9 ms·

The article manages to contradict itself at every turn. For example: "Only yesterday, Google announced its plans to make advertising ID an opt-in feature." A

by pavlov 5y ago

The article manages to contradict itself at every turn. For example: "Only yesterday, Google announced its plans to make advertising ID an opt-in feature." A few paragraphs later: "Google’s opt-out ad-tracking popup isn’t on the forefront like in iOS. Instead, it’s buried deep in the Google Play Service settings — which could be difficult for the non-tech savvy user to find out." And this opener: "Facebook has a market evaluation of over 930 billion dollars today." Versus the conclusion: "Clearly, this chain of events is about to trigger an irreversible slump in Facebook’s advertisement business — making their ambitions of becoming the fastest trillion-dollar tech firm a far-fetched dream." Is it really a far-fetched dream when the stock price only needs a 7.5% bump from its current level?

fireball_blaze 5y ago
On 1, I don't think it's a contradiction. It's opt-in by default, and to actually find the setting to opt-in, it's buried deep in the Play Services settings. That's how I read it.
- croon 5y ago
  But one says "opt-out".
- pavlov 5y ago
  It's opt-out: https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answer/6048248 https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ... Which undermines the whole premise of the article.
  - fireball_blaze 5y ago
    Wow, then yes -- this is a non-story.
  - pentagrama 5y ago
    I just checked my Android device and the opt-out looks like this https://imgur.com/a/1aaN4Ko https://imgur.com/a/1aaN4Ko I find interesting the UI, the user have to "enable" the opt-out, not enable the opt-in. It shows how crucial can be this simple switch for the ad industry immoral surveillance status quo. I guess the opt-out is disabled by default, I think I enabled it some time ago checking the phone settings.
    - Tempest1981 5y ago
      Is your screenshot showing the default setting, when you first checked it?
      - pentagrama 5y ago
        I'm not sure, maybe I enabled the opt-out at some point. Can't tell what was the default option when I buy the phone (have to flash it to know) Also, I guess the manufacturer is responsible of what is the default option of this setting? (or even the setting appear at all). Is a Xiaomi Mi A2 lite, it comes with Android 8.1 and was updated till Android 10. Maybe from Android 12 this is improved in some way.
PragmaticPulp 5y ago
This is common for Substack articles recently: It delivers a conclusion readers want to hear (Facebook bad! Zuckerberg going to lose a lot of money! Business model destroyed!) but the reality doesn’t quite match the pitch once you decipher the underlying facts. It feels like Substack authors got started in an ultra-competitive world where they knew clickbait journalism was the norm, so they’ve gone all-in on saying whatever they think it takes to grow their subscriber base. I’ve tried subscribing to many smaller Substacks in the past year but the majority of them feel similar to this: A lot of exaggerated sensationalism and recycled material, but little actual analysis. The exceptions have been professional journalists who were already good at writing before joining Substack. The sensational articles with exaggerated headlines do play well on places like HN where headlines get upvotes before many read the article, so the trend will continue.
- dannyw 5y ago
  It's not just substack. It's a plague that has infected regular journalism; they're just more cunning in disguising it. Think about all the "Sources say" articles you've read at 'respected publications' over the past few years. How many of them turned out to be true or collaborated?
  - oefrha 5y ago
    > they're just more cunning in disguising it. Are they? For instance, Ars Technica used to be a source of high quality tech journalism for nerds, where the journalists seemed to really “get it”. There’s still some of that left, but in the recent years, I observed more and more bland nothingburger articles coated in clickbait titles popping up in my feed; to add insult to injury, the comment section was sinking deeper and deeper into tribal outrage, consistent with the rest of the (Anglo, at least) Internet. I finally unsubscribed last year. Now I know zero source of consistent high quality tech journalism.
    - prox 5y ago
      I would wager that advertisement income and quality of journalism go hand in hand?
onion2k 5y ago
this chain of events is about to trigger an irreversible slump in Facebook’s advertisement business Surely the majority of ads Facebook sells are displayed on Facebook's properties (Facebook, apps, IG, etc), where they'll have the logged in user's details already and don't need the user's device mobile advertising ID. That's not to say this won't impact them at all, because it will, but it's not exactly the sky falling.
- manigandham 5y ago
  Exactly. This only affects cross site/app tracking. Which hurts attribution and data collection, but in some cases actually strengthens their walled-garden.
  - nr2x 5y ago
    It hurts Facebook, but it hurts their competitors more.
    - ctvo 5y ago
      > It hurts Facebook, but it hurts their competitors more. So it hurts Google and Amazon more? [1] 1 - https://www.businessinsider.com/google-facebook-amazon-were-biggest-ad-revenue-winners-this-year-2020-12 https://www.businessinsider.com/google-facebook-amazon-were-...
      - nr2x 5y ago
        Those are far from the only competitors.
    - manigandham 5y ago
      What competitors? Smaller adtech companies? Sure, there will be some shifts and consolidation but they'll still be around.
      - nr2x 5y ago
ignoramous 5y ago
> The article manages to contradict itself at every turn. That it might doesn't absolve the fact that Facebook has been essentially kicked about by the Big 2 that dominate the smartphone market. Remember that Apple and Google aren't exactly covered in glory as far as privacy is concerned. They want consumer data for themselves, and that's "private enough" in their eyes. There's a reason Facebook (and Amazon) has a devices division and is betting on AR/VR. Things will get interesting from here on.
- bstar77 5y ago
  I don't want to be an Apple apologist, but I don't think you can lop them into the same dysfunctional privacy strategy that google operates under. Apple is using user behaviors for advertising within Apple's ecosystem, but that's not something I really mind. Once my data/behavior exists the company I've entrusted it too, I get very uncomfortable.
xanaxagoras 5y ago
Honestly I didn't make it very far before the smell made me turn around and walk out. > Through shrewd acquisitions, blatantly copying the exclusivity of rivals (read: Snapchat, TikTok), Facebook managed to become an integral part of our lives in less than a decade. Maybe some of that is true? Facebook has been "an integral part of our lives" for longer than a decade. I remember returning home from college in 2008 and seeing my small town papered in facebook usernames for just about every business that had a sign. That was well before Snapchat or TikTok existed, and I don't think they'd done any acquisitions of note up to then. This guy's not completely wrong here, but the framing is myopic enough for me to look for another source of information about the advertising change.

by pavlov 5y ago

fireball_blaze 5y ago

On 1, I don't think it's a contradiction. It's opt-in by default, and to actually find the setting to opt-in, it's buried deep in the Play Services settings. That's how I read it.

croon 5y ago
But one says "opt-out".
pavlov 5y ago
It's opt-out: https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answer/6048248 https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ... Which undermines the whole premise of the article.
- fireball_blaze 5y ago
  Wow, then yes -- this is a non-story.
- pentagrama 5y ago
  I just checked my Android device and the opt-out looks like this https://imgur.com/a/1aaN4Ko https://imgur.com/a/1aaN4Ko I find interesting the UI, the user have to "enable" the opt-out, not enable the opt-in. It shows how crucial can be this simple switch for the ad industry immoral surveillance status quo. I guess the opt-out is disabled by default, I think I enabled it some time ago checking the phone settings.
  - Tempest1981 5y ago
    Is your screenshot showing the default setting, when you first checked it?
    - pentagrama 5y ago
      I'm not sure, maybe I enabled the opt-out at some point. Can't tell what was the default option when I buy the phone (have to flash it to know) Also, I guess the manufacturer is responsible of what is the default option of this setting? (or even the setting appear at all). Is a Xiaomi Mi A2 lite, it comes with Android 8.1 and was updated till Android 10. Maybe from Android 12 this is improved in some way.

PragmaticPulp 5y ago

This is common for Substack articles recently: It delivers a conclusion readers want to hear (Facebook bad! Zuckerberg going to lose a lot of money! Business model destroyed!) but the reality doesn’t quite match the pitch once you decipher the underlying facts. It feels like Substack authors got started in an ultra-competitive world where they knew clickbait journalism was the norm, so they’ve gone all-in on saying whatever they think it takes to grow their subscriber base. I’ve tried subscribing to many smaller Substacks in the past year but the majority of them feel similar to this: A lot of exaggerated sensationalism and recycled material, but little actual analysis. The exceptions have been professional journalists who were already good at writing before joining Substack. The sensational articles with exaggerated headlines do play well on places like HN where headlines get upvotes before many read the article, so the trend will continue.

dannyw 5y ago
It's not just substack. It's a plague that has infected regular journalism; they're just more cunning in disguising it. Think about all the "Sources say" articles you've read at 'respected publications' over the past few years. How many of them turned out to be true or collaborated?
- oefrha 5y ago
  > they're just more cunning in disguising it. Are they? For instance, Ars Technica used to be a source of high quality tech journalism for nerds, where the journalists seemed to really “get it”. There’s still some of that left, but in the recent years, I observed more and more bland nothingburger articles coated in clickbait titles popping up in my feed; to add insult to injury, the comment section was sinking deeper and deeper into tribal outrage, consistent with the rest of the (Anglo, at least) Internet. I finally unsubscribed last year. Now I know zero source of consistent high quality tech journalism.
  - prox 5y ago
    I would wager that advertisement income and quality of journalism go hand in hand?

onion2k 5y ago

this chain of events is about to trigger an irreversible slump in Facebook’s advertisement business Surely the majority of ads Facebook sells are displayed on Facebook's properties (Facebook, apps, IG, etc), where they'll have the logged in user's details already and don't need the user's device mobile advertising ID. That's not to say this won't impact them at all, because it will, but it's not exactly the sky falling.

manigandham 5y ago
Exactly. This only affects cross site/app tracking. Which hurts attribution and data collection, but in some cases actually strengthens their walled-garden.
- nr2x 5y ago
  It hurts Facebook, but it hurts their competitors more.
  - ctvo 5y ago
    > It hurts Facebook, but it hurts their competitors more. So it hurts Google and Amazon more? [1] 1 - https://www.businessinsider.com/google-facebook-amazon-were-biggest-ad-revenue-winners-this-year-2020-12 https://www.businessinsider.com/google-facebook-amazon-were-...
    - nr2x 5y ago
      Those are far from the only competitors.
  - manigandham 5y ago
    What competitors? Smaller adtech companies? Sure, there will be some shifts and consolidation but they'll still be around.
    - nr2x 5y ago

ignoramous 5y ago

> The article manages to contradict itself at every turn. That it might doesn't absolve the fact that Facebook has been essentially kicked about by the Big 2 that dominate the smartphone market. Remember that Apple and Google aren't exactly covered in glory as far as privacy is concerned. They want consumer data for themselves, and that's "private enough" in their eyes. There's a reason Facebook (and Amazon) has a devices division and is betting on AR/VR. Things will get interesting from here on.

bstar77 5y ago
I don't want to be an Apple apologist, but I don't think you can lop them into the same dysfunctional privacy strategy that google operates under. Apple is using user behaviors for advertising within Apple's ecosystem, but that's not something I really mind. Once my data/behavior exists the company I've entrusted it too, I get very uncomfortable.

xanaxagoras 5y ago

Honestly I didn't make it very far before the smell made me turn around and walk out. > Through shrewd acquisitions, blatantly copying the exclusivity of rivals (read: Snapchat, TikTok), Facebook managed to become an integral part of our lives in less than a decade. Maybe some of that is true? Facebook has been "an integral part of our lives" for longer than a decade. I remember returning home from college in 2008 and seeing my small town papered in facebook usernames for just about every business that had a sign. That was well before Snapchat or TikTok existed, and I don't think they'd done any acquisitions of note up to then. This guy's not completely wrong here, but the framing is myopic enough for me to look for another source of information about the advertising change.