4 ms·

The reason is almost always to be able to do conversion tracking. I.e. to follow the trail from a specific ad campaign to a completed purchase in order to evalu

The reason is almost always to be able to do conversion tracking. I.e. to follow the trail from a specific ad campaign to a completed purchase in order to evaluate the campaign performance. There are of course ways to do this while preserving anonymity of the individual customers, but it's way too easy to mess up and/or give in to the allure of providing too much detail in the quest to further evaluate user behavior. The tools are built to make it as easy as possible to provide as much data as possible about the users. Whether it's nefarious is debatable, but FB should definitely have some checks and balances on what they allow to be stored on their own platform.

vanderZwan 4y ago
> Whether it's nefarious is debatable Ok, I'll bite: try to debate how it isn't nefarious, because I sincerely cannot think of an argument.
- FrenchDevRemote 4y ago
  I'll bite too. If you don't have superbowl ads money, or already have a huge following, data and A/B testing is probably the only way to be profitable while doing e-commerce on your own website Those are tools designed to market products, not handle super sensitive data, it's kind of like using hotjar to record sessions on your (super confidential) website to find pain points and bugs, only to whine that hotjar stores data about your users actions, that's the entire reason why you're a customer. I really don't get the fuss. I don't even get the point of advertising pharmacies, you don't need medicines to be advertised to you, it's even crazier that a part of the price of your meds would be "facebook ads budget" And tbh I have more trust in the reliability of the infrastructure behind FB ads than in the spaghetti PHP code written in 2005 by a contractor for those pharmacies, or in the windows XP/vista computers that their employees use. If I had to bet on who's getting hacked, I wouldn't bet on Facebook.
  - car_analogy 4y ago
    > If you don't have superbowl ads money, or already have a huge following, data and A/B testing is probably the only way to be profitable while doing e-commerce on your own website Then how did we manage to sell medicine or call doctors before this wonderful era of Facebook integration? Would without this Swedes simply go without healthcare?
    - FrenchDevRemote 4y ago
      I also said "I don't even get the point of advertising pharmacies, you don't need medicines to be advertised to you, it's even crazier that a part of the price of your meds would be "facebook ads budget"" They're just using the wrong tool for the wrong job for the wrong reasons, but it's not facebook fault in that case
  - UweSchmidt 4y ago
    Those tools should probably be designed to handle super sensitive data, if they are handling super sensitive data. And, user behaviour on a website can very well be confidential, for example they could easily track the cognitive decline of users over time as mouse movement gets more erratic and reactions slow down - super sensitive information if you ask me. The reason a person is a customer is because they might buy a thing, not to be analyzed.
  - KingOfCoders 4y ago
    "PHP code written in 2005 by a contractor for those pharmacies" Real or pulled from thin air? "If I had to bet on who's getting hacked, I wouldn't bet on Facebook." My getpawnd list includes: Adobe (billion $ company), Dropbox (billion $ company) and Linkedin (billion^2 $ company) - twice!.
  - ChoGGi 4y ago
    > If I had to bet on who's getting hacked, I wouldn't bet on Facebook The bigger the company, the bigger the payoff.
  - vanderZwan 4y ago
    > Those are tools designed to market products, not handle super sensitive data, it's kind of like using hotjar to record sessions on your (super confidential) website to find pain points and bugs, only to whine that hotjar stores data about your users actions, that's the entire reason why you're a customer. In which case it is nefarious to advertise that they do handle super sensitive data correctly. Which Facebook does. > If I had to bet on who's getting hacked, I wouldn't bet on Facebook. This is moving the goalposts.
  - aaaaaaaaata 4y ago
    Well, they have been, as well as bunch of others you blindly trust.
  - pdimitar 4y ago
    Who is talking about FB being hacked? It's about them reusing all this info for many other purposes. That is nefarious. Plus you'll find that many will vehemently disagree with you kind of accepting as a given that data should be handed to FB carte blanche. It's a dishonest to start with such an extremely debatable starting point. I say why don't we give them jack (nil) and start the discussion then.
  - _nalply 4y ago
    > is probably the only way to be profitable while doing e-commerce on your own website This argument is like in sports: Woe me I can't win a price everybody is doping!
  - epicide 4y ago
    > And tbh I have more trust in the reliability of the infrastructure behind FB ads than in the spaghetti PHP code written in 2005 by a contractor for those pharmacies, or in the windows XP/vista computers that their employees use. You are comparing security in response to an issue about privacy. Facebook's security around data that they shouldn't have in the first place is irrelevant. Additionally, even a contractor today still could not create feature parity with Facebook as they do not have the network effect of Facebook. That's assuming the company/contractor would even try to build all of it themselves.
  - lostlogin 4y ago
    Another angle to this is the legality of direct to consumer drug advertising. I had though this was only legal in the US and New Zealand. The wiki doesn’t say it’s allowed in Sweden, so I’m not sure how they are getting away with it. Or is the advertising not for prescription drugs? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct-to-consumer_advertising https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct-to-consumer_advertisi...
    - mekkkkkk 4y ago
      Advertising for prescription drugs is not allowed in Sweden. Pharmacy ads are for non-prescription items like sunscreen, deodorant, whatever. I'd guess that the largest margins are on those items anyway, considering the subsidizing/reimbursement system for prescriptions.
      - cinntaile 4y ago
        To expand upon this Aspirin, Advil, ... or paracetamol based alternatives are non-prescription drugs (under a certain mg dose), while antibiotics are prescription drugs.
- mekkkkkk 4y ago
  You can argue that they trust developers to be responsible. Having a user friendly and powerful SDK with tons of possible data points isn't inherently a bad thing. All of the features could be used in a responsible fashion, and FB thinks you're smart enough to do so. I'm not entirely convinced of this personally, but it seems like a somewhat sound argument. I think that they know that it will inevitably be misused, and that they have enough incentive for allowing the misuse to continue.
  - vanderZwan 4y ago
    BTW, my apologies, I think my somewhat flippant replies attracted downvotes to your comments that you didn't deserve. I should have been more clear that I'm strongly disagreeing with the argument, while appreciating your attempt to come up with one in good faith.
    - mekkkkkk 4y ago
      It is what it is. One does not simply steel man arguments online.
  - vanderZwan 4y ago
    > You can argue that they trust developers to be responsible. Anyone who argues this should not be let anywhere near sensitive data.
juanani 4y ago
atleta 4y ago
The problem is not necessarily the (bad) intent. The problem is amassing data without a clear and well defined purpose. And "just in case we'll use it in the future" or "we might need it" is not one. And collecting more than what you need does meet the definition of without a well defined purpose in this sense. I think this is also in line with the ideas behind GDPR. From the point where your data is stored it's there for good. I think that's what they have proven, also, anecdotally, a googler friend told me well over a decade ago that they don't ever delete data. Which is not that surprising, since I, as a nimble private person, don't do either. So your data is there and it's there basically forever, you don't know what that data is and how that will be used in the future. Either by criminals who steal it or by the company changing policies or even the law being changed. So I would say that even without bad intents, which I'm ready to believe not being there at the moment, collecting as much as you can and trying to filter out whatever someone thought of as being too sensitive is the exact wrong strategy. They should actively filter out everything except what they want to store specifically and they should claim what that is. Other than that, I think completely blocking FB (and other big 3rd party) tracking is the way to go. It should be there by default in all browsers. There reason it's not likely to happen, is of course, that the most used browsers are all subsidized by the very companies that live off of data collection.
- mekkkkkk 4y ago
  Well yeah, that is the broader issue for sure. As you say, the change needs to come from regulation or consumer pressure. The power that the data brokers can provide to businesses is too great to ever reasonably expect them to resist. If you are an online business and refuse to utilize their services, you unfortunately are at a very significant disadvantage against your competitors.

vanderZwan 4y ago

> Whether it's nefarious is debatable Ok, I'll bite: try to debate how it isn't nefarious, because I sincerely cannot think of an argument.

FrenchDevRemote 4y ago
I'll bite too. If you don't have superbowl ads money, or already have a huge following, data and A/B testing is probably the only way to be profitable while doing e-commerce on your own website Those are tools designed to market products, not handle super sensitive data, it's kind of like using hotjar to record sessions on your (super confidential) website to find pain points and bugs, only to whine that hotjar stores data about your users actions, that's the entire reason why you're a customer. I really don't get the fuss. I don't even get the point of advertising pharmacies, you don't need medicines to be advertised to you, it's even crazier that a part of the price of your meds would be "facebook ads budget" And tbh I have more trust in the reliability of the infrastructure behind FB ads than in the spaghetti PHP code written in 2005 by a contractor for those pharmacies, or in the windows XP/vista computers that their employees use. If I had to bet on who's getting hacked, I wouldn't bet on Facebook.
- car_analogy 4y ago
  > If you don't have superbowl ads money, or already have a huge following, data and A/B testing is probably the only way to be profitable while doing e-commerce on your own website Then how did we manage to sell medicine or call doctors before this wonderful era of Facebook integration? Would without this Swedes simply go without healthcare?
  - FrenchDevRemote 4y ago
    I also said "I don't even get the point of advertising pharmacies, you don't need medicines to be advertised to you, it's even crazier that a part of the price of your meds would be "facebook ads budget"" They're just using the wrong tool for the wrong job for the wrong reasons, but it's not facebook fault in that case
- UweSchmidt 4y ago
  Those tools should probably be designed to handle super sensitive data, if they are handling super sensitive data. And, user behaviour on a website can very well be confidential, for example they could easily track the cognitive decline of users over time as mouse movement gets more erratic and reactions slow down - super sensitive information if you ask me. The reason a person is a customer is because they might buy a thing, not to be analyzed.
- KingOfCoders 4y ago
  "PHP code written in 2005 by a contractor for those pharmacies" Real or pulled from thin air? "If I had to bet on who's getting hacked, I wouldn't bet on Facebook." My getpawnd list includes: Adobe (billion $ company), Dropbox (billion $ company) and Linkedin (billion^2 $ company) - twice!.
- ChoGGi 4y ago
  > If I had to bet on who's getting hacked, I wouldn't bet on Facebook The bigger the company, the bigger the payoff.
- vanderZwan 4y ago
  > Those are tools designed to market products, not handle super sensitive data, it's kind of like using hotjar to record sessions on your (super confidential) website to find pain points and bugs, only to whine that hotjar stores data about your users actions, that's the entire reason why you're a customer. In which case it is nefarious to advertise that they do handle super sensitive data correctly. Which Facebook does. > If I had to bet on who's getting hacked, I wouldn't bet on Facebook. This is moving the goalposts.
- aaaaaaaaata 4y ago
  Well, they have been, as well as bunch of others you blindly trust.
- pdimitar 4y ago
  Who is talking about FB being hacked? It's about them reusing all this info for many other purposes. That is nefarious. Plus you'll find that many will vehemently disagree with you kind of accepting as a given that data should be handed to FB carte blanche. It's a dishonest to start with such an extremely debatable starting point. I say why don't we give them jack (nil) and start the discussion then.
- _nalply 4y ago
  > is probably the only way to be profitable while doing e-commerce on your own website This argument is like in sports: Woe me I can't win a price everybody is doping!
- epicide 4y ago
  > And tbh I have more trust in the reliability of the infrastructure behind FB ads than in the spaghetti PHP code written in 2005 by a contractor for those pharmacies, or in the windows XP/vista computers that their employees use. You are comparing security in response to an issue about privacy. Facebook's security around data that they shouldn't have in the first place is irrelevant. Additionally, even a contractor today still could not create feature parity with Facebook as they do not have the network effect of Facebook. That's assuming the company/contractor would even try to build all of it themselves.
- lostlogin 4y ago
  Another angle to this is the legality of direct to consumer drug advertising. I had though this was only legal in the US and New Zealand. The wiki doesn’t say it’s allowed in Sweden, so I’m not sure how they are getting away with it. Or is the advertising not for prescription drugs? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct-to-consumer_advertising https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct-to-consumer_advertisi...
  - mekkkkkk 4y ago
    Advertising for prescription drugs is not allowed in Sweden. Pharmacy ads are for non-prescription items like sunscreen, deodorant, whatever. I'd guess that the largest margins are on those items anyway, considering the subsidizing/reimbursement system for prescriptions.
    - cinntaile 4y ago
      To expand upon this Aspirin, Advil, ... or paracetamol based alternatives are non-prescription drugs (under a certain mg dose), while antibiotics are prescription drugs.
mekkkkkk 4y ago
You can argue that they trust developers to be responsible. Having a user friendly and powerful SDK with tons of possible data points isn't inherently a bad thing. All of the features could be used in a responsible fashion, and FB thinks you're smart enough to do so. I'm not entirely convinced of this personally, but it seems like a somewhat sound argument. I think that they know that it will inevitably be misused, and that they have enough incentive for allowing the misuse to continue.
- vanderZwan 4y ago
  BTW, my apologies, I think my somewhat flippant replies attracted downvotes to your comments that you didn't deserve. I should have been more clear that I'm strongly disagreeing with the argument, while appreciating your attempt to come up with one in good faith.
  - mekkkkkk 4y ago
    It is what it is. One does not simply steel man arguments online.
- vanderZwan 4y ago
  > You can argue that they trust developers to be responsible. Anyone who argues this should not be let anywhere near sensitive data.

juanani 4y ago

atleta 4y ago

The problem is not necessarily the (bad) intent. The problem is amassing data without a clear and well defined purpose. And "just in case we'll use it in the future" or "we might need it" is not one. And collecting more than what you need does meet the definition of without a well defined purpose in this sense. I think this is also in line with the ideas behind GDPR. From the point where your data is stored it's there for good. I think that's what they have proven, also, anecdotally, a googler friend told me well over a decade ago that they don't ever delete data. Which is not that surprising, since I, as a nimble private person, don't do either. So your data is there and it's there basically forever, you don't know what that data is and how that will be used in the future. Either by criminals who steal it or by the company changing policies or even the law being changed. So I would say that even without bad intents, which I'm ready to believe not being there at the moment, collecting as much as you can and trying to filter out whatever someone thought of as being too sensitive is the exact wrong strategy. They should actively filter out everything except what they want to store specifically and they should claim what that is. Other than that, I think completely blocking FB (and other big 3rd party) tracking is the way to go. It should be there by default in all browsers. There reason it's not likely to happen, is of course, that the most used browsers are all subsidized by the very companies that live off of data collection.

mekkkkkk 4y ago
Well yeah, that is the broader issue for sure. As you say, the change needs to come from regulation or consumer pressure. The power that the data brokers can provide to businesses is too great to ever reasonably expect them to resist. If you are an online business and refuse to utilize their services, you unfortunately are at a very significant disadvantage against your competitors.