4 ms·

Eddie Izzard: "I'm simply asking people, cake or death? It's disingenuous to suggest that this is a loaded question. After all, people could choose death. I'm o

by _qulr 6y ago

Eddie Izzard: "I'm simply asking people, cake or death? It's disingenuous to suggest that this is a loaded question. After all, people could choose death. I'm only presenting the options."

Spivak 6y ago
I like how strongly people seem to be reacting to having to ask permission to digitally follow someone around, write down everything they do, and then use it to send them ads. Guess that means the new rule isn't toothless after all.
- _qulr 6y ago
  > I like how strongly people seem to be reacting to having to ask permission to digitally follow someone around I don't have any analytics whatsoever in my apps. When I make the "cake or death?" analogy, do you seriously believe I'm defending the "death" option? But if we continue with this analogy, it's important to remember that Apple has been allowing "death" in its App Store for 12 years and is only now getting around to asking users whether they want death. Moreover, the App Store "race to the bottom" intentionally undermined the previous business model of selling upfront paid software. App Store devalued software and propped up the alternative of making everything free and turning customers into products. Apple has a lot of "blood" on its hands in this matter. I personally install Little Snitch on my Mac to block apps from phoning home. Yet Apple doesn't allow a similar tool on iOS. So I don't buy Apple's "privacy" BS for one second, because they don't allow me to protect my own privacy.
  - simonh 6y ago
    Then why are you complaining about them implementing privacy controls?
    - _qulr 6y ago
      I'm not. I'm complaining about the claim "It's not a ban! It's not a ban! Apple isn't doing anything!" This whole argument seems like a variation of "Guns don't kill people, [X] does." If Apple puts a (metaphorical) gun in every user's hand and points them at the analytics SDKs, it seems ludicrous to claim that Apple has nothing to do with the analytics SDKs getting killed. Regardless of whether or not they deserve to be killed. At the very least, it's passive-aggressive, if not incitement to "violence". Now, the article says, "Apple did not – and from a legal perspective likely can’t – explicitly ban the Google Analytics, Flurry, Facebook, and Firebase SDKs." I'm not clear on what legal perspective the author means. Antitrust? In any case, from your perspective, why wouldn't Apple ban them if it could? There are plenty of things that Apple does ban in the App Store, without giving the user a choice. I still don't get why you think "ban" is a dirty word.
      - simonh 6y ago
        The reason I and others object the the word ‘ban’ is because it is implying (not even implying, falsely stating) that it is Apple that is the active party in denying these developers and SDKs access to user data. It is not Apple denying access to user data, it is users denying access to their data. The thing is “users ban collection of their personal identifying data, killing tracking SDKs” is an inconvenient narrative for Facebook, Google and developers that use these SDKs for that purpose.
        _qulr 6y ago
        You avoided my question: from your perspective, why wouldn't Apple ban them if it could? What's wrong with banning? Why is that such an inconvenient narrative for you? Why is it inconvenient for Apple? This feels like just a game where Apple is trying very hard to avoid personal (or legal?) responsibility for its choices by pushing the choice onto users. It seems to me like a cop-out. Again, Apple takes away choices from users in many other areas, so why give the choice here, knowing what choice almost everyone will take?
        simonh 6y ago
        The Google/Facebook, etc position is that they should decide what user PII they collect and how they use it. Your position is that it's ok for Apple to decide what user data can be collected and how it's used ("What's wrong with banning?"). But there is a third party here who's opinion is the one that actually matters. If you considered their existence and role here for even a second, the reason why it would be wrong for Apple to decide with a direct ban would be immediately obvious - that third party is the users. My position, and that of Apple, is that it's none of Apple's business, and it's none of Google/Facebooks business to decide these things. It's the user's business how their data is used, they should be making these decisions. That's why it would be wrong for Apple to impose a ban. After all the Google/Facebook narrative is that their use of PII brings value to users in the from of relevant ads and personalised services. Well ok, make that case to users and let them decide. I've been banging on about this through the whole comment thread, but you just seem flat out unable to even see that users have any role at all in this. You ignore their existence and role implicitly without the slightest consideration; their right to choose is _the_ consideration here. It's not some incidental, inconvenient factor to be dismissed as a 'de facto' input to be taken for granted so you can point the finger unerringly at Apple.
simonh 6y ago
Yes a choice is being made. Yes it’s killing scummy tracking behaviour. It’s the users making the choice though, not Apple.

by _qulr 6y ago

Eddie Izzard: "I'm simply asking people, cake or death? It's disingenuous to suggest that this is a loaded question. After all, people could choose death. I'm only presenting the options."

Spivak 6y ago

I like how strongly people seem to be reacting to having to ask permission to digitally follow someone around, write down everything they do, and then use it to send them ads. Guess that means the new rule isn't toothless after all.

_qulr 6y ago
> I like how strongly people seem to be reacting to having to ask permission to digitally follow someone around I don't have any analytics whatsoever in my apps. When I make the "cake or death?" analogy, do you seriously believe I'm defending the "death" option? But if we continue with this analogy, it's important to remember that Apple has been allowing "death" in its App Store for 12 years and is only now getting around to asking users whether they want death. Moreover, the App Store "race to the bottom" intentionally undermined the previous business model of selling upfront paid software. App Store devalued software and propped up the alternative of making everything free and turning customers into products. Apple has a lot of "blood" on its hands in this matter. I personally install Little Snitch on my Mac to block apps from phoning home. Yet Apple doesn't allow a similar tool on iOS. So I don't buy Apple's "privacy" BS for one second, because they don't allow me to protect my own privacy.
- simonh 6y ago
  Then why are you complaining about them implementing privacy controls?
  - _qulr 6y ago
    I'm not. I'm complaining about the claim "It's not a ban! It's not a ban! Apple isn't doing anything!" This whole argument seems like a variation of "Guns don't kill people, [X] does." If Apple puts a (metaphorical) gun in every user's hand and points them at the analytics SDKs, it seems ludicrous to claim that Apple has nothing to do with the analytics SDKs getting killed. Regardless of whether or not they deserve to be killed. At the very least, it's passive-aggressive, if not incitement to "violence". Now, the article says, "Apple did not – and from a legal perspective likely can’t – explicitly ban the Google Analytics, Flurry, Facebook, and Firebase SDKs." I'm not clear on what legal perspective the author means. Antitrust? In any case, from your perspective, why wouldn't Apple ban them if it could? There are plenty of things that Apple does ban in the App Store, without giving the user a choice. I still don't get why you think "ban" is a dirty word.
    - simonh 6y ago
      The reason I and others object the the word ‘ban’ is because it is implying (not even implying, falsely stating) that it is Apple that is the active party in denying these developers and SDKs access to user data. It is not Apple denying access to user data, it is users denying access to their data. The thing is “users ban collection of their personal identifying data, killing tracking SDKs” is an inconvenient narrative for Facebook, Google and developers that use these SDKs for that purpose.
      - _qulr 6y ago
        You avoided my question: from your perspective, why wouldn't Apple ban them if it could? What's wrong with banning? Why is that such an inconvenient narrative for you? Why is it inconvenient for Apple? This feels like just a game where Apple is trying very hard to avoid personal (or legal?) responsibility for its choices by pushing the choice onto users. It seems to me like a cop-out. Again, Apple takes away choices from users in many other areas, so why give the choice here, knowing what choice almost everyone will take?
        simonh 6y ago
        The Google/Facebook, etc position is that they should decide what user PII they collect and how they use it. Your position is that it's ok for Apple to decide what user data can be collected and how it's used ("What's wrong with banning?"). But there is a third party here who's opinion is the one that actually matters. If you considered their existence and role here for even a second, the reason why it would be wrong for Apple to decide with a direct ban would be immediately obvious - that third party is the users. My position, and that of Apple, is that it's none of Apple's business, and it's none of Google/Facebooks business to decide these things. It's the user's business how their data is used, they should be making these decisions. That's why it would be wrong for Apple to impose a ban. After all the Google/Facebook narrative is that their use of PII brings value to users in the from of relevant ads and personalised services. Well ok, make that case to users and let them decide. I've been banging on about this through the whole comment thread, but you just seem flat out unable to even see that users have any role at all in this. You ignore their existence and role implicitly without the slightest consideration; their right to choose is _the_ consideration here. It's not some incidental, inconvenient factor to be dismissed as a 'de facto' input to be taken for granted so you can point the finger unerringly at Apple.

simonh 6y ago

Yes a choice is being made. Yes it’s killing scummy tracking behaviour. It’s the users making the choice though, not Apple.