39 ms·

Facebook is pushing back on Apple’s new iPhone privacy rules

• artembugara 6y ago
  So interesting to see how more and more businesses realize they have a single point of failure for a billion dollars streams. What's even more interesting is that I don't think many considered those as threats 10 years ago.
  • Firebrand 6y ago
    I was thinking about that the other day when Snap reached $100B in market cap. That’s a mobile app whose continued success rides entirely on the good graces of Apple and Google.
  • underseacables 6y ago
    It’s even more interesting when you consider that most people block ads, or they block them in their vision. How many of us actually look at ads anymore? I would say that very few people even pay attention to them, and we sort of block them out of our attention. Online advertising does not work, and the metrics are inflated. I would love to see a major company stop spending on Facebook advertising, and doing analysis to see if their sales actually drop.
• joejohnson 6y ago
  The Grace Jones ad is discussed in more detail here: https://adage.com/article/media/facebooks-new-commercial-narrated-grace-jones-celebrates-big-ideas-and-personalized-ads/2317246 https://adage.com/article/media/facebooks-new-commercial-nar...
  • navbaker 6y ago
    Not sure why the interstitial blocking my access to the website about ads and nagging me to disable my ad blocker brought me such joy.
• croes 6y ago
  "which is increasingly going to move to a paid experience" We already pay but with data instead of money. But we neither know the real cost nor the real consequences.
• blfr 6y ago
  In the future, you'll get to choose whether your phone vendor sells your data or censors what content you can access on it. It's gonna be great.
  • avaldeso 6y ago
    In the future you'll get paid for your personal data.
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
• jk7tarYZAQNpTQa 6y ago
  I don't like the wording at all. "Ask app not to track" means an app can ignore a user's request, just like with "Do not track" on the web. The button should read "Deny", and the denial should be strictly enforced.
  • kjakm 6y ago
    You're jumping to conclusions about the technical implementation based on the button text? It is enforced. If the users chooses the 'don't track' option in the dialogue the app does not get access to the IDFA.
  • CodesInChaos 6y ago
    There is no way for apple to prevent apps from tracking, since many apps require persistent storage. At best Apple can throw apps out of the appstore after they become aware of an infraction. I believe this dialog does control access to apple's advertiser-id (IDFA), so apple did implement some technical measures. Unfortunately that's not the only way for an app to track a user, so giving the impression that Apple enforces this denial would be misleading. People already blame Apple for apps lying on their privacy labels.
  • user-the-name 6y ago
    It is a combination of both. Clicking this will deny the app access to the very useful IDFA identifier, so this part is strictly enforced. However, when phrased like this, it does not JUST represent the access to the IDFA, it is a direct request from the user to not track you in any OTHER way either. And yes, the app can ignore that, but then Apple is free to deny it access to the App Store.
    • jackson1442 6y ago
      exactly this. Facebook can still tie your actions in the app to your Facebook account, nothing's changing there and Apple couldn't possibly control that. They won't, however, get that IDFA, which _is_ something Apple can control.
• mokus 6y ago
  The fact that Facebook appears to consider user consent an existential threat to their business model tells me everything I need to know about them right now.
  • antattack 6y ago
    Apple just wants to be exclusive gateway to Apple customers. We are a product to both companies, even if Apple appears the lesser evil.
    • dimitrios1 6y ago
      Except Apple doesn't track you all across the internet at every possible opportunity without you knowing about it.
      • lisper 6y ago
        Not yet. But they could start any time they wanted to. Who would save you then?
        • S_A_P 6y ago
          Facebook is a problem now. Apple is not that we know of. Why deflect with hypothetical scenarios?
        • GeekyBear 6y ago
          Just as Facebook and Google could openly start selling all the information they have collected at any time? I mean, it goes against the business model they operate under, but they could, right?
        • robflynn 6y ago
          Okay, but so could anyone. I'm not sure your point here? They're clearly at least trying to move in the opposite direction and have been making those moves for some time now. Maybe they won't always go that way. Maybe they will. No one is saying they're our savior, though. No one is begging Apple to please save us.
• jahlove 6y ago
  > Some apps, like Facebook, allow for some data tracking to be manually disabled. But by default, it is turned on. That gives the company reams of personal data on who we are and what we are doing, which it then vacuums up, packages and sells. My understanding is that Facebook does not sell this data, but rather lets advertisers create hyper-targeted ads, which are only possible because of this data. Edit: Certainly not trying to defend Facebook here (in the slightest). Just trying to correct an inaccuracy in the article.
  • elefanten 6y ago
    Maybe it doesn't sell it directly, but it certainly sells it in the sense that it turns it into a product that people can pay for.
  • skeeter2020 6y ago
    I would attribute this to the "packaging" the article references. As you correctly point out advertisers don't want "the data" they want the hyper-targeted ads that it allows. That's the FB value-add.
    • albntomat0 6y ago
      I agree, with the addition that Facebook wants to keep control of their user data and repeatedly sell it via ads, rather than directly sell it to some third party org to repackage.
  • albntomat0 6y ago
    I agree that the original wording could be better. I'd phrase it more along the lines of Facebook indirectly selling the data as hypertargeted ads, while keeping control of the data themselves.
  • whoisburbansky 6y ago
    It's a nice bit of semantic ju-jitsu to say "they take this data and sell a service that wouldn't be possible without it" isn't the same as "selling this data," isn't it? Especially given that the targeting mechanisms don't have any k-anonymity guarantees, and I'm aware of at least one paper showing information leaks through the ad portal [1] https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_events/1223263/p155407privacyconmislove_1.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_events/122...
• m3kw9 6y ago
  You forgot the ? in the title, and made it click bait
  • pwinnski 6y ago
    Hacker News automatically strips question-words and question-punctuation from titles, to avoid click-bait.
  • menacingly 6y ago
    It's the "why is" in the original title that makes it not substantively different from the headline here. Both make the assumption facebook is in fact going to war
  • frouge 6y ago
    What a fascinating story about an ALL-OUT WAR guys! You'll learn so much about cyber plots, tanks, politics, maneuvers and constant bombing between Apple and Facebook, actually even Mr. Zuck and Mr. Cook themselves taking massive risks in this sick conflict, a really crazy read! I felt like I was a soldier during WW2, no...even WW4? The title is so well chosen!
• alexfromapex 6y ago
  Thank you Apple for being one of the few protecting privacy
  • menacingly 6y ago
    Apple would be a hero for threatening _its own_ significant revenue streams with a pro-privacy decision, not someone else's.
    • cde-v 6y ago
      No companies are "heroes".
    • BoorishBears 6y ago
      ... what? A doctor giving someone a new lease on life with an arm transplant isn't a hero unless they're threatening _their own_ arm by volunteering it. - In what world do things work like that?
      • reedjosh 6y ago
        I would say that's a false equivalency. In the Apple case, it's possibly gaining via marketing and driving people to paid apps that Apple gains revenue from. Please don't misread me though--I'm glad Apple is doing this, I just don't think they're heroes for it.
        • BoorishBears 6y ago
          I like how you say it's false equivalency but then kind of fail to actually show that... maybe because it's not? In the real world there are few "heroic" deeds that don't benefit the entity doing them. The doctor doing the transplant gets professional acclaim that is not worthless, would you say the doctor did it to market themselves? Turns out doing good things can be profitable, it's not an either or. This tired cynicism any time a company does something good and people admire them for it (ie consider the action heroic) is not novel or useful. Companies at the size of Apple and co are never going to be pure forces of good with no bad deeds, but they are still capable of being heroes in a specific context. Right now Apple is being a hero of their customer's right to privacy
• yawaworht1978 6y ago
  Apple should be applauded for this. Their revenue does not depend on software to clandestinely steal and sell users data. One day, we will look back at history and see facebook similar as to how people view myspace now (junkyard of software). Good on Apple not selling devices with a facebook backdoor in them. I know apple probably has deals with malicious governments regarding data access, but at least they are standing up to FB and exposing their vulnerable points where it hurts badly, Zuckerberg has no clothes.
  • LocalH 6y ago
    A lot of people would rather have Myspace be the dominant social network it once was.
    • rchaud 6y ago
      If it was dominant, the ads would come sooner or later. MySpace is only thought of sympathetically today because News Corp acquired it early and let it rot. Facebook didn't start out with ads, it introduced them in 2008 or later. By that time MySpace was well into its death throes.
  • coldpie 6y ago
    Between this privacy fight and the form factor of the iPhone Mini, there's a 90% chance my next phone will be an iPhone after more than a decade on Android. I'm done with this ad-sponsored trash ecosystem.
    • reedjosh 6y ago
      Not that I blame you if you want a premium experience out of the box, but I've gone to Graphene and am quite happy. https://grapheneos.org/faq https://grapheneos.org/faq Even my SSO works well enough. Some notifications rely on Google Play Services though, but I find I don't really miss those apps anyway.
      • eldaisfish 6y ago
• iscrewyou 6y ago
  It’s so hard to feel bad for Facebook. They’ve made shadow profiles for non-Facebook users for crying out loud! But they are really going out of their way to oppose Apple on this move. The burger restaurant clip in the audio...couldn’t they still target users just based on interests? And not actually linking those interests to a specific person? And on the other hand, I don’t hear much from Google.
  • chrisjarvis 6y ago
    Google is in a much less exposed position because they are the default search engine on iOS devices (a privilege they pay alot of $ for).
  • elliekelly 6y ago
    Does Google’s tracking rely on iOS to the extent facebook’s does? I don’t use either but I would assume nearly all iPhones accessing fb are via app while a ton of iPhones accessing Google are via Safari, mail, and even iMessage now that you can play a linked YouTube video directly in the Messages app.
  • Loughla 6y ago
    I heard the burger lady on npr this morning. I can't get that article to load, so I'm hoping they address how she knows that 90% of her business comes from facebook, and how hyper targeted ads are more effective than just geo-located tags. It seems like ads for her business would be good for users within 'x' number of miles/blocks/whatever of her business, and not necessarily based on their interests, correct?
    • meetups323 6y ago
      Helps to target appropriate income level and past food habits (i.e. don't waste money showing ads to folks that cook at home 95% of the time)
  • saddlerustle 6y ago
    There aren't shadow profiles for non-facebook users. That's a myth.
• stefan_ 6y ago
  They can just never update their app again, like Google. Let's be real, their ADHD like update schedule isn't exactly improving anything regardless.
  • jakelazaroff 6y ago
    I believe this impacts all apps using Facebook's SDK.
    • stefan_ 6y ago
      There are apps left using this after Facebook hard broke them REMOTELY twice? I think they got it coming.
      • user-the-name 6y ago
        Yup. The only way to implement Facebook login is through the SDK, so unless you are willing to give up all your users that use Facebook login, you are stuck with the invasive, crashing SDK.
        • chris_wot 6y ago
          No developer should tie themselves to Facebook. I sympathize with the existing developers, but no new developer should be insane enough to rely on Facebook.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• reedjosh 6y ago
  What spin. "This will hurt small businesses in TV and Radio." Really!? That's the best argument they can come up with?
  • fairity 6y ago
    The actual quote: Facebook has also launched a website and taken out full-page advertisements in newspapers, in addition to a recent TV and radio ad push, to put a spotlight on how many small business owners depend on targeted ads. This is definitely a true statement. The vast majority of small businesses who advertise on FB will be hurt by this change. The best estimate to date is a 20-30% drop in marketing efficiency due to worse targeting capabilities. Some of these small businesses will inevitably go out of business due to this change (for better or worse).
    • reedjosh 6y ago
      I'm just biased. I hate advertising and I hate tracking even more. I'm sure some companies will be slightly hurt, but I believe it will be a net gain for society. I worked at a small hardware store as a kid and we got all our business from word of mouth. IDK what the best argument here is, so I suppose I'm just admitting my feelings with this comment.
      • taylodl 6y ago
        I don't see why we need to compromise our privacy to support advertising for small business. If I want to opt-in in order to get ads for services that would likely be relevant to me then sure, let me do that. But to be forced to opt-in and then create a moral hazard claiming I "don't support small business" - yeah, screw that! I don't see why Zuckerberg et. al.'s failed business model should be my problem.
        • josho 6y ago
          Oh the irony that one of the most profitable and largest companies (facebook) is making the claim that small businesses will be impacted. I think the honest answer is, yes if facebook protects their profit margins then it will impact small business as they pay more to get the same results. OR Facebook could reduce their margins since Apple's change will reduce their product effectiveness. Once we frame it that way it is clear what the battle is about. Facebook is fighting apple to protect their own profitability and is using a sympathetic actor (small business) as a shield.
• pyrophane 6y ago
  > Apple says in the coming weeks, it will update its iOS software for iPhones to require apps to get explicit consent to track what people are doing on their phones for the purposes of sharing it with third-parties. That's all they are doing. They aren't preventing companies from tracking users in this way. They are just requiring them to get permission. Says a lot about Facebook's business model that this is a cause for "all-out war," and that they'd rather try to stop the feature than convince their users to enable it. I guess they know that at the end of they day if they can't do this behind their users' backs, they probably aren't going to be able to do it at all.
  • bob33212 6y ago
    What is to stop Facebook from making a picture show up all fuzzy and then tell the user that they should opt-in to tracking to get the highest resolution pictures.
    • fairity 6y ago
      Apple's TOS surrounding this change prevent any sort of content-gating of this sort. Infractions may result in removal from the app store.
      • nerbert 6y ago
        I'd be curious to see whether apple has the balls to remove fb from the app store
        • runako 6y ago
          Obviously not as big, but they kicked Fortnite out of the App Store. So there is precedent for them holding the line.
        • unionpivo 6y ago
          Honestly If apple can't afford to stand up to FB who can ? I dislike Apples closed ecosystem (anf google trying to do the same), but if it can weaken FB's grip on people, it might bring some benefit even to non apple customers.
• darepublic 6y ago
  Not a fan of a lot of things Apple but this is damn amusing. Hope Facebook's efforts fall flat on their face
• mkl95 6y ago
  I don't think there will be such thing as a war. Rules are the same for every company, Apple are just telling FB in advance that they are not making an exception.
• sjm 6y ago
  If personalized ads are really so beneficial to their customers, Facebook should have no problem convincing them to allow the tracking they need and opt-in.
  • Jonanin 6y ago
    Apple controls the messaging on the dialog, not FB. It is worded in such a way that >95% of people will likely disallow it.
    • sjm 6y ago
      Part of the messaging (the title and buttons) is built-in, but in all of these sorts of dialogs apps provide their own strings to explain why they're asking for permission. The screenshot in the original article shows where Facebook can explain to end-users why they need to track them across other apps and websites.
    • jackson1442 6y ago
      In addition to my sibling comment, most apps now have pre-prompts for permissions, like where you see a full-pager telling you why the app wants to use notifications where you consent before getting the real consent prompt.
• narrator 6y ago
  I will agree to the tracking. I like the ads on facebook. I have found out about a lot of interesting niche products from them.
  • cecja 6y ago
    Well shit isn't it nice that other people who don't like it have a choice now and for you nothing changes.
• Sebb767 6y ago
  User can still easily opt-in to tracking - so saying this is bankrupting small businesses is really admitting that they need users to be tracked without their knowledge and/or against their will. I mean, it was always kinda obvious, but seeing them confirm it out right is interesting, to say the least.
  • gameman144 6y ago
    I could be wrong, but I think the argument is against the framing of "do you want this app to track you" being one-sided, rather than against an opt-in interstitial in general. E.g. if anti-vaxxers started pushing a campaign saying "doctors want to stab your arms with needles", I'd expect a similar pushback from the medical community about the perception-coloring of this phrasing (even if it's technically true). In both cases, it seems like the argument is more of "Yes people can opt in to that, but the opt-in process shouldn't bias you against opting in" Whether that's a fair argument or not, I'll leave to society.
    • jackson1442 6y ago
      I think the prompt's phrasing is completely fair, especially since facebook can make their case in their pre-consent screen and in the string in the system popup.
      • gameman144 6y ago
        This is a fair point. I hold that there are still scenarios in which opt-in text could sway users one way or another, but given that individual apps can make their case before the user sees the interstitial here, I don't personally see anything wrong with the phrasing of "Can this app track you?"
    • ogre_codes 6y ago
      > "do you want this app to track you" Is this better? "This owners of this app are looking to gather as much information about you as possible so they can use it as leverage against you. They will sell that information to political agents who will use your demographics against you. There will be advertisers who know when you are having your period, when you are pregnant, and that you've searched for penis enhancing tools. While they probably won't share this information around, they will let advertisers buy adverts discretely targeting your race, gender, and sexual preferences." Is that a better message? I think Apple is being quite generous here myself. I'd have the dialog be bright red with a toxic logo on the yes button.
• breakfastduck 6y ago
  Enraging facebook higher ups to this extent is a pretty sure fire way of proving you're doing the right thing. Good on Apple. I fear if it was any other company Facebook would be able to persuade them to change.
• system16 6y ago
  > Facebook says Apple is attempting to push free apps, which often sweep data up and feed it to advertisers, to move to subscription models. And I think most users will see no problem with this. If I value the service enough, I'll pay for it. That Apple gets 30% is another discussion and as a user, not my problem. If I don't value the service that much, I now get to be informed and can decide whether I value using it more than my privacy. Facebook's all out propaganda campaign shows which choice they think most users will make in this instance.
  • bozzcl 6y ago
    In fact, I would say apps would get a lot more revenue by switching to a paid model. I don't know the exact numbers, but I think I've heard monthly revenue from tracking is less than a cent per user. Now imagine they charge $1 monthly for their app subscription. Hell, even a couple of cents would be an improvement. Or even better: they charge a one-time payment to buy the app.
• move-on-by 6y ago
  I don't have Facebook and I'm generally skeptical of Apple's pro-privacy messaging. However, seeing this response from Facebook has gotten me very excited for this update. There must be more to it then Apple's generic 'Most Advanced Update Ever' marketing. I'm still skeptical of Apple's commitment to privacy, but I'm certainly happy to get this update. Apple should thank Facebook for the free marketing.
  • buzzerbetrayed 6y ago
    For some reason I have a bad feeling about this update actually getting released. I'm worried that FB is going to convince some judge to tell Apple they can't do this, and delay it for months or years. Maybe (hopefully) this is an irrational worry, but you never know the extent to which people will go when billions of dollars are on the line.
    • move-on-by 6y ago
      I know nothing about legal system, but it seems like Apple could make an argument that they are helping their apps be GDPR and CCPA compliant? That could explain the strange wording "Ask app not to track" - apps can still track, just not as much as before, so perhaps more of a compliance permission. Just speculation.
      • Someone 6y ago
        I think they say “Ask app not to track” because, if they say “Make app not track you” or something similar, they open themselves to huge lawsuits if (much more likely when) any app turns out to keep tracking users.
      • newscracker 6y ago
        I don’t have the link handy, but Apple’s policies on this require apps not to track users across apps through other means if a user chooses “Ask App not to Track” at the prompt. The prompt text is just to show that Apple cannot technically prevent tracking even when a user tells the app they don’t want to be tracked across apps. There are a lot of shady practices being spread through common/popular SDKs used by apps.
• king_magic 6y ago
  No sympathy for Facebook here. Extremely happy to see Apple crushing Facebook's unethical tracking practices.
• mlthoughts2018 6y ago
  There is just absolutely no good-faith way anyone can disagree with requiring user consent to be tracked. It is as close to “pure evil” as you can get for Facebook to campaign against it.
• marshmallow_12 6y ago
  you could see this as a case of apple using their monopoly powers to drive another company out of business. This whole thing seems quite deliberate on the part of Apple. They have taken the applaudable step of prioritising user privacy, and i'm not a conspiracy theorist... BUT i assume that apple will never do something if it won't ultimately help the bottom line. I'm going to invest in some popcorn and see how this plays out.
• kerng 6y ago
  I think I might become an Apple fan. Writing this on Android device to be replaced with the new iPhone mini. Facebook's behavior becomes more and more disgusting with their continued push against privacy and transparency. although I think a 30% cut by apple in app store is too much I prefer apples way of building something users actually want to buy. There is 0 drawback for users to ask for their consent before tracking them and sharing that data with who knows whom.
• ryeguy_24 6y ago
  Does anyone support Facebook with this? Does their point below make any sense? I'm supporting Apple now but any merit to the opposing side? Curious to get some informed viewpoints. "This discouragement, this is going to have a real impact on the Internet as we know it, which is increasingly going to move to a paid experience, which again, benefits Apple's bottom line..."
  • hamilyon2 6y ago
    If you are starting a startup and plan to monetize it by selling data of your users, you have one more problem to solve now. If you are starting a company with a very specific market, you might pay for your first customers more.
    • xuhu 6y ago
      If your feed reader app was collecting the websites people visited and selling that data to others, you might have to ask users for permission now.
    • omk 6y ago
      The first point falls flat. It is as good as saying, earlier you could steal data, now you have to ask and respect consent. Second may have some ground. But does seem shallow once you consider that in order to support small business you are opting to take away privacy controls from individuals. What ethical model favors the ability of small sized businesses to spend less on marketing over individual's right to privacy?
  • chrisjarvis 6y ago
    I am certainly on the Apple side of this spat but Stratechery wrote a rather compelling pro-Facebook article about this: https://stratechery.com/2020/privacy-labels-and-lookalike-audiences/ https://stratechery.com/2020/privacy-labels-and-lookalike-au... The gist of the argument being that, regardless of what you think about Facebook, hyper-targeted "lookalike audience" models to target ads against actually do level the playing field for small businesses who do not the resources to produce large scale ad campaigns. Highly recommended reading.
• fairity 6y ago
  What does Facebook realistically expect to get out of this PR push? Apple seems to be doing nothing legally wrong. So, I'm guessing FB is trying to sway public opinion. But, does the public really care that much about the health of small businesses who advertise on Facebook?
  • dleslie 6y ago
    They may see their efforts to oppose Apple as seriously damaging to the public perception of Facebook, and so the PR campaign is an attempt to diminish that harm to their image.
• dleslie 6y ago
  I wish journalists wouldn't refer to Apple's app store cut as "tax" ; it's a service fee. That is the price Apple charges for providing payment-related services on its platform. It is not a tax.
  • jonfw 6y ago
    Is my income tax a price the government charges for providing roads, schools, and protection? Just because there are services rendered doesn't mean it's not a tax. There is no opt out, and price is a function of earnings rather than value added.
    • multiplegeorges 6y ago
      There is an opt out. You might not like the opt out, but it remains a choice. You don't have to use Apple's platform or services. Taxes imposed by a government are compulsory. Words still have meaning and using tax to refer to Apple's fees is completely incorrect.
      • tobib 6y ago
        > Taxes imposed by a government are compulsory. You can opt out by moving out of the country. /s In that sense, I don't think you can opt out of the "Apple tax" because there are exactly 2 platforms both of which you have to be present on, otherwise you're not gonna reach your users.
        • Spivak 6y ago
          But that’s exactly the point. You pay it because they have something you want. You can say they shouldn’t be allowed to gatekeep their markets but that’s a separate thing. Taxes you have to pay even if you don’t want the services.
      • jonfw 6y ago
        I can not do business in the US, or I can not do business with iPhone users. My only 'opt out' is to quit doing business in their market. I continue to see similarities here
• newbie578 6y ago
  Hmm I do find it interesting in the article that Facebook stated the reason Apple doing this is to push towards paid apps, i.e. subscriptions instead of ads, since Apple takes it's mafia 30% tax cut on subscriptions, but not on ads. That actually does make some sense, I do enjoy this infighting between Big Tech, since the user will ultimately benefit by seeing each companies true colors (and that includes the "Cult" Inc., not just Facebook)
• maxwellito 6y ago
  Can Facebook block access to users refusing the tracking consent?
  • Nextgrid 6y ago
    Officially, no. That's against the Apple developer guidelines. Whether Apple will have the courage to enforce them is another matter. We've already seen evidence that their new "privacy nutrition labels" are sometimes inaccurate with no consequences for the app developers.
    • maxwellito 6y ago
      Thanks! I was wondering due to the recent changes of Reddit T&Cs
• blovescoffee 6y ago
  "Ninety percent of our customers are finding us because of Facebook, because of those personalized ads, so if something was to disrupt that, it's going to be a problem," Why is it so hard for people to understand that if your business relies on unethical practices, they're the problem - not those who pursue privacy. If your business relied on breaking into people's homes and reading through their personal file cabinet, it wouldn't even be a question whether or not that business should exist. Taking people's digital data without consent is okay though? Plenty of small and large businesses thrived just fine before Facebook. Sorry/not sorry that not everyone buys into surveillance capitalism.
• icedistilled 6y ago
  Facebook friend suggestions are such garbage. Half of them are legitimate acquaintances. Half of them are random women from south america. I've never interacted with anything that should bring those up and I've never clicked on that sort of suggestion. The only reason I can think they'd show me them is my demographic, 30 something male. I haven't clicked on anything on FB or elsewhere on the web that should be getting me random foreign women as friend suggestions. Facebook is terrible quality and has no idea what it's doing.
  • bromuro 6y ago
    My guess: given your set of data and browser history, to contact south american women is their best way to keep you engaged. It could also be _you_ are the target for keep these ladies engaged. Who knows how many creepy psychological-mechanisms are behind their algorithms.
    • icedistilled 6y ago
      >My guess: given your set of data and browser history, to contact south american women is their best way to keep you engaged. Let me re-iterate. Because I'm male and on the internet I knew people would question my premise. I haven't clicked on anything on FB or *elsewhere* on the web that should be getting me random foreign women as friend suggestions. I'm not naive. And even if I were clicking on correlated things elsewhere, which I'm not, I have never clicked on one of these suggestions in FB. That's two layers of ridiculously bad targeting that just annoys their users.
• arusahni 6y ago
  Question: does Apple do the same for their apps on iOS?
• johnwards 6y ago
  Isn't this just going to drive all the tracking serverside? Hash up the tracking data in the app, send it back to the app's servers, send it to whoever you like? Same is happening with browsers and 3rd party cookies.
  • viktorcode 6y ago
    Sort of. I was thinking how tracking will respond now. And the answer is known: device fingerprinting, i.e. collecting all accessible device details to uniquely identify it. But since Apple fights fingerprinting too to certain extent, this sort of tracking will not be as accurate as the current identifier tracking. Also, it is significantly harder to implement. So, some monetary losses for the likes of Facebook are given.
• lwhi 6y ago
  This tracking needs to be reduced, I applaud Apple for helping progress this. Next order of business is removing the Apple's marketplace monopolisation; the App Store should not be the only marketplace available.
  • dnh44 6y ago
    >the App Store should not be the only marketplace available. Wouldn't Facebook then simply stop distributing it's app through the Apple App Store and then create it's own app store that doesn't have any of the anti-tracking restrictions?
    • lwhi 6y ago
      I think the issue is there two funding models at play. Advertising vs. paid content. Apple wants the tide to switch to paid content, and want to encourage people to do so through their own merchant gateways. In my opinion, this feel reasonable _only_ if consumers have real choice. Telling users they can use a different platform if they're not happy, is not real choice.
      • dnh44 6y ago
        You're not wrong with your first three lines but do you really think consumers will actually have any meaningful choice if all the trendy but privacy invading apps have their own app store with software free to run rampant on users devices? With iOS, Apple was able to create a mass market of easy to use device for regular people that didn't get infested by various adware and malware. I think that's a really significant and impressive achievement. People choose to buy into Apple's ecosystem partially for this reason. When the next "must have" social/communication app is only available on a future Facebook AdStore we'll have the choice between installing some form of adware or not participating. That's even less of a real choice than having the freedom to switch platforms. If app stores get regulated I fear we'll end up where windows PCs were in the late 90's. I don't know about you but I quite enjoy not having to remove spyware from the mobile phones of friends and family on a regular basis. Also, slightly tongue in cheek, if Epic is able to force Apple to allow an Epic App Store on iOS will that mean that Epic will be forced to allow alternative cosmetics stores in Fortnite? How far should app store regulation go? >Telling users they can use a different platform if they're not happy, is not real choice. Finally why is this argument always made on behalf of users? I've never heard a user that wasn't also a developer complain about the lack of app stores where they can more easily download crapware. I think this is a lot more about developer rights masquerading as user rights. I think it's self evident that in a lot of cases that the interests of developers are totally at odds with the interests of users.
• jdmoreira 6y ago
  and we (iOS devs) are just the little men being gassed in the trenches.
• nimos 6y ago
  I've always bought android phones but this genuinely makes me consider buying an iPhone.
• williesleg 6y ago
  All about the data. Apple wants to be the sole source.
• kmonad 6y ago
  "This discouragement, this is going to have a real impact on the Internet as we know it, which is increasingly going to move to a paid experience, which again, benefits Apple's bottom line," Satterfield said. The hypocrisy and dishonesty of this statement! Nothing comes from the new consent requirements that directly stop you from keeping your app free. Can't do it because commercially not viable? Well then, how much are users paying you right now?
• vikas-kumar 6y ago
  I am really not sure why is it only fb whose name pops up in media. IMO, this update will affect entire advertising industry. Be it giants like Google, Tradedesk, Amazon etc. In the end it is loss to the advertisers as lack of data will be hampering their measurements and targeting. Not sure if for internet platforms it matters. Will this be good for businesses in streaming TV like roku, apple, firetv?
  • alonsonic 6y ago
    Because Facebook is the most vocal opposition. There is a bit of media bias too because a headline with Facebook gets more attention, but there is no doubt that they are putting themselves in the spotlight by publishing big pieces in the NYT etc.
• christiansakai 6y ago
  I'm wondering if there are people on HN that supports Facebook (aside from FB employees, or FB stock holders of course). Seems every time this topic gets rehashed FB seems to gain 100% of hate. Not saying anything about FB or Apple, but I just want to see if there exists people here that support FB.
• underseacables 6y ago
  Seems like crying over spilled milk. Facebook essentially created the problem, now they are complaining about the solution.
• spoonjim 6y ago
  Well, looks like NPR is fake news now. “That gives [Facebook] reams of personal data on who we are and what we are doing, which it then vacuums up, packages and sells.” Even the most cursory investigation will reveal that Facebook does not sell this data as it is too valuable, they just rent out access to your eyeballs.
  • uneekname 6y ago
    I see what you're getting at, and NPR definitely could have worded that better, but I think they're getting the point across fairly well. From a layman's perspective, ad tracking is the packaging and selling of user data.
    • spoonjim 6y ago
      But that is wrong... they do not sell the data. It is a bald faced lie.
• samstave 6y ago
  Just remember that the facebook phone was an absolute disaster and they are trying to scrub it from peoples memory. FB is a product designers nightmare. Its a horrible product trying to force its way into every aspect of your life to slurp cash from the massive stupidity of humans.
• S53Vflnr4n 6y ago
  Good for iOS users. Rest of the developing world use cheap phones loaded with obsolete Androids. Facebook & Google can now leech on them. Re: Indian full newspaper AD about Whatsapp privacy. https://www.fastcompany.com/90593913/whatsapp-facebook-privacy-outrage-newspaper-ads https://www.fastcompany.com/90593913/whatsapp-facebook-priva...
• really3452 6y ago
  I'm still confused on why facebook needs to be an app at all. They should just make the mobile browser version of their website the best way to experience facebook and then have people add the facebook mobile website to their home screen.
• elicash 6y ago
  FB advertiser here. I had to change some of my Business Manager settings this week in preparation for the iOS changes before my new ads would run. They specifically mentioned "Aggregated Event Measurement" for anybody who wants to look into it. https://www.facebook.com/business/help/721422165168355 https://www.facebook.com/business/help/721422165168355
• siilats 6y ago
  So the whole point is you don't have IDFA, but each app still has its own persistent ID. Before when you used the FB app and another app they both got same IDFA so FB could link them (the FB SDK in the other app posts the IDFA). However, even with Apple change, the apps can still make network connections. All FB needs to do is make its SDK ping a server with the app specific ID and correlate with IP addresses. FB app sends IDFA1 with IP1 and MyAPP sends IDFA2 with IP1, they both have same IP therefore IDFA2 is the same user as IDFA1. Statistically you can get 95%+ matching very quickly. If you never use a wifi and are always on the same mobile network in the same city, then FB cannot distinguish you from other people who never use Wifi and are on the same city as you, but even then, the mobile phone network traffic has 10+ external IP-s so a few days of traffic will correlate quickly. Even worse, when before FB could get away without beacons in the SDK, just sent IDFA once and then just request ads, no need to store IP address every 10 minutes. Now it needs to ping every 10min to get the correlations. Apples next step is then a universal VPN/Proxy that all apps need to use so all traffic goes through Apple servers in the name of privacy. Then FB would see the same IP address on all requests, until that happens though, this is just a smokescreen.
  • paulmd 6y ago
    If Facebook exploits its software ecosystem to try and unmask users I think you'll see Apple pull the plug on any apps using those SDKs (including facebook itself) if necessary.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• ridaj 6y ago
  We might soon learn what users prefer, a break from Facebook or a break from their iPhone... If I were Facebook, this wouldn't be a fight I'd pick.
• xfz 6y ago
  Ick. 30% Apple tax vs. you are the product. We need a happy medium. We need better regulation.
• SMAAART 6y ago
  Are we at the dawn of an all out war of the titans? AAPL vs FB vs GOOG? I'd like to see that!
• yalogin 6y ago
  "We want to keep tracking the user without their knowledge and that entity is not allowing us - and its bad for us if we can't do it". This is most stupidest hill to die on for a business. I am continuously amazed at how shortsighted Zuckerbeg is.
• ricardobayes 6y ago
  What a great day. Next to prepare: Youtube with it's super creepy listening recommendation algorithm. If you say something out loud it will appear in your feed.
• dhdhhdd 6y ago
  How can an app track activities in other apps? Is it only possible if those other apps use the same tracking networks, or can the app track activities in _any_ other app? How does this work? What can facebook extract today? (I'm surprised a bit, i thought phones offer app isolation). The only things that comes to mind is to correlate device ids from different apps if the apps use the same analytics/advertising networks. Pls enlighten me...
  • kstrauser 6y ago
    > The only things that comes to mind is to correlate device ids from different apps if the apps use the same analytics/advertising networks. This, and also anything that uses "Sign in with Facebook". (That's one of several reasons I have for never using anything that requires signing in with Facebook or Google; if I can't create a username or enter an email address, I generally don't want to use it.)
  • LMYahooTFY 6y ago
    I'd also like insight into this. Are apps still not isolated enough for this? Is this more due to FB dragnet network analytics that they can put enough data together that it doesn't matter if you isolate the app?
    • deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    • zepto 6y ago
      > Is this more due to FB dragnet network analytics that they can put enough data together that it doesn't matter if you isolate the app? Exactly this.
  • pfortuny 6y ago
    “which includes which apps are being used and for how long, which websites are visited, and data about a user's location“ This is probaly in the “/tmp” or similar directory and probably useful for the system as a whole to be readable (or probably /dev or /proc). It is not a big deal unless you are facebook and, for instance, want to know if your user watches foxnews or has the cnn app or whatever. AFAIK just doing “ps” gives you a LOT of info on any unix env.
• mondainx 6y ago
  Fuck Facebook and Apple too, they both suck ass and have shitty business practices.
• xuhu 6y ago
  Won't this get handled by apps asking users to choose between all tracking, or multi-page-collapsible-ambiguous-form-for-selective-tracking ? Nobody spends minutes to deselect every category in those forms.
  • RL_Quine 6y ago
    The option is OS provided, yes or no.
• thenewwazoo 6y ago
  Fuckin' let 'em. I'll pick Apple over Facebook eight days a week, and if Facebook takes their ball and goes home, well, even better since it'll finally get me to completely pull the plug on their platform.
  • ddtaylor 6y ago
    What's stopping you from quitting Facebook right now and how does this change that?
    • jackjeff 6y ago
      The problem with Facebook tracking is that even if (like me) you don’t use Facebook / don’t have it installed random apps on the App Store will push your data to King Zuck. This is what the data sharing is about. If you’re a regular user a Facebook that ad from the Charleston SC burger joint will still reach you. They don’t share that data with anyone else. It’s the random game or app you install that will no longer push their data to Facebook. Edit. Fixed typo.
  • warmfuzzykitten 6y ago
    Agreed. Though it's fairly simple to opt out now, just delete the Facebook app. The browser still works just fine.
• uneekname 6y ago
  As an Android user, how much of this should I be worried about? I assume Google won't be pushing for this as much as Apple is? What can I do to reduce app tracking on my phone?
• collaborative 6y ago
  Pros: great news for value app developers. Unfair competition won't be as big of a worry and users will finally have to start valuing their apps (with money!) Cons: small retail sellers will find it hard to advertise and won't be able to compete with big ad spenders that use more wholesale ad strategies
  • tobib 6y ago
    > small retail sellers will find it hard to advertise and won't be able to compete with big ad spenders that use more wholesale ad strategies I wonder how much of an issue this is in the real world, i.e. outside of the valley or where ever people change their buying behavior based on targeted advertising. I buy peanut butter when I need peanut butter and not based on any kind of advertising. I'm running low on socks, I'll go buy socks wherever I bought socks last time. Why would I buy something just because an algorithm shows it to me, that idea is so weird to me. I wonder if I'm the exception or if I'm missing something.
    • deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
• segmondy 6y ago
  The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. Facebook has a lot of issues and we might applaud Apple on their push for "privacy" but we can't forget that Apple is no angel either.
  • alonsonic 6y ago
    Definition of looking at the glass half empty. Nothing is a zero sum game, we need to learn to reward good actions and punish bad ones. Here we need to support this decision by Apple instead of deviating attention to other issues. We will never get anything done if we always go back to the "but what about that..." mentality.
    • segmondy 6y ago
      Nah, not a fan of Facebook, not a fan of Apple either with their closed system. This is how we cheered Google with their "don't be evil" mantra while they got evil. Who taught Facebook how to invade privacy? Google. Who taught Google about closed systems? Apple.
• tyingq 6y ago
  Coming soon, crazy cheap Facebook subsidized Android phones with "Facebook Browser"... I'm only somewhat kidding. I imagine a flood of super cheap, but decent spec Androids would be pretty disruptive, despite sending everything to the FB mother ship.
  • 5etho 6y ago
    i'd buy that
• hikerclimber 6y ago
  hopefully we have 17,000% inflation in the U.S. so even rich people can't afford food. hopefully we have the dust bowl again this year and worse so all produce made in the us fails.
• tomjen3 6y ago
  I would love to read the article, but I can't unless I agree to their stupid cookie prompt. The insanity of the modern web.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• varispeed 6y ago
  I think the Facebook case shouldn't be left to the market to "sort itself out", but instead this type of business model should be banned in its entirety, just like people cannot run ponzi schemes, they shouldn't also run "free" services in exchange for processing personal data.
  • cacarr 6y ago
    Take a bunch of useful services away from poor people. No Gmail for you, poor person! Nice.
    • varispeed 6y ago
      That's not a great excuse. There are other ways to make money while not using personal data.
• lovelyviking 6y ago
  >Two titans of Silicon Valley, Facebook and Apple, are in a bitter fight that centers on the iPhone data of millions of people and whether companies should be able to track that data as easily as they do now. While two titans of Silicon Valley are fighting for control over our data my question is how we protect our data from both of them.
• sakis 6y ago
  I wonder what would happen if FB and Google went a step further and decided to give Apple the Windows Phone (or Huawei) treatment, by pulling all their apps from the App Store, citing these changes as the reason they can't support Apple's platform. I'm not sure the majority of iOS devices users would be happy with any of the involved parties, and that includes Apple.
  • Swizec 6y ago
    They all work great in the browser. You don’t need their apps.
    • Bilal_io 6y ago
      You forgot the /s
  • TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
    I wonder what would happen if all partied just came clean. This isn't about privacy or user data, it's a disagreement over how revenue is shared. So rather than this sort of wording from the article: centers on the iPhone data of millions of people and whether companies should be able to track We be read something like this: Facebook and Google go to war with Apple over revenue sharing agreement.
    • FabHK 6y ago
      Eh? Revenue is affected by this, no doubt (otherwise thefacebook.com wouldn't go to war), but of course this is also about privacy and user data. How can you deny that?
    • lotsofpulp 6y ago
      You should provide some data to support a bold claim like Facebook and Google is sharing their revenue with Apple.
      • TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
• vmception 6y ago
  Let us choose which contacts to share too! I’m boycotting all or nothing now that it’s been made better for photos.
• NoodleIncident 6y ago
  > Some apps, like Facebook, allow for some data tracking to be manually disabled. But by default, it is turned on. That gives the company reams of personal data on who we are and what we are doing, which it then vacuums up, packages and sells. Facebook would be giving away money if they ever actually sold your data. As everyone here knows, they use that data to target the ads that they sell. Do journalists phrase it this way out of ignorance, or is it an intentional lie to make Facebook look even worse than it is?
  • michaelbuckbee 6y ago
    I think there's room to be charitable and that most people don't see a meaningful distinction between "sell ads based on your data" and "sell your data to people to use in ads".
    • judge2020 6y ago
      This is often the problem of journalists not consulting experts on topics like these (although, a case could be made that the scale they had to adapt to with the Internet forced them to churn out news stories too quickly to get an expert for every story). They can still write an article about this problem (because targeted advertising is considered a problem to most people and/or NPR wants to make more people aware of it) but nuance is important and saying they 'sell your data' isn't misinformation I would want spread.
    • NoodleIncident 6y ago
      That's a circular argument. If journalists actually understood the distinction and explained it, more people would see the distinction after reading their articles.
  • villasv 6y ago
    I agree that the most used phrasing of "selling your data" is factually wrong. On the other hand, I think it is approximately true enough for the general public. I don't expect the usual reader to understand how that data is commoditized inside Facebook to serve better ads. Do you remember how a US Senator had a hard time understanding how ads allowed Facebook to remain free? People will not grasp without significant effort the ads economy and no journalist wants to take on that every time they write about tracking. It's a tough situation. I'm not satisfied with how they do it, but I understand it's a limitation related to the medium and target audience.
• tailrecursion 6y ago
  My guess is over time most free apps that depend on tracking will refuse to work unless allowed to track. And most users will acquiesce, just so they can use an app that they want to use. Even the Facebook app itself could refuse to work unless tracking is turned on. It's still a positive change overall, and still affects Facebook but it appears to me the effect will be minor, even temporary.
  • Jonanin 6y ago
    You are right, and not only that: personalized ads are better for users and for small businesses. I’m ready for the downvotes, but this is very much true.
    • jdj627jsh 6y ago
      Can you elaborate on how targeted ads are better for users? Do those benefits outweigh the documented harms and abuses, the risk of further harms and abuses?
      • Jonanin 6y ago
        Can you elaborate on what the documented harms and abuses are, and what the further risks are? People prefer seeing ads that are relevant to them compared to random ads. This is not controversial, it's very much established. Of course, the benefits to the businesses, especially those businesses without existing brand recognition, are quite obvious.
  • fmakunbound 6y ago
    Sure, but then the App Store rules will be changed to target such app behavior.
  • davidjade 6y ago
    I wonder though, could they and still get approved by Apple? Apps have to have some level of minimum functionality to pass review. You can require a sign in but I wonder if you could require tracking.
• tomekjapan 6y ago
  Apple some time ago recognized that they won't be able to compete on software with other BigTech giants so they are building an environment where certain software advancements are crippled. User activity data will be important to tune algorithms for maximum utility and by restricting access to user data for others, Apple wants to give itself the best shot to stay in the game. In the long run this will be a net loss for the Apple customers whose experiences will likely suffer compared to Android and other players. Already in my subjective opinion Android on Pixel phones provides a much richer and engaging environment than iOS and the difference will only become even more pronounced. Now it's a race. Will Apple superior hardware and privacy focus draw the majority of users before Google and others deliver clearly better software experiences, or whether the difference in software smarts will cause users to gravitate away from the walled garden of iOS and towards more permissive ecosystems.
  • robteix 6y ago
    > Apple some time ago recognized that they won't be able to compete on software with other BigTech giants so they are building an environment where certain software advancements are crippled. User activity data will be important to tune algorithms for maximum utility and by restricting access to user data for others, Apple wants to give itself the best shot to stay in the game. That seems off to me. Apple isn't crippling anything, they're giving their users the choice of opting in/out of tracking. If, as you say, choosing not being tracked makes the users' experiences so bad, they can simply opt-in and all will be good again. What am I missing?
    • tomekjapan 6y ago
      Getting users to opt-in will be very hard given the current partially justifiable negative vibe, so that will likely not happen at scale unless opting in results in a clearly better experience. However, if the majority of users jump into the Apple ecosystem before those clearly better experiences are materialized, there will be few remaining alternatives for Apple users to compare to and change their mind regarding tracking. Consequently there will also be little incentive to improve the software using user data.
• d3ntb3ev1l 6y ago
  Have their been any data studies to show exactly how much data is “enough” to adequately target ads? There appears to be a point of diminished returns. Overall though, it’s amazing Facebook/Google have made “targeted ads” a thing.
  • cube00 6y ago
    I suspect its like datasets for machine learning, you want every last drop to ensure you have the edge, no matter how slim, over your competitors.
• ssijak 6y ago
  Imagine a world with 0 tracking on any website/app. It would be horrendous. Advertising would not stop, it would just be so bad that we as users will be in even worse situation than today. Now, current situation is also not good, with the amount of tracking/ers not only affecting privacy, but also the look, speed and size of the web pages in a very bad way. Also no advertising on the web at all, as much as people say they would want it, I think they would even less want the effect of no advertising at all. So many services would be not be feasible, and everything else would be pay per month to access kind of thing. And you can only pay so much. There should be a middle ground. But me personally would rather prefer _some_ (where that amount is less than today) targeted advertising to the alternatives. Even though I almost never click on ads, on any platform.
  • ytwySXpMbS 6y ago
    Why would you want effective advertising? The sole purpose of advertising is making you buy something you otherwise wouldn’t buy. Call me old fashioned but if I want to buy something I look up reviews, I don’t just scroll Facebook until a good advert pops up.
    • ssijak 6y ago
      I just explained it. No advertising on the internet at all would be worse than some (because most of free services, publications, networks etc. would be shutdown). So, if need to see some ads, let them at least be relevant.
• shoulderfake 6y ago
  I'm contemplating buying an iphone after 10 years just because of this.
• apersonmatt 6y ago
  Allowing AD tracking in the first place is on Apple. They opened the door for bad actors like Facebook. I won't praise them for fixing this hole; I'm upset they put it in and even more upset it's taken this long to consider removing it.
• soheil 6y ago
  It probably has a much wider impact on FB than what is currently known. If anyone uses FB ads, in almost every field of the campaign there is now a new warning icon that says this feature may not work for users on the latest iOS version.
• gt565k 6y ago
  Lmao, just like all the businesses that build their platform on top of Facebook APIs only to have those APIs closed down, now Facebook will realize what it's like to build your business based on hardware device tracking, only to have manufacturer's like Apple restrict that down. Buh bye facebook. May you rot in hell.
  • amelius 6y ago
    Meanwhile, everybody else is building their business on Apple too. I hate FB like the next guy, but I don't like the idea of Apple playing government.
    • Schiendelman 6y ago
      I want government to do for me exactly what Apple just did.
      • amelius 6y ago
        At least give me the choice. Like a switch in the settings screen saying "let Apple police me and others". I would even be ok with it being ON by default.
        • jaywalk 6y ago
          That's... literally what Apple is doing. Facebook is crying because they know that a lot of people will opt out of the tracking when given the choice.
          • amelius 6y ago
            Oops. Yes. But Apple is not applying it consistently. They are still policing us in a lot of different ways too. One of the many examples is that Firefox is forced to use webkit on iOS, and nobody is allowed to have their own web rendering engine in the app store, which goes right against the principles of general purpose computing and having control over your own device. It's nice that Apple has a content-filter for people who are not tech-savvy, or for kids who are not allowed to see certain content, but that filter should be optional.
• purpmint008 6y ago
  The only big-data company that I've seen so far that has abused its position is vanilla Facebook. They're just milking the boomers that are still left on their horrid platform. No ethical considerations whatsoever.
• submeta 6y ago
  Facebook is evil. It harms societies for various reasons, for instance by enabling spread of misinformation, and it hurts individuals alike. Every measure that weakens platforms like FB is to be welcomed. Apple is big enough to confront FB and harm them. That alone makes Apple even more valuable in my eyes and makes me keep buying their products although I dislike their walled-garden-approach and their philosophy that is against open systems. Edit: A couple of years ago my impression was that FB is so big that it‘s futile to fight them. Recently more and more people seem to realize how harmful these kind of platforms are, and it seems there is hope in confronting them.
• sbazerque 6y ago
  I wonder how much of the tracking would still be necessary if Facebook didn't limit the organic reach of local business pages, as I understand they do in order to boost their ad offerings, and allowed them some space in the feed based purely on the likes/fans/comments they have as they did in the early years.
• firephreek 6y ago
  "Personalized Ads for Small Businesses" What a bunch of malarkey. I've worked in ad space and the actual ability for SB's to compete is laughable. Their budgets are so comparatively small that they simply don't get the assistance necessary. They're drinking through paper straws while the big dogs swim in lakes. SB's absolutely need a platform to compete, but I'm absolutely incredulous that FB is that platform, much less Google or any other like company.
  • phabora 6y ago
    Small business is just a propaganda tool. The idea has some allure, maybe because it reminds Americans of their priomordial beginning as settlers, homesteaders, yeomans, craftsmen (or so the stories go).
    • the-dude 6y ago
      Small business vs Big tech. A clever diversion.
    • giantrobot 6y ago
      In real numbers most businesses in the US are "small businesses" because they have 500 or fewer employees. It says nothing about their financials though. A hedge fund managing billions of dollars, a start up with millions in VC funding, and a mom and pop florist are all "small businesses". I'm definitely not disagreeing "small business" has been turned into a propaganda term. That process was helped by the silly tax classification of what's a "small business". A lot of marketing dollars go into making people think the mom and pop florist when they hear the term and not the hedge fund.
    • unishark 6y ago
      There's also the allure of the local restaurant/store/etc versus the national chain, that everyone can see all around them even in the present day.
    • dang 6y ago
      Could you please stop creating accounts for every few comments you post? We ban accounts that do that. This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. You needn't use your real name, of course, but for HN to be a community, users need some identity for other users to relate to. Otherwise we may as well have no usernames and no community, and that would be a different kind of forum. https://hn.algolia.com/?query=community%20identity%20by:dang&sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix&page=0 https://hn.algolia.com/?query=community%20identity%20by:dang...
• knodi 6y ago
  Drop them from the app store.
• qwerty456127 6y ago
  Asking for consent or informing about tracking is bullshit. I would bet 99% "voluntary conscious consent" is either not conscious or not voluntary. People just are given no real choice (they would be denied service or forced to go through an intimidating configuration dialog if they object) and/or have no actual idea about what does that really mean.
  • jasonjayr 6y ago
    The point is to introduce some friction into app developers using these methods, by informing users what's possible. It's disgusting what some apps do to slurp off personal information, that they are only able to get away with because users don't understand whats at stake.
• matchagaucho 6y ago
  "Ninety percent of our customers are finding us because of Facebook" (Restaurant owner) I don't understand why iOS Location perms wouldn't be better for targeting ads than full-tracking across apps and sites? Don't get me wrong. The Apple Tax has potential to get out of control. But FB needs to present better arguments than SMBs who can already geo target ads using basic tools.
• paulie_a 6y ago
  I'm guessing if facebook outright killed the app and blame it on apple. Facebook would do far better than apple would
• Geee 6y ago
  I don't really get this tracking thing. It seems like they should be able to use some kind of super AI to predict what I'm most likely to buy next, and that would actually be useful for me. Sounds great but I never or very rarely see ads that even remotely match my preferences. Also, I think markets have changed so that those companies who have great products don't need to advertise at all. Those companies who have the worst products will spend most on advertising. So, when I see an ad for an product, I know that it's likely to be a bad product.
• mensetmanusman 6y ago
  I wonder if Apple is weary of what is about to happen: 1) Try to destroy all ad platforms 2) Build their own ad platform Big company behavior is so predictable... oh humans
• ph2082 6y ago
  Little off topic, but how do I get this feature on Android or can an app be built which blocks others apps from tracking ?
  • onlyrealcuzzo 6y ago
    I'm kind of surprised it isn't coming to Android. AFAIK, Google does this on its apps. Whenever you install a new Google app - you're asked if Google can "use your data to improve your experience". If you say no, you're almost not tracked all. However, AFAIK, the majority of users actually do agree to this. Forcing all other apps to do the same doesn't hurt Google much, but it could crush their competition.
• Brajeshwar 6y ago
  I’m technical enough to be using PiHole[1], and also have AdBlockers[2] at the local machines. I live with very typical friends, family, and relatives who would still ask my help configuring Wi-Fi, buying the right UPS models, scared when papers got curled up in their printers. (I moved to NextDNS[3] from PiHole, where I don’t have to manage something for a small premium.) I’ve been successful enough to train my family to use 1Password[4], calendar their school works, etc. I’m not against paying for the things that my family and I get happiness from, such as YouTube Premium, Zoom, and the like. I stopped using Facebook 5+ years back but maintained my account just so I can help families, friends who will usually ask me to fix their page for their tiny businesses, find or set up something new. When Mark Zuckerberg said something to the effect of -- we do algorithms to help and serve people get the right ads; my thoughts were, “Wrong Question. Why the f*k would someone wants ads in the first place?” But then, I realized that my wife likes the ads that come up on her Facebook, Instagram accounts. That is where she “discovers” all the awesome things she likes. So does my daughter. She loves the ads about Roblox, Minecraft, and the like. She had warned me to stop messing with her computers and trying to make them “behave like yours!” The real world is an entirely different place where most people barely know anything of the underlying technology beyond the thin veil of interfaces that they use. Facebook and many others take advantage of that. If I'm choosing between the devils, I'd choose the lesser one. 1. https://pi-hole.net https://pi-hole.net 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_blocking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_blocking 3. https://nextdns.io https://nextdns.io 4. https://1password.com https://1password.com
  • higerordermap 6y ago
    Also, many elders cannot differentiate legitimate links and ads. They are more innocent than we can imagine.
• wait_a_minute 6y ago
  Fuck Facebook. Buy Apple. They’re the good guys in this case. They are fundamentally about advancing the case of sexy electronics and hardware and polished SIMPLE clean user interfaces and connectivity that just works. Don’t believe the lies about it being a “walled Garden” or some shit. Tim Cook can fundamentally be swayed that privacy is a FEATURE THE USER DEMANDS.
• dreamcompiler 6y ago
  The way to fix this is not to ask the user whether Facebook should be allowed to track them. That approach is doomed because it gives the FB app the option to diminish its functionality or refuse to work altogether without those permissions. This kind of stuff happens a lot. Almost every (Android) app I've downloaded in the past two years refuses to run if I don't allow it to see my location. Why does an HP photo printer app need my location? Answer: It doesn't. So now I have to install a GPS spoofer app just to print a photo. The way to fix this nonsense permanently is to give the user a single dashboard that lets him/her determine for every app whether it can see true or random data when it tries to snoop. That way the FB app cannot tell when it's being denied something it wants, and thus it cannot arbitrarily decide not to work for that reason. It's critically important that by default apps should not be allowed to know when they are being denied access to private data.