e.g. the hedonic setpoint. There are a lot of people that were happy before Facebook and will be happy after Facebook is gone. Facebook is only ~15 years old and it deals mostly with aggregating text-based communications from people that feel the compulsion to post almost entirely because it's there. And they don't need Facebook, they just need the functions it provides; there was a time when these functions would have been split up into separate services until they were acquihired or integrated. And although Facebook is monolithic, its monopoly is primarily enforced by network effects and conventions. Shit happens, like stock rallies or privacy scares. Facebook might still be around but the exodus of e.g. WhatsApp to Signal still shows the power of close substitutes to challenge what is "necessary". There's also nothing fallacious in your counterargument. Both cars and industrial farming are being challenged in their own right. Cars for issues behind pollution and sprawl (resulting in ride-sharing, electric cars and transit) and industrial farming for its ethics and chemical impact on the environment (organic food, veganism, greater awareness of bioaccumulation of pesticides and microplastics). In educated circles these have become widely considered as Good Things, but would involve challenging the assumption that things we take for granted as necessary are actually so. That's just progress.
  - zepto 6y ago
    “No one actually needs a car either. Or to eat industrially produced food. Or etc. etc.“ This is a false equivalence. Facebook is nowhere near at that level of need yet.
- samstave 6y ago
  I absolutely detest FB - and I don't like the fact that you can't determine if FB is tracking you even when you do not use it.
- dfxm12 6y ago
  Is Facebook still creating shadow profiles? Whether or not you have an account with them, they might still be harvesting data about you. An individual can't really "delete FB".
- OkGoDoIt 6y ago
  Actually I run a live theater venue and the vast majority of our tickets are purchased through a combination of Facebook advertising and Facebook event pages. There’s no getting around that. I had deleted Facebook but needed to reinstate my account once I got involved in the theater industry. It’s really frustrating actually. Facebook is the Comcast of social media, you don’t really want to use them and you know they’re abusing you, but you don’t really have a choice.

reaperducer 6y ago

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. People don't drive stocks. Banks and bots do. Except for GameStop. But that's a different fish.

flatline 6y ago
If you think that’s all retail driven I have a bridge to sell you...

sneak 6y ago

Millions of people already agreed to this: this is how every iPhone works right now, and always has. Apple shipped this tracking feature in the first place.

Nextgrid 6y ago
They didn't agreed per-se, it was just a default and Apple should be shamed for this.

naiveai 6y ago

So that the ads are more personalized. I know this sounds weird, but if I'm going to get ads anyway, I'd like them to potentially be products I'm going to maybe have a use for and might make my life easier. I get the privacy implications, but asking "why would anyone agree to this" is kind of narrow-minded.

dvfjsdhgfv 6y ago
Tracking aside, I prefer not to have "personalized" ads for two reasons. First, they create another bubble based on their perception of me. Second, their personalization is so poor I sometimes wonder how come advertisers believe them. And this is all assuming you actually want to see ads. I don't. It's only when I need to buy something I enter the buying mode: I disable adblockers and start doing research - this is the only small window when ads are allowed to bother me.
- ryanianian 6y ago
  If ads weren't clickbait, obnoxious, or misleading (and didn't violate your privacy) you may find yourself more open to seeing them. Even if they're not always super relevant to you and only you. Respectful advertising will always have its place whenever the buyer has a choice. It's when the companies selling those ads learn how to manipulate their audience that the 'respectful' parts of the equation get dropped and consumers start to push back. My Kindle shows me ads. I could pay to opt out, but I actually like the way it handles them. My (former) Alexa on the other hand was IN MY FACE with ads whenever I wanted to even just set a timer. That is grossly disrespectful of me as a human being, so it was shown the door.
  - HenryBemis 6y ago
    > My Kindle shows me ads I have no experience on Kindles, but on my Amazon Fire HD, I have rooted it, uninstall 50-60% of the bloatware, I have installed "NoRoot Firewall" to cut down on the unwanted comms between my tablet and Amazon, and I now have a perfectly functioning tablet for reading. Extra tip: install ReadEra and you can read the non-Kindle-app pdf, mobi, epub, etc.

drran 6y ago

Better ads.

dredmorbius 6y ago
</s>>

ATsch 6y ago

This is said so often it's become a platitude, but: Your free labor of creating and curating things people want to look at is the product. It's the companies bidding on access to content you're willing to look at, in hopes of changing your behaviour, that are the consumers.

mensetmanusman 6y ago

I would rather get advertisements about tech toys than get advertisements about debeers diamonds.

Nextgrid 6y ago
I'm the opposite. I spend 8+ hours a day in the tech world; if the "tech toy" is any good chances are I already know about it and/or have it. If I absolutely have to see ads (which I don't - haven't seen online ads for years) the last thing I want is more tech. I'd rather see ads for stuff I don't actually know about.
criddell 6y ago
If HN were supported by non-tracking ads, do you think you would be more likely to see an add for a tech toy or a diamond here?
- mensetmanusman 6y ago
  I hope it would be ads about recent companies Y has helped start :)

dr-detroit 6y ago

Facebook is a dying sexapp platform and they are hoping to.... save face. YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAHH

otabdeveloper4 6y ago

You're not the consumer here. You're not paying for anything.

catacombs 6y ago
> You're not the consumer here. You're not paying for anything. But you are the PRODUCT.
throwaway2245 6y ago
You are quite literally the consumer - you consume the service. You're just not the one paying for what the service is.

newscracker 6y ago

> Why would anyone agree to this? To help small businesses that thrive because of Facebook and to show the finger to greedy corporations like Apple. /s That’s kinda how Facebook will paint this, without directly mentioning its disgust for Apple in the message prompt. Facebook will also paint a picture of it being the protector of privacy of the user and how it doesn’t “sell” information. There will be a lot of smoke and mirrors, for sure.

idreyn 6y ago

I'm a simple man -- if I see a button with a primary intent color standing between me and my content I've been conditioned to press it, often before I realize what I'm doing or reading the accompanying text. Probably tens of millions of people will do the same here.

Wowfunhappy 6y ago
Remember though that this doesn't replace Apple's prompt!
- idreyn 6y ago
  That's true, I forgot about that. I appreciate that those prompts don't highlight a particular option which tends to force you to read them. I wonder how often Apple will allow apps to re-request this permission when it's been denied; I have a handful of iOS apps that are constantly asking me to grant permission to see more of my photos, and I wish they'd rate-limit that kind of abuse.
  - dmitrygr 6y ago
    It actually is. A while ago, someone (i think fb) produced an article that showed that to avoid the issue, they find it is best to show user their own similar screen, and only if the user clicks "yes", show the OS screen (cause for that one you only get one chance). I suspect you're seeing the apps' first "app-made" screen and not the OS one. Look carefully. If so, click yes there, and NO on the OS screen.
    - roblabla 6y ago
      Wouldn't this be against the Apple TOS? Might want to report application that are using this kind of dark pattern.
      - monadic3 6y ago
        If it is, virtually every app on my phone is in violation.

retrac 6y ago

Why would anyone ever agree to the terms in most software EULAs?

Wowfunhappy 6y ago
Because otherwise you can't use the software?

fabatka 6y ago

Why would anyone read this and think about the implications? I may be overly pessimistic, but I think the average user just sees this modal as a potential obstacle between him/her and the content their brain tells them to consume. I know my first instinct would be to go on the path that minimizes the risk that I don't get to do the things I set out to do.

rdiddly 6y ago

So that the ads you don't want, are also creepily specific to things you mentioned recently? :D

adrr 6y ago

More relevant ads would be the benefit for the user.

PeterStuer 6y ago

Why would anyone agree to this? Because the opt-out is hidden under the third pane behind the per party 1 by 1 drop-downs of the opt-outs for "legitimate interests", in a list of 120 "vendors" that require individual sub-pane drop downs and a radio button all having an "agree to selected" button that will immediately negate all your previous selections and just blast you to the content as if you "agreed to all".

HotHotLava 6y ago
There's no opt-out, that's the whole point of the change.
ogre_codes 6y ago
If it was opt out, Facebook could get away with this. Apple is forcing their hand so people are presented with a fairly straight forward choice.

api 6y ago

To see the dancing bunny, of course. (There's a term "dancing bunny attack" for putting interesting content behind a confirmation dialog you want people to click. Facebook kind of does that implicitly. All they have to do is hide appealing content behind this option.)

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

m463 6y ago

> Why would anyone agree to this? And that is the entire story of dark patterns.

godelski 6y ago

There's weird cases. In my DnD group only one person has not switched to Signal and they refuse to. Their answer is that "I can't fight them so why switch?" Which weirds me out since this is exactly how you fight tracking. Btw, this is someone who has a PhD in computer science so it isn't like they are tech illiterate. But I've seen several people like this and honestly I don't understand. I think at this point a lot of people are now apathetic and have given up. And we know people like to double down on good or bad positions when faced with adversaries. Doing things like "switching to Signal" (when you already have most of your friends there) and "using an adblocker" seem like very simple things that easily respond to "what can I do about it?"

purplecats 6y ago
wow what a weak mindset your friend has

chias 6y ago

I think a big factor is that you don't have an easy choice. Notice it's not "Allow" or "Reject", it's "Allow" or "Ask us not to". The only "Reject" is to flat out not use Facebook, and probably throw a few related domains into a blackholed HOSTS file. That's a steeper price than most are willing to pay.

ljm 6y ago

They're essentially asking their users to bail them out by trying to garner sympathy towards the nebulous 'small businesses' who probably wouldn't notice any difference anyway. Unless FB threw a bunch of them under the bus first and then tried to blame Apple for it. FB aren't entitled to a user's entire internet presence (digital and physical) just because the user doesn't pay for the account.