10 ms·

Apple shouldn't be allowed to lock down APIs between system components to give themselves a competitive advantage, but that doesn't mean Meta should be allowed

by crest 2y ago

Apple shouldn't be allowed to lock down APIs between system components to give themselves a competitive advantage, but that doesn't mean Meta should be allowed decide if they're getting that access. Let Apple offer users the option: allow once, allow permanently, refuse, or fake empty responses without telling the app.

gwbas1c 2y ago
> Let Apple offer users the option That's easy to say, and much more difficult to implement than it sounds. Careful: There's a lot of nuance in how these kinds of options are presented to the user. Depending on how they're designed, "the general public" will default to yes or no; or get frustrated / overwhelmed with pedantic permission dialogs. Thus, part of "Let Apple offer users the option" is a commitment to studying how that option is presented, and the overall implications of such an option.
- nathanaldensr 2y ago
  The thing is, at some point users must become comfortable with "pedantic permission dialogs." Users must take responsibility for knowing how software works and the motivations of its creators. Trying to outsource those decisions to corporations and government simply isn't working. Since computer users (I include phone users in that definition) can no longer trust software developers (Apple, Meta, etc.) to be ethically trustworthy (think: high-trust society devolving to low-trust society), users must take this burden upon themselves; if they refuse to, then the battle is already lost no matter what globogiantmegacorp "wins."
  - riversflow 2y ago
    > Trying to outsource those decisions to corporations and government simply isn't working I don’t follow. What is wrong with the status quo?
    - inetknght 2y ago
      > What is wrong with the status quo? Businesses are deciding who lives and who dies, instead of people being allowed to have their own choice in the matter. These businesses make decisions based on data stolen from users. If the data were on paper in a person's home, it would be considered private and inaccessible. Why should a company decide that they should have access to your every move and every data, just because you purchased something from them? Why should a company decide what you're allowed to do with your device? A business shouldn't be permitted to decide these decisions for you without your fully informed consent. That's what's wrong with the status quo.
      - nox101 2y ago
        It's funny, you're first sentence "Businesses are deciding who lives and who dies, instead of people being allowed to have their own choice in the matter" to me meant "Apple deciding who can and can not do business with users of iPhones" The status quo is that Apple has this power on top of the power to collect 30% for all digital transactions (or be denied on the store) and the power to force Apple Pay support to be required (or be denied on the store). Apple also has the power to collect all the data but deny it to others. That's the status quo that the EU is addressing. Note: I don't want FB to have my data. I also don't want Apple to have those powers enumerated above.
        inetknght 2y ago
        > The status quo is ... > That's the status quo that the EU is addressing. > Note: I don't want FB to have my data. I also don't want Apple to have those powers enumerated above. Yes, and I concur.
      - nyclounge 2y ago
        >Note: I don't want FB to have my data. I also don't want Apple to have those powers enumerated above. In an ideal world that would be great. However, right now it is either Apple of Google when it comes to smart devices for average consumers. Kinda like political dichotomy in US politics. Democracy will not function with an educated public. And dumbing down choices are just a way to get give power to megacorp and political institutions.
  - bun_at_work 2y ago
    > Users must take responsibility for knowing how software works and the motivations of its creators. This doesn't seem reasonable. Let's try to apply the logic elsewhere: > Patients must take responsibility for knowing how medicine works and motivations of its creators/prescribers. Requiring everyone to have deep technical knowledge about anything they use would prevent everyone from using more than the things they are experts in. So, there needs to be either a technological regression, or something to help defend users from unethical practices. The only entity really in a position to do that is a government, for better or worse.
    - beeflet 2y ago
      > Patients must take responsibility for knowing how medicine works and motivations of its creators/prescribers. This is true. If you blindly trust whatever your doctor says, you are going to have a bad time in the current medical system. Doctors are incentivized to push pills because they get kickbacks from the pharma industry. This is pretty well known (https://www.propublica.org/article/doctors-prescribe-more-of-a-drug-if-they-receive-money-from-a-pharma-company-tied-to-it https://www.propublica.org/article/doctors-prescribe-more-of...) When it comes to Elective surgeries, perscriptions. etc. you need to do your own research to how these things work and make an informed decision for yourself. Ultimately, if you're an adult, you are responsible for your own body and your own equipment. It's not a matter of deep technical knowledge, it's shallow technical knowledge and political knowledge of what institutions are trustworthy.
Yeul 2y ago
You mean like on Android? Hell nowadays you can choose "approximate location" instead of tracking people. App permissions have come a long way.
- gruez 2y ago
  >You mean like on Android? Hell nowadays you can choose "approximate location" instead of tracking people. Apps can and do detect this and deny access certain features. For instance the mcdonalds app won't give you offers if you choose approximate location.
  - paxys 2y ago
    And there's nothing wrong with that. If users don't have the will power to close and delete the app when faced with such a situation then that's on them. An adult has the right to decide that their privacy is worth a 50 cent discount off a shitty burger.
    - lamp_book 2y ago
      All fun and games until the grocery app does the same.
mort96 2y ago
Users will be faced with a dialog saying "to use Facebook, you must accept XYZ", and their only options will be to accept or to not use the app. Facebook will detect empty or fake data and lock the user out unless they acquiesce.
- twoodfin 2y ago
  Apple routinely rejects apps that try tactics like this. Otherwise it'd be an easy way around the "Ask App Not To Track" prompt.
  - bilbo0s 2y ago
    I don't know man? I have to think if Apple were mandated to be more open to competitors they would not be allowed to reject apps on this basis. This problem is just multifaceted and far reaching. Not sure how to go about solving it?
  - gruez 2y ago
    >Apple routinely rejects apps that try tactics like this. This is going to be irrelevant in the EU once sideloading gets popular.
    - dvdkon 2y ago
      Thankfully the EU also has legislation that makes "share data to use" tactics illegal, so this shouldn't be a problem.
      - gruez 2y ago
        How are you going to enforce this against app developers outside of the EU?
        silvestrov 2y ago
        Facebook likes getting some of that sweet money from EU advertisers. EU can block payments from EU to Facebook.
franczesko 2y ago
We need devices fully under control of users. Neither Apple, nor Meta should be able to sniff aground once the device lands in costumer's hands
mulmen 2y ago
> or fake empty responses without telling the app. I thought the value proposition of the walled garden was that no app was malicious so this is a non-issue.

by crest 2y ago

gwbas1c 2y ago

> Let Apple offer users the option That's easy to say, and much more difficult to implement than it sounds. Careful: There's a lot of nuance in how these kinds of options are presented to the user. Depending on how they're designed, "the general public" will default to yes or no; or get frustrated / overwhelmed with pedantic permission dialogs. Thus, part of "Let Apple offer users the option" is a commitment to studying how that option is presented, and the overall implications of such an option.

nathanaldensr 2y ago
The thing is, at some point users must become comfortable with "pedantic permission dialogs." Users must take responsibility for knowing how software works and the motivations of its creators. Trying to outsource those decisions to corporations and government simply isn't working. Since computer users (I include phone users in that definition) can no longer trust software developers (Apple, Meta, etc.) to be ethically trustworthy (think: high-trust society devolving to low-trust society), users must take this burden upon themselves; if they refuse to, then the battle is already lost no matter what globogiantmegacorp "wins."
- riversflow 2y ago
  > Trying to outsource those decisions to corporations and government simply isn't working I don’t follow. What is wrong with the status quo?
  - inetknght 2y ago
    > What is wrong with the status quo? Businesses are deciding who lives and who dies, instead of people being allowed to have their own choice in the matter. These businesses make decisions based on data stolen from users. If the data were on paper in a person's home, it would be considered private and inaccessible. Why should a company decide that they should have access to your every move and every data, just because you purchased something from them? Why should a company decide what you're allowed to do with your device? A business shouldn't be permitted to decide these decisions for you without your fully informed consent. That's what's wrong with the status quo.
    - nox101 2y ago
      It's funny, you're first sentence "Businesses are deciding who lives and who dies, instead of people being allowed to have their own choice in the matter" to me meant "Apple deciding who can and can not do business with users of iPhones" The status quo is that Apple has this power on top of the power to collect 30% for all digital transactions (or be denied on the store) and the power to force Apple Pay support to be required (or be denied on the store). Apple also has the power to collect all the data but deny it to others. That's the status quo that the EU is addressing. Note: I don't want FB to have my data. I also don't want Apple to have those powers enumerated above.
      - inetknght 2y ago
        > The status quo is ... > That's the status quo that the EU is addressing. > Note: I don't want FB to have my data. I also don't want Apple to have those powers enumerated above. Yes, and I concur.
    - nyclounge 2y ago
      >Note: I don't want FB to have my data. I also don't want Apple to have those powers enumerated above. In an ideal world that would be great. However, right now it is either Apple of Google when it comes to smart devices for average consumers. Kinda like political dichotomy in US politics. Democracy will not function with an educated public. And dumbing down choices are just a way to get give power to megacorp and political institutions.
- bun_at_work 2y ago
  > Users must take responsibility for knowing how software works and the motivations of its creators. This doesn't seem reasonable. Let's try to apply the logic elsewhere: > Patients must take responsibility for knowing how medicine works and motivations of its creators/prescribers. Requiring everyone to have deep technical knowledge about anything they use would prevent everyone from using more than the things they are experts in. So, there needs to be either a technological regression, or something to help defend users from unethical practices. The only entity really in a position to do that is a government, for better or worse.
  - beeflet 2y ago
    > Patients must take responsibility for knowing how medicine works and motivations of its creators/prescribers. This is true. If you blindly trust whatever your doctor says, you are going to have a bad time in the current medical system. Doctors are incentivized to push pills because they get kickbacks from the pharma industry. This is pretty well known (https://www.propublica.org/article/doctors-prescribe-more-of-a-drug-if-they-receive-money-from-a-pharma-company-tied-to-it https://www.propublica.org/article/doctors-prescribe-more-of...) When it comes to Elective surgeries, perscriptions. etc. you need to do your own research to how these things work and make an informed decision for yourself. Ultimately, if you're an adult, you are responsible for your own body and your own equipment. It's not a matter of deep technical knowledge, it's shallow technical knowledge and political knowledge of what institutions are trustworthy.

Yeul 2y ago

You mean like on Android? Hell nowadays you can choose "approximate location" instead of tracking people. App permissions have come a long way.

gruez 2y ago
>You mean like on Android? Hell nowadays you can choose "approximate location" instead of tracking people. Apps can and do detect this and deny access certain features. For instance the mcdonalds app won't give you offers if you choose approximate location.
- paxys 2y ago
  And there's nothing wrong with that. If users don't have the will power to close and delete the app when faced with such a situation then that's on them. An adult has the right to decide that their privacy is worth a 50 cent discount off a shitty burger.
  - lamp_book 2y ago
    All fun and games until the grocery app does the same.

mort96 2y ago

Users will be faced with a dialog saying "to use Facebook, you must accept XYZ", and their only options will be to accept or to not use the app. Facebook will detect empty or fake data and lock the user out unless they acquiesce.

twoodfin 2y ago
Apple routinely rejects apps that try tactics like this. Otherwise it'd be an easy way around the "Ask App Not To Track" prompt.
- bilbo0s 2y ago
  I don't know man? I have to think if Apple were mandated to be more open to competitors they would not be allowed to reject apps on this basis. This problem is just multifaceted and far reaching. Not sure how to go about solving it?
- gruez 2y ago
  >Apple routinely rejects apps that try tactics like this. This is going to be irrelevant in the EU once sideloading gets popular.
  - dvdkon 2y ago
    Thankfully the EU also has legislation that makes "share data to use" tactics illegal, so this shouldn't be a problem.
    - gruez 2y ago
      How are you going to enforce this against app developers outside of the EU?
      - silvestrov 2y ago
        Facebook likes getting some of that sweet money from EU advertisers. EU can block payments from EU to Facebook.

franczesko 2y ago

We need devices fully under control of users. Neither Apple, nor Meta should be able to sniff aground once the device lands in costumer's hands

mulmen 2y ago

> or fake empty responses without telling the app. I thought the value proposition of the walled garden was that no app was malicious so this is a non-issue.