6 ms·
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.
by 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 agoApple 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 agoExcept Apple doesn't track you all across the internet at every possible opportunity without you knowing about it.
- lisper 6y agoNot yet. But they could start any time they wanted to. Who would save you then?
- S_A_P 6y agoFacebook is a problem now. Apple is not that we know of. Why deflect with hypothetical scenarios?
- GeekyBear 6y agoJust 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 agoOkay, 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.
- user-the-name 6y agoSee, it's a bit more persuasive if you criticise companies for things they are actually doing, rather than for things you imagine they could do.
- tw04 6y ago>Who would save you then? Why would I need to be saved? I'll just buy a device from a different manufacturer. If there are literally no privacy-respecting options, and a majority of people think there should be one, either a company will form on its own, or constituents will make enough noise that the government will step in. If not in the US, the EU still seems to have some basic respect for the rights of their citizens.
- sonotathrowaway 6y agoThis is the literal definition of a strawman argument, isn’t it?
- lisper 6y agoNo. A straw-man is arguing against a position other than the one that your interlocutor is actually taking. This is a hypothetical, not a straw man.
- hobs 6y agoNot Facebook so what's your point? The enemy of my enemy isnt my friend, but I might smile as they land a good punch.
- williesleg 6y agoThat's funny I just shot coffee out my nose!
- shawnz 6y agoIn this case the incentives led to an action with a positive impact for the user, so we should keep up those incentives regardless of which corporation ends up capitalizing on them.
- Nextgrid 6y agoApple's incentives appear aligned with their customers. Facebook's are completely opposed.
- jpmattia 6y ago> Apple's incentives appear aligned with their customers. ... which is really no mystery, because Apple users are customers, and Facebook users are product.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- drewvolpe 6y ago"You're Apple's customer and Facebook's product" is often repeated but completely true in this case. It's all about incentives. Apple makes money by selling more products which means they innovate by making Watches, Earpods, M1, etc. Facebook makes money by selling your attention and data, which meants they innovate by extracting data from every experience they can (Oculus, Whatsapp, ...), using more complex technologies (Facebook AI), and encouraging whatever behaviors create more ad spend (hint: outrage). Add in the fact that Apple has made privacy a core part of their brand promise and it means that Apple has strong incentives to protect their customers in a way that most companies, especially Facebook, do not.
- paulgb 6y agoAlso, you literally are Apple’s product to their iOS developer ecosystem, in the sense that developers fork over 30% of their revenue to Apple for access to you.
- Spivak 6y agoThis is absolutely true. Both companies play the game of selling customer acquisition. But we seem to be generally more okay with middlemen squeezing a two sided market. Sometimes. If it’s DoorDash or Amazon then public opinion seems to go the other way. But regardless it’s not Facebook’s value prop to business that people have an issue with but ya know, how they actually deliver it.
- mhoad 6y agoYou know it really isn’t that obvious to me at all and I think Facebook is a genuine cancer on society. But everyone seems to conveniently forget about the absolute moral nightmare that is Apple’s supply chain. Remember when they had to put up nets to stop people from killing themselves? [1] What about when they were accused of using literal slave labour? [2] Or the time they actively lobbied Congress when a vote came up to restrict American companies using slave labour [3] I don’t say this as a shit post, I mean it, it’s really not at all clear to me that Apple are somehow morally less reprehensible. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/the-human-cost-of-an-iphone/2018/03/02/5d76555e-0b7e-11e8-8890-372e2047c935_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/the-human-cost-of-an-... [2] https://www.aspi.org.au/report/uyghurs-sale https://www.aspi.org.au/report/uyghurs-sale [3] https://www.axios.com/apple-lobbied-congress-uyghur-slave-labor-china-daf5a4b1-55ed-493c-a243-85f64db2adf9.html https://www.axios.com/apple-lobbied-congress-uyghur-slave-la... For the record... this posted from an iPhone. I got rid of the MacBook already but it’s a process.
- simonh 6y agoIf you cared about ethical treatment of labour in China, presumably you’d prefer to buy products from a company that rigorously audited its supply chain, excluded suppliers they caught violating it, ensured workers were paid above average industry wages and had below average suicide rates in their suppliers, right? Presumably if you were going to criticise companies using Chinese suppliers, a company like that wouldn’t be top of your list. Or is there something else going on here?
- mhoad 6y agoI don't know why people are like this. You can be pro human rights and also not dedicate your entire life to supply chain audits. I'm making a point that the largest company in the world not only does so but actively took steps to ensure they wouldn't be legally prevented from doing so in the future.
- simonh 6y agoThis is not correct, I've seen it said here several times so I looked into it. Apple lobbied for some amendments to the act on the grounds of practicality but did not oppose it and said they thought it should become law.
- simonh 6y agoIf Apple genuinely though that, you’d expect them to be selling access to their customer data to the highest bidder, but they aren’t. In fact they were offered billions of dollars in revenue by Google for customer location data in Google Maps. Apple turned it down and instead spent billions of dollars and several years building Apple Maps instead.
- executive 6y agoBut they'll gladly take ~$12 Bn/year to have Google as Safari default search provider.
- simonh 6y agoWell, they still need a search provider, a lot of people would change it to Google anyway. Arguably locking down the browser to limit tracking as much as possible is reasonable even though it potentially makes that Google deal less lucrative. If they were intent on monetising users data, you’d expect them to make a deal with Google to allow tracking in Safari in exchange for a higher fee for default search. In other words they don’t seem to be doing any of the things We would expect to see if this theory was correct.
- mgreg 6y agoBut apple (and Android) allowing search providers to bid/buy that default spot is a barrier to entry for new search providers and only makes the dominant search provider stronger. How could a new Google emerge today when people lazily accept the default? When Google started there was not built in browser default - users had to manually type in altavista.com or google.com.
- simonh 6y agoA big company like Coca Cola being able to buy huge advertising campaigns is a barrier to entry for new Cola makers. I suppose there are cases where buying or selling placement might be unethical, but I don't see it here. For example for a long time Google funded Firefox by buying a place as the search default. Was that unethical by Mozilla?
- nojito 6y agoIt's not just them. Anyone who still has the wrong assumption that targeted advertising even works is in for a massive revelation.
- tudelo 6y agoAre you suggesting there is no difference between targeted and non-targeted advertisement?
- notyourday 6y agoAt scale? Margin of error at best. I will tell you what my interests are by vising web properties that cater to them in that specific time. You deciding to keep showing me ads for a Nespresso machine when I'm reading about circular saws is idiotic.
- edmundsauto 6y agoThat doesn’t pass the sniff test. Would you say that in general, you wouldn’t expect a difference in results if you sold Taylor swift albums to white suburban women in Iowa, versus black urban men in Atlanta?
- notyourday 6y agoYou know what would blow both of those out of the water? Selling it to those that have indicated that they are interested in Taylor Swift as white suburban women in Iowa do not buy Taylor Swift albums. They buy mom jeans. Instead they are getting ads for Taylor Swift.
- edmundsauto 6y agoHow do you increase your market past people who have already liked Ms. Swift? The argument still stands - just replace TS with mom jeans. My point wasn't actually about Taylor Swift marketing - it was that demographic targeting is a reasonable way to identify an audience. Those mom jeans are not going to sell very well in a younger, urban demographic compared to Iowa.
- helsinkiandrew 6y agoI can forgive them for fighting to try and save their business model. But I can’t forgive them for dragging Grace Jones into the fight.
- beervirus 6y ago>dragging No, probably more like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWRlxSGf_ns https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWRlxSGf_ns
- hyperbovine 6y agoIf by "drag" you mean "pay a shitload of money for a single afternoon's work" then ... sure.
- Voloskaya 6y agoGrace Jones is a fully functioning adult person and made her own choice. No one dragged her.
- fogihujy 6y agoNormally, I'd ignore any marketing touting new privacy features in iOS, but Facebook's response has convinced me this isn't just an empty gesture from Apple.
- czbond 6y agoI wholly internalized that there was a real problem when I started taking my phone to other parts of the house, placing it in a drawer before returning and shutting the door to have an in person conversation with someone.
- rising-sky 6y agoI'm not sure why this is getting down-voted, but I think the point here is the _fact_ that you have been put in a situation where, as an individual, you are concerned enough to do this is telling, crazy or not
- czbond 6y agoYou are right on - the fact that I even needed to think about whether I should have to be concerned with it is where I was headed. Devices do listen to all sounds to listen for their "prompt" - how do I know what is actually discarded? And with precedence, I don't think it is 'crazy'. Example: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/25/614470096/amazon-echo-recorded-and-sent-couples-conversation-all-without-their-knowledge https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/25/614470096...
- DataWorker 6y agoAnybody that doesn’t know the code their device is running is a fool to trust it by default. Even knowing the code well, devices are compromised all the time. Yours seems like the lone sane opinion here.
- judge2020 6y ago
- Spooky23 6y agoIt's really weird. I don't think the "threat" is the obvious one... Nobody trusts Facebook -- many, if not most, people honestly believe they listen to their conversations already. The real message is how emotional and immature the leadership is to a perceived slight. A message that said "Cigarettes will kill you" didn't stop smokers, and some label won't stop Facebook users or meaningfully impact Facebook. Hell, when Microsoft faced anti-trust breakup, the company didn't sit and whine. They fought the threat and sold billions of dollars of software and solutions to their antagonist.
- Waterluvian 6y agoI'm not sure "Cigarettes will kill you" was ever meant to stop smokers from smoking. It was part of a generations long campaign to change the entire perception and culture behind smoking. And it seems to be working very well. I think there are parallels here. I see a focus on getting _current_ users to stop tolerating naked privacy. I think that ship has sailed. But in time the entire culture can shift where future generations do not accept naked privacy.
- Spooky23 6y agoTotally, but look at how smart (and evil) the tobacco companies were. They pivoted between strategies in smart ways. Once reality started setting in and denial didn't cut it, they acted to protect the shareholders. Phillip Morris bought things like Kraft that they could spin-out later. They settled claims and paid states billions of dollars for healthcare costs a few years before healthcare started going up 30% a year... which capped their liability AND made it politically impossible to put them out of business. Google seems to at least attempt to do something similar by entering and investing billions into businesses like Cloud, cars, etc. I don't see that with Facebook... Facebook digs in and spouts some nonsense about connecting people, like the capitalist version of Soviet PR people.
- indigochill 6y agoWell, I'm by no means defending Facebook's business, but they did open-source a couple little projects called React, GraphQL, and PyTorch (and a bunch of other lesser-known stuff), so technically it's not _all_ bad. :P
- darksaints 6y agoApple taking on this issue is worthy of respect, but let's not pretend that Apple respects all user consent. They're constantly forcing things on their users with thinly veiled justifications like "security".
- btbuilder 6y agocould you provide some examples beyond the “walled garden” of the iOS platform?
- darksaints 6y agohttps://9to5mac.com/2020/11/15/apple-explains-addresses-mac-privacy-concerns/ https://9to5mac.com/2020/11/15/apple-explains-addresses-mac-...
- meepmorp 6y agoIt'd be helpful if you would explain your point, then use the link as a support, rather than expecting others to deduce your argument.
- executive 6y agoEvery time you turn iPhone on it prompts to sign in to who knows what min 4x in a row.
- lovegoblin 6y agoI have never experienced this. Care to be more specific?
- executive 6y agoJust tested. > Power cycle device. 'Apple Verification. Enter the password for "<email>" in Settings.' > Tap 'Not Now' 'Apple Verification. Enter the password for "<email>" in Settings.' > Tap 'Not Now' 'Apple Verification. Enter the password for "<email>" in Settings.' > Tap 'Not Now' 'Apple Verification. Enter the password for "<email>" in Settings.' > Tap 'Not Now'
- api 6y agoThis is new to you? Facebook has been one of the most privacy-hostile companies since day one. (It's debatable whether or not Google is any better. At least they're a lot less overt about their contempt for user privacy and data sovereignty.)
- SergeAx 6y agoDevil advocating attempt: they obviously did a measure how much of their userbase will allow the app to serve personalized ads and how it will impact their revenue. Even if it is in a ballpark of 10%, it is still a ton of money and, as a commercial enterprise acting in the interests of its shareholders, FB should do it's best to avoid or reduce potential damage.
- reaperducer 6y agoshould do it's best to avoid or reduce potential damage. The way to reduce potential damage is to evolve, adapt, pivot, and diversify. Not to kick and scream. Facebook has enough money and enough smart people to do and be anything it wants. It chooses to be the neighborhood creep in the bushes watching your daughter through your windows.
- edmundsauto 6y agoFacebook is sufficiently loathed on HN that I would caution against using absurd emotion inducing analogies like “watching your daughter through your windows”. Not only is this needlessly gendered (would I not be upset by someone watching my son?), but it’s also a call to rally base and pure emotion. It almost feels as if you want to whip up a mob of digital citizens. It is enough to highlight the policies and products of Facebook that you disapprove of.
- SergeAx 6y agoStill devil advocating. Imagine you have a well developed silver mine, which produces a metric ton of silver every week. And you have an idea that there can be a gold vein somewhere on your land plot. But to find and develop it you should spend a lot of resources, including your well trained miner workforce. Rational decision would be to maybe do some research on a "last served" basis and continue to expand your silver mine, which is your primary source of income, until it depleted (if it will deplete at all, you don't know it for sure).
- ummonk 6y agoI recall reading the percent of people refusing consent was something like 95%. No idea how much that will impact revenue though.
- reaperducer 6y agoan existential threat to their business model Nothing existential about it at all. It's an actual threat to Facebook's business model. And I'm OK with that.
- 23iofj 6y ago> Nothing existential about it at all. It's an actual threat to Facebook's business model. "Existential threat" means a threat to the very existence of a thing, so a thing that is an "existential threat" is a very big actual threat. I think maybe you're confusing "Existential" with "Hypothetical"?
- reaperducer 6y ago"Existential threat" means an implied, or perceived threat. Politicians started using that phrase en masse about a year ago, and the internet has latched onto it and now misuses it all the time.
- ogre_codes 6y ago"I do not think that word means what you think it means" "Existential threat" means something so devastating it threatens the subjects very existence. It's meant that for as long as the phrase has been in use.
- kstrauser 6y agoMerriam-Webster says (ref: https://www.merriam-webster.com/news-trend-watch/existential-2016-03-24 https://www.merriam-webster.com/news-trend-watch/existential...) > an existential threat is a threat to the existence of something.
- 23iofj 6y ago> ...and the internet has latched onto it and now misuses it all the time. I can't decide if this comment is very clever ironic satire or... not ;-) > Politicians started using that phrase en masse about a year ago "Existential threat" has been in wide-spread use for a really long time. The first time I heard the phrase used was probably some time in the late 90s. And that's more a function of my age than of how long the term has been used. The cliche is at least half a century old and has been used by politicians for at least decades. For example, the phrase was commonly used in anti-proliferation and denuclearization advocacy during the last quarter of the 20th century, when nuclear weapons were characterized as an "existential threat" to humanity. This use persists today; see, for example, https://www.start.umd.edu/publication/nuclear-weapons-and-existential-threats-insights-comparative-analysis-nuclear-armed https://www.start.umd.edu/publication/nuclear-weapons-and-ex... But the term isn't particularly partisan or limited to extinction-level threats. it's also been used throughout modern history by right-wing populists to refer to one group or another being an "existential threat to our way of life". See for example https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44498438 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44498438 The point is, the phrase has been used for a long time, always with the same meaning, and its use hasn't been particularly partisan as far as I can ever remember. Both sides use the phrase for various things. But they all definitely mean the same thing -- a threat to the existence of something (humanity, dominant cultural norms, the country, etc.). Not a "perceived" threat. I'm genuinely and sincerely curious where you got the idea that "Existential threat means an implied, or perceived threat" rather than "a threat to the existence of a thing". The former has never been anywhere close to the dominant accepted meaning. Possibly you heard a politician or pundit use the term in a sarcastic way and misunderstood their sarcasm as literal? Or you heard someone use the phrase in a hyperbolic way? Can you share one or more sources where people are using the phrase in the way you describe?
- misiti3780 6y agoCompletely agree -- How people don't look at this and delete their accounts immediately is crazy to me.
- rkangel 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. They see it as the beginning of a slippery slope. And I hope they're right! The concept of social media and living our lives on the internet is new, in the scale of things. The last ~10 years have been like the period of time where the sun goes in but the thermostat hasn't noticed yet. Now people have decided they don't like being cold (having their data harvested) and are pushing back.
- Joeri 6y agoI removed the facebook app years ago. If people insist on using facebook they should use it from the browser, in private browsing mode.
- ryandrake 6y agoFacebook is one of the worst, but to be fair, lots of software companies seem to have difficulty grasping the concept of consent. How many times have you been asked to install or turn on something you didn’t want, where the options are “Yes” and “Ask me later”? What happened to “No”? Why can’t software companies accept a no from the user and treat it respectfully? No means no, right?
- squarefoot 6y agoThis, and the fact that (EFF and a few others aside) they're fought against only by an entity whose core business has nothing to do with mining users personal data, speaks loudly about pretty much every other corporation out there. Do I qualify as too much alarmist when I'm horrified from seeing doctors and lawyers happily exchanging photos of clients sensitive documents using Whatsapp? (read: forgetting them in their phone gallery, ready to be exfiltrated by any malicious software or repair technician). The sad part is that people is slowly adapting to not give a damn about their and others privacy because today's electronic gadgets and services are designed in a way so they're almost unusable by privacy conscious users.
- ParanoidShroom 6y agoSo do most news websites, anyone that sells targeted ads. Is this really a surprise from people here that companies that sell ads earn most of it with targeted advertisements?
- gigatexal 6y ago+1 this. People don't want to be tracked. Don't track me. I will decline tracking when this comes up.