'Apple and Facebook's Fight Isn't Actually About Privacy Or Tracking' (inc.com) 22
Long-time Slashdot reader schwit1 quotes a columnist from Inc: Apple isn't going to stop developers from tracking you. It's also not against personalized ads, as Facebook refers to the targeted advertising it shows you based on your internet activity. If you want to share everything you do online with Facebook, Apple won't stop you. In that case, a developer can still collect the IDFA for the purpose of targeting ads or tracking conversions.
Apple is just going to require developers to be transparent about what data they want to collect and how they want to use it. Then, they have to ask your permission.
That's what the real fight is over – transparency. And, it's why Facebook is so worried.
Facebook's problem is that, if given a choice, many people will choose not to allow tracking. A recent survey from AppsFlyer, an attribution data platform, shows that almost half of all users (47 percent) are likely to opt-out of tracking.
That's the dirty little secret it would rather not talk about. Facebook doesn't want you to think about tracking, and certainly doesn't want you to have a choice.
The column includes a pithy observation. "If your business model will break because people are given a choice over whether or not you can track them, your problem isn't with Apple. Your problem is the business model."
Apple is just going to require developers to be transparent about what data they want to collect and how they want to use it. Then, they have to ask your permission.
That's what the real fight is over – transparency. And, it's why Facebook is so worried.
Facebook's problem is that, if given a choice, many people will choose not to allow tracking. A recent survey from AppsFlyer, an attribution data platform, shows that almost half of all users (47 percent) are likely to opt-out of tracking.
That's the dirty little secret it would rather not talk about. Facebook doesn't want you to think about tracking, and certainly doesn't want you to have a choice.
The column includes a pithy observation. "If your business model will break because people are given a choice over whether or not you can track them, your problem isn't with Apple. Your problem is the business model."
Facebook doesn’t need IDFA (Score:2)
Facebook has sufficient network power that the IDFA is a minor benefit. That isn’t their concern. Letting everybody opt out of Facebook’s tracking is of limited utility when you sign in as yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
That comment definitely needs a sarcasm tag!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Facebook doesn’t need IDFA (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not about tracking you while you're using their app. It's all the data they scrape from your phone while you're not using the app. Going to Pizza Hut but didn't log into Facebook/IG/Whatsap/Messenger? No problem, they'll just grab that GPS data and put two and two together.
Re:Facebook doesn't need IDFA (Score:2)
Don't have the app installed.
Don't have GPS/location turned on (or bluetooth, wifi). I mean, why would you have them on?
Use a privacy focused phone browser.
Doesn't that stop most tracking?
You can easily use FB and Messenger without the FB app, I do, they're just webpages (use the desktop mode for Messenger, sorted).
Slap on AdGuard (Score:2)
Third-party advertising is scummy and unnecessary. Without advertising as an option, services wouldn't force people to choose between paying an overpriced amount vs.
Money grubbing. (Score:2)
Facebook's problem is that, if given a choice, many people will choose not to allow tracking.
FB:Let us track you and you'll get a million dollars.
GDPR (Score:5, Insightful)
Under the GDPR facebook must be upfront & transparent [ico.org.uk] ... so why do they worry about Apple saying the same thing ? .... sorry, say again ... you mean that facebook is ignoring the GDPR ? ... should I say that Zuck is a lying toad ? Apologize, me ? Yes: sorry for insulting toads everywhere!
Re: (Score:3)
He's too concerned that they'd arrest his ass if he set foot over there.
Of course one way to get him to go might be to tell Facebook they they will be stopped - their web sites will be blocked - until he answers a call to testify in person. And then they can maybe arrest him for contempt.
Re: GDPR (Score:2)
Unnecessary, just make it illegal to place an add on Facebook if you are in Europe, or have an advert displayed in Europe that you place till Facebook comes into compliance.
Re: GDPR (Score:2)
Unmoderated ad chaos (Score:5, Insightful)
1966 (Score:5, Insightful)
In 2017, Facebook admitted that using its site can cause mental health risks [theguardian.com], but then, ludicrously, went on to try and claim that using the site more can help.
There have been more recent and substantive research papers published, but medical opinion on the harm of Facebook remains unchanged [forbes.com].
It doesn't matter whether risk to your health is physical risk to your lungs from tobacco, or emtional/mental health risks to your mind from Facebook. Both are harmful to you.
Let me say that again. Both are harmful to you.
If the Federal Government wants to do something useful to rein in the dangers of social media sites like Facebook and Twitter, the solution is simple. Write in to law a requirement for all social media sites [including this one: sorry guys] to carry a warning banner that informs users of the dangers of over-use. Mandate that those banners include links to a series of help guides or pages, hosted by the Federal Government, that explain the risks in plain language - in other words don't permit the social media companies to "offer to do it for the government" and then allow them to use weasel words. Or how about mandating a requirement to post up a warning if a user has been active on a social media site for more than say one hour, again asking them to click through the warning that includes a link.
Bring all Social Media company CEOs to Congress and have them testify under oath as to what research they have done in to the possible harms of the platforms they run - and then subpoena them for any and all documents. Compare what they say publicly with what they hand over - and if there's a whiff of something of interest there, get the USAG to go take a proper look.
Change the law to allow class action law suits against social media companies for cases where significant numbers of users all report the same symptoms after use - i.e. the sort of mental health indicator conditions that the research suggest are caused by Social Media.
The "problem" with Social Media and QAnon and all the rest is that the harm they cause may be much harder to spot. It's not going to be like smoking, where the physical side effects become pretty easy to see. So we have to adjust our practices to keep ourselves and others safe. See how much the big platforms like that - and the more they fight, the more you know you're doing a good job. And the moment you start talking to them about legal liability for any harm they cause is the moment they might actually be willing to take this seriously. At the moment all they are doing is blowing smoke at Congress. That needs to change.
False equivalency - direct vs indirect harm (Score:3, Insightful)
If the Federal Government wants to do something useful to rein in the dangers of social media sites like Facebook and Twitter, the solution is simple. Write in to law a requirement for all social media sites [including this one: sorry guys] to carry a warning banner that informs users of the dangers of over-use. Mandate that those banners include links to a series of help guides or pages, hosted by the Federal Government, that explain the risks in plain language - in other words don't permit the social media companies to "offer to do it for the government" and then allow them to use weasel words. Or how about mandating a requirement to post up a warning if a user has been active on a social media site for more than say one hour, again asking them to click through the warning that includes a link. Bring all Social Media company CEOs to Congress and have them testify under oath as to what research they have done in to the possible harms of the platforms they run - and then subpoena them for any and all documents. Compare what they say publicly with what they hand over - and if there's a whiff of something of interest there, get the USAG to go take a proper look. Change the law to allow class action law suits against social media companies for cases where significant numbers of users all report the same symptoms after use - i.e. the sort of mental health indicator conditions that the research suggest are caused by Social Media.
Smoking WILL damage your lungs. It introduced carcinogens that will poison you...in the short term as well as fatally in the long term. There is no healthy dose of smoking. A single cigarette is harmful.
Social media isn't directly harmful. If you have OCD or are miserable, it will make your life worse...but the same could be said of anything your brain thinks is "fun." By your standard, all recreation would be just as harmful...video games, sports, TV, movies, books, etc. Most of us can use social
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think we're each expressing both "degrees" and "absolutes". You contend that "a single cigarette is harmful". I'm going to agree with you on the basis that what little we know of the way that cancers manifest, it is possible that even a micro-dose of carcinogens can be enough to trigger carcinogenesis, the formation of cancer.
Although not central to the argument, smoking causes a reaction in your lungs immediately. Short term, you have difficulty breathing, start coughing and generally feel like shit. Everyone's cardiovascular health worsens after smoking. They're out of breath faster. They cough more. Your body doesn't want to inhale sm
ADs (Score:1)
If you'd have used "targeted ads" the way most people would have imagined it (maybe a sidebar of suggestions while you're looking at something specific) then it wouldn't have been a problem. This crap follows you to the ends of the earth when you weren't even looking for it.
It's bad enough that, yes, we find it quite nice that ANYONE is bothering
MDN (Score:1)