> Users can easily choose to keep providing Facebook (and anyone else) with all the information they want. Or they can choose not to.
This part hits the nail on the head. Facebook is intentionally being misleading in this campaign. I’ve had the IDFA turned off on my phone for years. Now apps have to ask for it individually. If apps have to prompt to access it, and this benefits small businesses so much, wouldn’t people agree to it with the right framing? Why doesn’t Facebook provide a method in its tracking SDKs that shows an interstitial about how this is good for small business before asking users if they want to be tracked?
Of course, Facebook would never do that. That’s because “informed consent” with adware doesn’t really exist... once people actually understand the scope of ad tracking networks... they don’t want it.
I’m not even against the concept of targeted advertising. Facebook’s first party properties are fine venues for it. I’m even (generally) ok with an advertiser retargeting me based on information they have about me. I wish that Facebook was prohibited from scooping up data in every other app I use and combining it with other data that they purchase. You can have targeted advertising without a massive surveillance dragnet.
Super agree. I can't describe that ad in any other way than a sophisticated lie. They are making it look like Apple wants to take away choice from the user when it's exactly the other way around.
They are careful to never mention what the iOS 14 updates are actually about, but a lie by omission is still a lie.
I am extremely torn about this thing, especially as I work in the privacy space. But it's hard to ignore the argument put forward by Ben Thompson that better tracking for facebook, actually tends to help small businesses. If you can't hyper target, you get ads for tooth paste, cars and deodorant (TV ads). If you can then you get ads for boutique florists in your area or gadgets you might actually like.
I don't know what the solution is, because I want to be on small businesses side.
And the issue with apple now is, I guarantee 99% of people will reject IDFA, because it is about personal data and it does sound bad. But the end result of this might not be that good for small business.
I would not put it out of the realm of possibility of facebook and others working with Congress on a privacy protection act which basically handcuffs Apple and others.
It will come with some protection sounding name and in effect make it easier for companies to get users back into the reflex habit of clicking away any protections they may have had
> once people actually understand the scope of ad tracking networks... they don’t want it.
I wish this was true but I have friends who want the perceived benefits. They firmly believe handing over that data benefits them. More relevant ads, more useful services and features, more free stuff, etc. I bring up yet another place I don't want to be tracked and they just retort they want to share as much info as possible.
The hypocrisy is unbearable. Facebook is everything thats wrong with internet. A company that basically profits from people living out their worst instincts (xenophobia, misogyny, chauvinism, plain hate) and from fueling insecurities of vulnerable people (paranoia, body image issues, etc.). I recently switched to the IPhone after a decade of Android, mainly due to the much better privacy protection. I hope they go much further in that direction!
Make sure to use Firefox browser with the uBlock origin addon on your PC too. Cookie autodelete, Google container, Amazon container are also good addons to use.
Consider a VPN, pihole etc for extra levels of privacy.
The fact that Facebook is open and proud of its end-user hostility in service to the business interests of advertisers is surely a turning point.
What kind of professional integrity would allow someone to continue working on a product that doesn't even pretend to serve the best interests of its end-users?
I seriously worry about the number of technology standards boards and governance groups that purport to represent the interests of end-users but are actually made up of (and lobbied by) people with this kind of "integrity".
Depends on who you define as the end user. If the end user is the advertiser, while the profiles are the product, their stand makes sense (Not arguing about ethics here).
Facebook is a terrible company. I recommend reading this recent Atlantic article comparing Facebook to the nuclear doomsday machine. It may be a bit overblown in it's comparison, but I think it makes some very valid points:
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2020/12/faceb...
This update seems to have touched a nerve for FB, and that to me means it's a good thing. I'm not a fan of Apple's restrictive ecosystem, but things like this that act in favor of user privacy deserve praise.
This isn't actually a lie. As much as you might hate FB using all your data for ads, that does actually mean that small businesses can hyper target their customers.
I personally don't see any ads on FB for mass market products, like on TV (cards, detergent, back pain medicine etc). I see gadgets that are cool, clothes from small producers that are actually kind fo cool.
They do actually help small businesses. As much evil as they do, you can't take this way from them.
I've worked for an ad agency before, I ended up leaving at least partially because I couldn't support the creation of things like this without feeling incredibly dirty. At one point I was explicitly told not to include tracking on conversion rates for a campaign that I was working on because everyone involved knew they'd be abysmal.
PR lives in a sociopathic plane floating above feelings, manipulating them from above to affect the average people / empaths living in the plane of feelings.
What is the price differential between contextual ads (you searched for "running shoe" have a nike advert) and personalised ads (you are Paul, we know you have a heart condition and low income and are going through a divorce - have an ad for this dating site while you search for running shoes)
Duck Duck Go clearly think there is profit in contextual ads - and I would love to find out if there is any hard evidence out there either way?
(other than the obvious Google and FB do personalised because it is more profitable. I know that and at FB scale a 1% profit improvement is worthwhile pursuit - but from society's POV that 1% diff may as well be irrelevant- it won't improve the mom
and pop store bottom line enough for the damage it does.
> (you are Paul, we know you have a heart condition and low income and are going through a divorce - have an ad for this dating site while you search for running shoes)
IMO this is fundamentally what's wrong with the entire concept of personalized advertising. Fundamentally the system is advertised as being designed to show you relevant advertising. The reality is the system is designed to allow advertisers super-precise targets to send their advertising to.
You don't get advertising relevant to you. You get advertising from the people most interested in targeting you. This is often not what you want to see and is often not in your best interest.
This is the million (or trillion) dollar question.
I doubt its 1%. In fact I think its more like 2-3-4x revenue from personalised ads. Just a hunch.
(side question - how do you do context ads for FB news feed? Because I can see it working well for youtube, if you know the topic of the video. Or google search, where you know the search. But I don't see how you can't NOT use personal ads in a newsfeed, whether on FB or twitter. There is no real context in a stream of random information)
The small business support is a weak angle at best. There is a local small business that is dying/already dead that did just that and more: the local paper. I think History will look back as this and ascribe the craziness of these years to "social networking", and give Apple the white knight--good side, if they stay the course and prevail. I long for printed news that cannot change during the day, and for less influencers on influencing platforms.
Thanks for posting that. I can't help thinking that FB has just invented some weird variant of the Streisand effect. The jaundiced yet vague wording states that many small businesses have, apparently, voiced concern over "Apple's forced software update" - but FB is so coy about providing any detail that this surely prompts the reader to seek more info.
This is being presented like Apple is eliminating the ability to perform hyper-specific ad targeting at individuals. No matter how locked down the Apple platform becomes, Facebook still knows exactly who my friends are, where I'm posting pictures from, what brands I've engaged with, that I really like outdoorsy pictures on Instagram. I'm fine with this, I'm engaging with Facebook and I expect them to use that data to target ads at me.
What these changes in iOS affect is their ability to track me across my apps via the advertiser ID when I explicitly take steps to avoid being tracked (alternate email addresses, not entering my phone number).
How can anyone defend Facebook's need to know everything I do on my phone despite me taking reasonable* steps to hide that information?
* I feel the need to point out that my "reasonable" steps are for a moderately savvy user of technology. I'd guess that the vast majority of internet users aren't aware that Facebook knows everything you on almost any site you sign into with the same email address.
Full-page issue messaging ads are about reaching very specific demographics
in a conspicuous way. But in today’s world, it’s kind of transparent whom
Facebook is targeting here: old white politicians.
I think the privacy labels are a good thing. If you watch the labels for FB its while you know they do it, still shocking what they do with your personal information.
If you chose to only give an app access to some specific photos instead of all, it caused iOS 14 to ask you if you want to revise your selection every time the app accessed photos. This was happening at random times while using WhatsApp, even when you did not choose to send any photos to anybody at all.
Also from Reddit:
> Remember when Facebook was playing a silent audio file so it would continue running in the background and not get preempted by the OS?
The pernicious nature of social media aside, Facebook also does not care about "small business" advertisers on its site. If you check some facebook ad groups, there's been big a random wave of bans for local businesses who spend hundreds or thousands on FB per month. They've also removed their live chat support, if you aren't a big account good luck speaking to a human and getting the ban reversed.
I don't understand Facebook. If personalised ads stand to lose 60% of their value, why not switch to contextual ads?
Google is mainly contextual ads, with some personalisation mixed in I'd assume. If you're already on Facebooks platforms they know who you are, they have access to all the personal information that can be extracted from your Facebook account and activity. Shouldn't that be enough?
What I read this as, is that Facebooks own data isn't actually that good, and they need data from source that aren't Facebook in order to provide value to their ads platform. It's the same issue every time Facebook complains about regulation or increased desire for privacy, they always end up in a situation where they devalue their own products and technology.
> But in today’s world, it’s kind of transparent whom Facebook is targeting here: old white politicians.
Because they’re all knuckle-dragging racists and completely identical in their thinking, amiright? Obviously politicians of every other race are free of bias or prejudice but the old white ones, well, you know what’s in their hearts. And it’s all bad intentions. Because they’re old and white, you see.
Privacy arguments, lying etc aside, how is taking out news paper ads to attack Apple a good idea? Apple may have problems, but they are infinitely better than Facebook in every metric imaginable. They make useful products, wildly profitable/bigger than Facebook can only dream of.
Even if Facebook had facts on their side, this is a bad idea. Intentionally misleading ads against one of the world's richest, most capable, most arrogant company with an insanely good marketing machine and legal team - what exactly is Facebook attempting to achieve here? I don't understand this at all. They are picking a fight that doesn't make sense
They are trying to sway opinions on the issue in their favor. My guess is they want small businesses owners or people who favor small businesses on their side of this issue. If you've used Facebook's advertising for your business or profited from advertisements in your app, this might be important.
Screw Facebook. Really F-them, and all the employee's that choose to waste their lives there.
If you know any - tell them what you feel and don't be shy. They should know.
Facebook has done nothing good for society, Nothing good for the internet, nothing good for the truth, facts. And Nothing good for San Francisco or the ecosystem.
As soon as developers had something going - Facebook killed it. Go ask around.
Not politically correct? GO ahead down vote - as if make believe karma on HN is worth more than open opinions.
There are many like me and many here that I know feel the same about this company. It lost its soul and became twisted along the way. May God have Mercy on them.
Lost its soul and became twisted along the way? Not at all, Facebook was always like that from the start. Check its first pitch deck - they clearly mention classifying (college) users by their demographics and interests to advertise to them.
I guess I agree if you are talking about consumer stuff, but dev products like React are pretty amazing. Since React is open source and can be used in isolation, it’s relatively harmless in its current state and doesn’t empower Facebook’s problematic side. I would never work there myself, but most every employer is going to have some level of moral dilemma. Our issues with Facebook are just closer to our hearts. Did I just defend Facebook?
Strange that with all the data about all the preferences in the world, the solution to their problem was to buy a newspaper ad because FB believes that the coalition they need to influence can still be reached directly that way.
[+] [-] firloop|5 years ago|reply
This part hits the nail on the head. Facebook is intentionally being misleading in this campaign. I’ve had the IDFA turned off on my phone for years. Now apps have to ask for it individually. If apps have to prompt to access it, and this benefits small businesses so much, wouldn’t people agree to it with the right framing? Why doesn’t Facebook provide a method in its tracking SDKs that shows an interstitial about how this is good for small business before asking users if they want to be tracked?
Of course, Facebook would never do that. That’s because “informed consent” with adware doesn’t really exist... once people actually understand the scope of ad tracking networks... they don’t want it.
I’m not even against the concept of targeted advertising. Facebook’s first party properties are fine venues for it. I’m even (generally) ok with an advertiser retargeting me based on information they have about me. I wish that Facebook was prohibited from scooping up data in every other app I use and combining it with other data that they purchase. You can have targeted advertising without a massive surveillance dragnet.
[+] [-] qsort|5 years ago|reply
They are careful to never mention what the iOS 14 updates are actually about, but a lie by omission is still a lie.
[+] [-] zpeti|5 years ago|reply
I don't know what the solution is, because I want to be on small businesses side.
And the issue with apple now is, I guarantee 99% of people will reject IDFA, because it is about personal data and it does sound bad. But the end result of this might not be that good for small business.
[+] [-] Shivetya|5 years ago|reply
It will come with some protection sounding name and in effect make it easier for companies to get users back into the reflex habit of clicking away any protections they may have had
[+] [-] greggman3|5 years ago|reply
I wish this was true but I have friends who want the perceived benefits. They firmly believe handing over that data benefits them. More relevant ads, more useful services and features, more free stuff, etc. I bring up yet another place I don't want to be tracked and they just retort they want to share as much info as possible.
[+] [-] dr_faustus|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] HatchedLake721|5 years ago|reply
> A company that basically profits from people being people ?
[+] [-] patrickk|5 years ago|reply
Consider a VPN, pihole etc for extra levels of privacy.
[+] [-] pjmlp|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] benjaminjosephw|5 years ago|reply
What kind of professional integrity would allow someone to continue working on a product that doesn't even pretend to serve the best interests of its end-users?
I seriously worry about the number of technology standards boards and governance groups that purport to represent the interests of end-users but are actually made up of (and lobbied by) people with this kind of "integrity".
[+] [-] Lio|5 years ago|reply
Doing so probably harmed small Mom & Pop tobaconist's bottom line too.
[+] [-] rusticpenn|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pjmlp|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hermitcrab|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] appleflaxen|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dartharva|5 years ago|reply
This update seems to have touched a nerve for FB, and that to me means it's a good thing. I'm not a fan of Apple's restrictive ecosystem, but things like this that act in favor of user privacy deserve praise.
[+] [-] runeks|5 years ago|reply
> They’re not playing by their own rules. Apple’s own personalized ad platform isn't subject to the new iOS 14 policy.
Is this true?
[+] [-] FriedrichN|5 years ago|reply
Has someone here worked in marketing/PR? How can people write stuff like that and not feel incredibly dirty? This is a mostly honest question.
Every time some super big company starts some campaign feigning compassion or act the victim I just want to barf.
[+] [-] zpeti|5 years ago|reply
I personally don't see any ads on FB for mass market products, like on TV (cards, detergent, back pain medicine etc). I see gadgets that are cool, clothes from small producers that are actually kind fo cool.
They do actually help small businesses. As much evil as they do, you can't take this way from them.
[+] [-] jon-wood|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kgin|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lifeisstillgood|5 years ago|reply
Duck Duck Go clearly think there is profit in contextual ads - and I would love to find out if there is any hard evidence out there either way?
(other than the obvious Google and FB do personalised because it is more profitable. I know that and at FB scale a 1% profit improvement is worthwhile pursuit - but from society's POV that 1% diff may as well be irrelevant- it won't improve the mom and pop store bottom line enough for the damage it does.
[+] [-] ogre_codes|5 years ago|reply
IMO this is fundamentally what's wrong with the entire concept of personalized advertising. Fundamentally the system is advertised as being designed to show you relevant advertising. The reality is the system is designed to allow advertisers super-precise targets to send their advertising to.
You don't get advertising relevant to you. You get advertising from the people most interested in targeting you. This is often not what you want to see and is often not in your best interest.
[+] [-] zpeti|5 years ago|reply
I doubt its 1%. In fact I think its more like 2-3-4x revenue from personalised ads. Just a hunch.
(side question - how do you do context ads for FB news feed? Because I can see it working well for youtube, if you know the topic of the video. Or google search, where you know the search. But I don't see how you can't NOT use personal ads in a newsfeed, whether on FB or twitter. There is no real context in a stream of random information)
[+] [-] dannyw|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] francoisp|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wcerfgba|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] samizdis|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jarbus|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shrimpx|5 years ago|reply
Facebook 2020: oh, we monetize everyone’s private stuff because ... we’re a champion of small business.
Facebook 2025: look, a bird!
[+] [-] jkubicek|5 years ago|reply
What these changes in iOS affect is their ability to track me across my apps via the advertiser ID when I explicitly take steps to avoid being tracked (alternate email addresses, not entering my phone number).
How can anyone defend Facebook's need to know everything I do on my phone despite me taking reasonable* steps to hide that information?
* I feel the need to point out that my "reasonable" steps are for a moderately savvy user of technology. I'd guess that the vast majority of internet users aren't aware that Facebook knows everything you on almost any site you sign into with the same email address.
[+] [-] obilgic|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aemreunal|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wdb|5 years ago|reply
See also: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/facebook/id284882215 or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s12onXfbFTs
[+] [-] Razengan|5 years ago|reply
https://www.macrumors.com/2020/07/25/instagram-unexpectedly-...
WhatsApp was also randomly accessing photos.
If you chose to only give an app access to some specific photos instead of all, it caused iOS 14 to ask you if you want to revise your selection every time the app accessed photos. This was happening at random times while using WhatsApp, even when you did not choose to send any photos to anybody at all.
Also from Reddit:
> Remember when Facebook was playing a silent audio file so it would continue running in the background and not get preempted by the OS?
[+] [-] Rastonbury|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrweasel|5 years ago|reply
Google is mainly contextual ads, with some personalisation mixed in I'd assume. If you're already on Facebooks platforms they know who you are, they have access to all the personal information that can be extracted from your Facebook account and activity. Shouldn't that be enough?
What I read this as, is that Facebooks own data isn't actually that good, and they need data from source that aren't Facebook in order to provide value to their ads platform. It's the same issue every time Facebook complains about regulation or increased desire for privacy, they always end up in a situation where they devalue their own products and technology.
[+] [-] olliej|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tomcam|5 years ago|reply
Because they’re all knuckle-dragging racists and completely identical in their thinking, amiright? Obviously politicians of every other race are free of bias or prejudice but the old white ones, well, you know what’s in their hearts. And it’s all bad intentions. Because they’re old and white, you see.
[+] [-] akudha|5 years ago|reply
Even if Facebook had facts on their side, this is a bad idea. Intentionally misleading ads against one of the world's richest, most capable, most arrogant company with an insanely good marketing machine and legal team - what exactly is Facebook attempting to achieve here? I don't understand this at all. They are picking a fight that doesn't make sense
[+] [-] ogre_codes|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 3327|5 years ago|reply
If you know any - tell them what you feel and don't be shy. They should know.
Facebook has done nothing good for society, Nothing good for the internet, nothing good for the truth, facts. And Nothing good for San Francisco or the ecosystem.
As soon as developers had something going - Facebook killed it. Go ask around.
Not politically correct? GO ahead down vote - as if make believe karma on HN is worth more than open opinions.
There are many like me and many here that I know feel the same about this company. It lost its soul and became twisted along the way. May God have Mercy on them.
[+] [-] fakedang|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] only_friends|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bstar77|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] motohagiography|5 years ago|reply