6 ms·

> But last year, citing privacy concerns, Apple turned off IDFA by default and forced apps to ask people if they want to be tracked. It seems most do not: a stu

by tromp 5y ago

> But last year, citing privacy concerns, Apple turned off IDFA by default and forced apps to ask people if they want to be tracked. It seems most do not: a study in December by AppsFlyer, an ad-tech company, suggested that 54% of Apple users who saw the prompt opted out. Hard to believe that nearly half of all people is ok with being tracked...

sneak 5y ago
I believe that most people live relatively uneventful lives, and truly believe that they have nothing to hide from anyone, and resultantly do not value their own privacy whatsoever. The loss of privacy from surveillance capitalism does not bother them at all, and practically it is all upside, because they lost nothing of value to themselves. It does not enter their minds that mass abandonment of privacy means that it renders privacy harder and harder, or even impossible, for the tiny minority of society that needs it to operate: human rights advocates, investigative journalists, labor organizers, political upstarts, et c.
- gnfargbl 5y ago
  I agree to an extent, but I think you're grossly oversimplifying the way that the average non-technical user views their privacy online. It's true that many people don't really care about advertisers tracking them, but they do care about other privacy-related aspects of their digital experience such as having their location tracked or the content of their communications monitored. As evidence of the latter, I present the enduring popularity of Signal and the fact that WhatsApp thought E2EE was an important enough feature to roll out across their entire user base. The small minority of society that needs privacy (we should be honest and say that it includes some really nasty criminals as well as the good guys) really needs that kind of privacy, the kind that the average user is at least somewhat interested in. Ad-tracking isn't a huge concern to your average union organizer.
- scatters 5y ago
  On the contrary, they do realize that loss of privacy makes life harder for "troublemakers", and they see that as a benefit. Don't make the mistake of assuming that everyone shares your moral code.
- hotpotamus 5y ago
  The best comeback I've heard to that sentiment is, "would you like a camera in your bathroom?". And then the other night I was talking to my aunt and she mentioned that she has an Alexa in the bathroom so she can listen to music and I realized it might not be as good a retort as I thought.
  - AlexandrB 5y ago
    A better retort might be: "Do you want your health insurance premiums to be set based on which recipes you Google?" This one has the advantage of having a material impact and being almost-real[1]. [1] https://www.coverage.com/insurance/status-update-your-social-media-activity-could-affect-your-insurance-rates-more/ https://www.coverage.com/insurance/status-update-your-social...
peregren 5y ago
Couple of possible factors (with speculation) — Most apps nudge you to accept tracking before the dialog comes up. Probably influences some users - A lot of people probably don’t even read the dialog properly. - a lot of people who have apps like facebook installed are either unaware of the tracking stuff or don’t care
- curling_grad 5y ago
  This. I saw many non-tech savvy people just blindly hitting OKs to whatever dialogs shown on their phones.
danpalmer 5y ago
Also this is 54% of people who saw the prompt. The standard practice for this sort of prompt in products that are trying to _optimise_ acceptance is to pre-ask the user first, almost "If we asked you if we can track you, would you be likely to accept". So that's 54% of users who are probably ok with the idea of personalised ads or however the app pitched it, then go on to say "actually no". Essentially this number is far lower than the total population.
- scarface74 5y ago
  Facebook does pre ask.
  - danpalmer 5y ago
    Everyone does, because a) you get to control the messaging to the user, and b) once they've declined the OS prompt, you can never re-do in your app, whereas if they decline your own prompt, you can ask them again whenever you like, like when you know they've just had a positive experience.
paulcole 5y ago
Unpopular opinion on HN, but I’m 100% OK with being tracked because it means: 1. I get to use products and services I like without paying money from my wallet. I have plenty of data to share that’s effectively worthless to me. 2. I get exposed to new products and services (through ads) that I’d like to buy. I like buying things!
- FearlessNebula 5y ago
  You want companies to use your personal information to manipulate you into buying products you don’t need?
  - ineedasername 5y ago
    Everything but food, clothing, and a place to live are things we don't need. There are countless additional luxuries that make life more convenient or enjoyable. I found out about Instant Pots from ads, and when I finally decided to check it out and found it interesting I bought one. It has significantly improved my after-work quality of life multiple times a month with large reductions in food prep time. I found out about glowforge the same way and added a very useful & revenue generating tool to a small side-business I run. So I don't mind a little bit of targeted ads. I don't regard them as inherently bad. I do however believe that each individual should have complete control over the process as it relates to their own personal data.
    - FearlessNebula 5y ago
      I totally agree. But I don’t think Facebook (or anyone else to my knowledge) gives the user proper control over their data. My fear is that by feeding them this information, they’ll be able to gradually manipulate me in ways I otherwise never would have been interested in. For example I noticed that YouTube gradually started pushing me conservative leaning self improvement videos a la Jordan Peterson and co. I have never knowingly watched that type of video, and now I’m getting “alpha male” ads for supplements and courses.
  - paulcole 5y ago
altdataseller 5y ago
Occams Razor: very few ppl actually care and just press a random choice so they can move forward and use the app.

by tromp 5y ago

sneak 5y ago

I believe that most people live relatively uneventful lives, and truly believe that they have nothing to hide from anyone, and resultantly do not value their own privacy whatsoever. The loss of privacy from surveillance capitalism does not bother them at all, and practically it is all upside, because they lost nothing of value to themselves. It does not enter their minds that mass abandonment of privacy means that it renders privacy harder and harder, or even impossible, for the tiny minority of society that needs it to operate: human rights advocates, investigative journalists, labor organizers, political upstarts, et c.

gnfargbl 5y ago
I agree to an extent, but I think you're grossly oversimplifying the way that the average non-technical user views their privacy online. It's true that many people don't really care about advertisers tracking them, but they do care about other privacy-related aspects of their digital experience such as having their location tracked or the content of their communications monitored. As evidence of the latter, I present the enduring popularity of Signal and the fact that WhatsApp thought E2EE was an important enough feature to roll out across their entire user base. The small minority of society that needs privacy (we should be honest and say that it includes some really nasty criminals as well as the good guys) really needs that kind of privacy, the kind that the average user is at least somewhat interested in. Ad-tracking isn't a huge concern to your average union organizer.
scatters 5y ago
On the contrary, they do realize that loss of privacy makes life harder for "troublemakers", and they see that as a benefit. Don't make the mistake of assuming that everyone shares your moral code.
hotpotamus 5y ago
The best comeback I've heard to that sentiment is, "would you like a camera in your bathroom?". And then the other night I was talking to my aunt and she mentioned that she has an Alexa in the bathroom so she can listen to music and I realized it might not be as good a retort as I thought.
- AlexandrB 5y ago
  A better retort might be: "Do you want your health insurance premiums to be set based on which recipes you Google?" This one has the advantage of having a material impact and being almost-real[1]. [1] https://www.coverage.com/insurance/status-update-your-social-media-activity-could-affect-your-insurance-rates-more/ https://www.coverage.com/insurance/status-update-your-social...

peregren 5y ago

Couple of possible factors (with speculation) — Most apps nudge you to accept tracking before the dialog comes up. Probably influences some users - A lot of people probably don’t even read the dialog properly. - a lot of people who have apps like facebook installed are either unaware of the tracking stuff or don’t care

curling_grad 5y ago
This. I saw many non-tech savvy people just blindly hitting OKs to whatever dialogs shown on their phones.

danpalmer 5y ago

Also this is 54% of people who saw the prompt. The standard practice for this sort of prompt in products that are trying to _optimise_ acceptance is to pre-ask the user first, almost "If we asked you if we can track you, would you be likely to accept". So that's 54% of users who are probably ok with the idea of personalised ads or however the app pitched it, then go on to say "actually no". Essentially this number is far lower than the total population.

scarface74 5y ago
Facebook does pre ask.
- danpalmer 5y ago
  Everyone does, because a) you get to control the messaging to the user, and b) once they've declined the OS prompt, you can never re-do in your app, whereas if they decline your own prompt, you can ask them again whenever you like, like when you know they've just had a positive experience.

paulcole 5y ago

Unpopular opinion on HN, but I’m 100% OK with being tracked because it means: 1. I get to use products and services I like without paying money from my wallet. I have plenty of data to share that’s effectively worthless to me. 2. I get exposed to new products and services (through ads) that I’d like to buy. I like buying things!

FearlessNebula 5y ago
You want companies to use your personal information to manipulate you into buying products you don’t need?
- ineedasername 5y ago
  Everything but food, clothing, and a place to live are things we don't need. There are countless additional luxuries that make life more convenient or enjoyable. I found out about Instant Pots from ads, and when I finally decided to check it out and found it interesting I bought one. It has significantly improved my after-work quality of life multiple times a month with large reductions in food prep time. I found out about glowforge the same way and added a very useful & revenue generating tool to a small side-business I run. So I don't mind a little bit of targeted ads. I don't regard them as inherently bad. I do however believe that each individual should have complete control over the process as it relates to their own personal data.
  - FearlessNebula 5y ago
    I totally agree. But I don’t think Facebook (or anyone else to my knowledge) gives the user proper control over their data. My fear is that by feeding them this information, they’ll be able to gradually manipulate me in ways I otherwise never would have been interested in. For example I noticed that YouTube gradually started pushing me conservative leaning self improvement videos a la Jordan Peterson and co. I have never knowingly watched that type of video, and now I’m getting “alpha male” ads for supplements and courses.
- paulcole 5y ago

altdataseller 5y ago

Occams Razor: very few ppl actually care and just press a random choice so they can move forward and use the app.