The one where Apple upset Facebook
-
Facebook raises concerns that iOS 14 could harm its ad business
iOS 14 introduces a range of features to let users control which data each app can access, including clipboard notifications...
TLDR: iOS 14 allows users to specify if they want to be tracked between different apps and websites, Facebook don't like it and claim it hurts small businesses.
-
@loopback0 said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
Facebook don't like it
Lock the trackers. Lock the trackers.
-
Terrible vs. horrible. No matter who loses, we all win!
-
-
@loopback0 said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
TLDR: iOS 14 allows users to specify if they want to be tracked between different apps and websites, Facebook don't like it and claim it hurts small businesses.
Methinks the "small" business that Facebook is worried about is Facebook, specifically their revenue from those actually small businesses.
-
@loopback0 said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
claim it hurts small businesses.
And will somebody think of the children!
-
@loopback0 said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
Facebook raises concerns that iOS 14 could harm its ad business
Boo-hoo … harming ad business is a noble and praiseworthy thing to do, if you ask me.
-
: But ... but ... post-COVID recovery! Somehow!
-
@Gurth said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
@loopback0 said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
Facebook raises concerns that iOS 14 could harm its ad business
Boo-hoo … harming ad business is a noble and praiseworthy thing to do, if you ask me.
It feels a bit like complaining that camera access requiring user permissions harms the amateur porn business. I mean, if it’s legitimate and not against the users will, surely asking for permission is not a problem.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
Terrible vs. horrible. No matter who loses, we all win!
My usual go-to for situations like this is Henry Kissinger's "It's a pity both sides can't lose"
-
@topspin said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
@Gurth said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
@loopback0 said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
Facebook raises concerns that iOS 14 could harm its ad business
Boo-hoo … harming ad business is a noble and praiseworthy thing to do, if you ask me.
It feels a bit like complaining that camera access requiring user permissions harms the amateur porn business. I mean, if it’s legitimate and not against the users will, surely asking for permission is not a problem.
Well, I agree with your sentiment, but there's millions of idiots who would click "no" instead of "yes" and then leave negative reviews because "it doesn't work at all".
-
@Gąska said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
@topspin said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
@Gurth said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
@loopback0 said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
Facebook raises concerns that iOS 14 could harm its ad business
Boo-hoo … harming ad business is a noble and praiseworthy thing to do, if you ask me.
It feels a bit like complaining that camera access requiring user permissions harms the amateur porn business. I mean, if it’s legitimate and not against the users will, surely asking for permission is not a problem.
Well, I agree with your sentiment, but there's millions of idiots who would click "no" instead of "yes" and then leave negative reviews because "it doesn't work at all".
In other words, any stupid excuse is as good as any other.
Just like back when they nearly got exposed when Do Not Track got introduced "most users really don't care", then decided that no, even explicit requests not to be tracked are irrelevant.
-
@topspin said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
@Gąska said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
@topspin said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
@Gurth said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
@loopback0 said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
Facebook raises concerns that iOS 14 could harm its ad business
Boo-hoo … harming ad business is a noble and praiseworthy thing to do, if you ask me.
It feels a bit like complaining that camera access requiring user permissions harms the amateur porn business. I mean, if it’s legitimate and not against the users will, surely asking for permission is not a problem.
Well, I agree with your sentiment, but there's millions of idiots who would click "no" instead of "yes" and then leave negative reviews because "it doesn't work at all".
In other words, any stupid excuse is as good as any other.
More like "even the most stupid excuse has a grain of truth". I absolutely support locking every privacy-compromising feature behind separate permission. It's just that users' stupidity really is infinite.
-
@Gąska said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
@topspin said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
@Gąska said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
@topspin said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
@Gurth said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
@loopback0 said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
Facebook raises concerns that iOS 14 could harm its ad business
Boo-hoo … harming ad business is a noble and praiseworthy thing to do, if you ask me.
It feels a bit like complaining that camera access requiring user permissions harms the amateur porn business. I mean, if it’s legitimate and not against the users will, surely asking for permission is not a problem.
Well, I agree with your sentiment, but there's millions of idiots who would click "no" instead of "yes" and then leave negative reviews because "it doesn't work at all".
In other words, any stupid excuse is as good as any other.
More like "even the most stupid excuse has a grain of truth". I absolutely support locking every privacy-compromising feature behind separate permission. It's just that users' stupidity really is infinite.
Absolutely, and I did understand you that way. But that you wouldn't use users' stupidity to argue against that feature doesn't mean Facebook et al. wouldn't go along with any argument, no matter how bad.
: I don't want to be tracked, that's why has implemented DNT
Ad industry: Well, users are stupid, so we don't care.: Users have to give permission to be tracked.
: But users are stupid.
: I'd like to have a cup of tea.
: It's sunny outside. Here's your horse meat burger.
-
@topspin said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
Absolutely, and I did understand you that way. But that you wouldn't use users' stupidity to argue against that feature doesn't mean Facebook et al. wouldn't go along with any argument, no matter how bad.
: I don't want to be tracked, that's why has implemented DNT
Ad industry: Well, users are stupid, so we don't care.: Users have to give permission to be tracked.
: But users are stupid.Yeah but unlike DNT, Facebook can't just ignore this. If the user says no, the app can't access the IDFA. End of.
-
@topspin said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
@Gąska said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
@topspin said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
@Gurth said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
@loopback0 said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
Facebook raises concerns that iOS 14 could harm its ad business
Boo-hoo … harming ad business is a noble and praiseworthy thing to do, if you ask me.
It feels a bit like complaining that camera access requiring user permissions harms the amateur porn business. I mean, if it’s legitimate and not against the users will, surely asking for permission is not a problem.
Well, I agree with your sentiment, but there's millions of idiots who would click "no" instead of "yes" and then leave negative reviews because "it doesn't work at all".
In other words, any stupid excuse is as good as any other.
Just like back when they nearly got exposed when Do Not Track got introduced "most users really don't care", then decided that no, even explicit requests not to be tracked are irrelevant.
The moment I read about DNT, the first thing that passed through my head was "the waitress in the restaurant yesterday was hot"(1), followed by "well, this DNT thing is blatantly fatuous optimism". I'd guess the first time any ad spewing network decided to ignore it was the first time they received
DNT: 0, much less an actual request to not be tracked.(1) Sorry, I'm in one of those moods again. You know, the ones fuelled by methylcarbinol.
-
@Steve_The_Cynic but it was also when the mask definitely came down. Until then they still pretended that users didn't mind and if there was a system to opt out of tracking they would do it, just because nobody would use it anyway.
-
@Steve_The_Cynic said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
Sorry, I'm in one of those moods again. You know, the ones fuelled by methylcarbinol.
Never apologize.
-
@loopback0 said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
@topspin said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
Absolutely, and I did understand you that way. But that you wouldn't use users' stupidity to argue against that feature doesn't mean Facebook et al. wouldn't go along with any argument, no matter how bad.
: I don't want to be tracked, that's why has implemented DNT
Ad industry: Well, users are stupid, so we don't care.: Users have to give permission to be tracked.
: But users are stupid.Yeah but unlike DNT, Facebook can't just ignore this. If the user says no, the app can't access the IDFA. End of.
They'll find a way to ignore it. Possibly by playing games involving tying the IDFA to cookies and tying cookies to other cookies or something like that.
EDIT: never underestimate the inventiveness of scumsuckers.
-
@topspin said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
: I don't want to be tracked, that's why has implemented DNT
Ad industry: Well, users are stupid, so we don't care.Actually, the one that really got the ad industry to admit that they were going to ignore DNT was when Microsoft said that Edge was going to default it to on.
-
@Steve_The_Cynic said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
@loopback0 said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
@topspin said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
Absolutely, and I did understand you that way. But that you wouldn't use users' stupidity to argue against that feature doesn't mean Facebook et al. wouldn't go along with any argument, no matter how bad.
: I don't want to be tracked, that's why has implemented DNT
Ad industry: Well, users are stupid, so we don't care.: Users have to give permission to be tracked.
: But users are stupid.Yeah but unlike DNT, Facebook can't just ignore this. If the user says no, the app can't access the IDFA. End of.
They'll find a way to ignore it. Possibly by playing games involving tying the IDFA to cookies and tying cookies to other cookies or something like that.
EDIT: never underestimate the inventiveness of scumsuckers.
The really depressing part is that even if you make it illegal and fine them a few billion dollars, they'd rather pay the fine than stop doing it.
-
@topspin said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
The really depressing part is that even if you make it illegal and fine them a few billion dollars, they'd rather pay the fine than stop doing it.
Fines don’t work if they appear to be just a tax on doing whatever it is you’re not actually supposed to be doing.
-
@topspin said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
The really depressing part is that even if you make it illegal and fine them a few billion dollars, they'd rather pay the fine than stop doing it.
When a company takes that attitude, you go into direct critical asset seizure or putting executives in jail. Anyone who treats laws and courts with what basically amounts to contempt is asking for an absolute world of
hurtfun time with Bubba.
-
@dkf said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
@topspin said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
The really depressing part is that even if you make it illegal and fine them a few billion dollars, they'd rather pay the fine than stop doing it.
When a company takes that attitude, you go into direct critical asset seizure or putting executives in jail. Anyone who treats laws and courts with what basically amounts to contempt is asking for an absolute world of
hurtfun time with Bubba.OK, but does the relevant law permit that? If it doesn't, then you're advocating ignoring what the law says and punishing them the way you want anyway, which does slightly fly in the face of centuries of philosophical precedent.
-
@dkf said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
When a company takes that attitude, you go into direct critical asset seizure or putting executives in jail. Anyone who treats laws and courts with what basically amounts to contempt
In my country, the courts are contemptible and frankly, the law often is too.
But the laws are there to protect the innocent and the guilty alike. So if you're following the letter of the law, the court is supposed to pound sand.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
So if you're following the letter of the law
There's an awful lot of letters of the law.
-
@dkf said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
So if you're following the letter of the law
There's an awful lot of letters of the law.
Right. But if you fine them, and then they pay the fine, then you've punished them once and can't punish them again for the same act.
In a football game, if a player on my team lines up offsides and the officials notice and properly assess a 5 yard penalty, but then my team wins anyway, you'd be a real dope to complain that my team only won because we cheated.
-
@topspin said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
@Steve_The_Cynic said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
@loopback0 said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
@topspin said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
Absolutely, and I did understand you that way. But that you wouldn't use users' stupidity to argue against that feature doesn't mean Facebook et al. wouldn't go along with any argument, no matter how bad.
: I don't want to be tracked, that's why has implemented DNT
Ad industry: Well, users are stupid, so we don't care.: Users have to give permission to be tracked.
: But users are stupid.Yeah but unlike DNT, Facebook can't just ignore this. If the user says no, the app can't access the IDFA. End of.
They'll find a way to ignore it. Possibly by playing games involving tying the IDFA to cookies and tying cookies to other cookies or something like that.
EDIT: never underestimate the inventiveness of scumsuckers.
The really depressing part is that even if you make it illegal and fine them a few billion dollars, they'd rather pay the fine than stop doing it.
This is known as treating fines as part of "the cost of doing business." You fix it by making the cost unaffordable. Since all legislation these days seems to need a cool title, I propose calling it "The Crime Does Not Pay Act":
Any business found to have earned money as a direct result of knowingly participating in illegal activities shall be fined a minimum of 100% of the gross revenue resulting from said illegal activities.
That's really all it would take to put an end to all sorts of bad behavior!
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
Any business found to have earned money as a direct result of knowingly participating in illegal activities shall be fined a minimum of 100% of the gross revenue resulting from said illegal activities.
That's really all it would take to put an end to all sorts of bad behavior!
To which the Big Business reply will be along the lines of: “We did not earn this money in an area that is in your jurisdiction.”
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
Any business found to have earned money as a direct result of knowingly participating in illegal activities shall be fined a minimum of 100% of the gross revenue resulting from said illegal activities.
In NL it is possible to reclaim criminal profits. This leads to interesting situations where, for example, a robber can deduct the cost of his gun.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
Any business found to have earned money as a direct result of knowingly participating in illegal activities shall be fined a minimum of 100% of the gross revenue resulting from said illegal activities.
Unfortunately they are masters at avoiding the "knowingly" part.
-
@Gurth said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
@Mason_Wheeler said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
Any business found to have earned money as a direct result of knowingly participating in illegal activities shall be fined a minimum of 100% of the gross revenue resulting from said illegal activities.
That's really all it would take to put an end to all sorts of bad behavior!
To which the Big Business reply will be along the lines of: “We did not earn this money in an area that is in your jurisdiction.”
Also, tracking wasn't that important. While we allegedly tracked a billion users, of the billions of dollars in revenue we made, only $3.50 was the result of this tracking.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
"The Crime Does Not Pay Act"
That's no good - needs to form a cool acronym too!
edit: Preferably one they didn't intend and infers a completely different thing!
-
@PleegWat said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
In NL it is possible to reclaim criminal profits. This leads to interesting situations where, for example, a robber can deduct the cost of his gun.
Um … isn’t that deducting business expenses rather than profits? Unless he robbed someone of a gun, of course.
-
@dcon said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
@Mason_Wheeler said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
"The Crime Does Not Pay Act"
That's no good - needs to form a cool acronym too!
edit: Preferably one they didn't intend and infers a completely different thing!
I propose Crime Rewards And Punishment.
-
@Gurth said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
@PleegWat said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
In NL it is possible to reclaim criminal profits. This leads to interesting situations where, for example, a robber can deduct the cost of his gun.
Um … isn’t that deducting business expenses rather than profits? Unless he robbed someone of a gun, of course.
If he purchased the gun (illegally), he can deduct that from the criminal gains he has to repay. Of course, he'd probably lose the gun, since he'd not be licensed to own it.
-
@PleegWat said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
@Gurth said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
@PleegWat said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
In NL it is possible to reclaim criminal profits. This leads to interesting situations where, for example, a robber can deduct the cost of his gun.
Um … isn’t that deducting business expenses rather than profits? Unless he robbed someone of a gun, of course.
If he purchased the gun (illegally), he can deduct that from the criminal gains he has to repay. Of course, he'd probably lose the gun, since he'd not be licensed to own it.
Receipt required? That might be a problem... Of course, if not, of course that gun cost $20000!
-
@dcon said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
Receipt required? That might be a problem...
If there's no receipt, the court might ask an expert for an estimate of the cost. If the amount claimed is wildly out, that might even be taken as evidence that someone was perjuring themselves. Which attracts the sort of penalties that compound with other things…
-
@PleegWat said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
@Gurth said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
Um … isn’t that deducting business expenses rather than profits? Unless he robbed someone of a gun, of course.
If he purchased the gun (illegally), he can deduct that from the criminal gains he has to repay.
That’s what I mean: he’d be deducting business expenses. If he pays €100 for the gun (for the sake of argument — I have no idea of black-market gun prices) and uses it to rob someone of €300, then his profits are only €200. If the point is to take criminal gains away from the criminal, basing it on the €200 is logical.
Also:
Of course, he'd probably lose the gun, since he'd not be licensed to own it.
… which still means that all of the €300 have been taken away.
-
@Gurth said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
@PleegWat said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
@Gurth said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
Um … isn’t that deducting business expenses rather than profits? Unless he robbed someone of a gun, of course.
If he purchased the gun (illegally), he can deduct that from the criminal gains he has to repay.
That’s what I mean: he’d be deducting business expenses. If he pays €100 for the gun (for the sake of argument — I have no idea of black-market gun prices) and uses it to rob someone of €300, then his profits are only €200. If the point is to take criminal gains away from the criminal, basing it on the €200 is logical.
Who's to say he used the gun only for this and nothing else? The absurdity of the whole situation aside, I wouldn't agree with deducting the full amount.
Also:
Of course, he'd probably lose the gun, since he'd not be licensed to own it.
… which still means that all of the €300 have been taken away.
So you just made the state purchase a gun for €100. I guess that's a way to sell guns / launder money, too.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
Since all legislation these days seems to need a cool title, I propose calling it "The Crime Does Not Pay Act":
CDNPA
Hmm....makes me think...Canadian Pennsylvania. Not cool, dude.
-
@boomzilla said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
Canadian Pennsylvania. Not cool, dude.
Very cool!
-
@topspin said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
It feels a bit like complaining that camera access requiring user permissions harms the amateur porn business.
Hmm... ALLOW
-
Facebook apologizes to users, businesses for Apple’s monstrous efforts to protect its customers' privacy
New iOS update will rob people of personalized ads, wails antisocial giant
Preparing Audience Network for iOS 14
Read how iOS 14 changes are impacting Audience Network and our commitment to helping developers and publishers during this time.
LOL
-
@loopback0 said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
New iOS update will rob people of personalized ads, wails antisocial giant
How is Facebook not familiar with the principles of Targeted Advertising Considered Harmful 7 years later? This article should be required reading for anybody in the online ad business!
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
How is Facebook not familiar with the principles of Targeted Advertising Considered Harmful 7 years later?
-
@loopback0 said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
New iOS update will rob people of personalized ads, wails antisocial giant
Interesting thing to see on a site that publishes a satirical article bemoaning Facebook’s upcoming problems selling tailored advertising:
-
@Gurth Yes and no.
-
@Mason_Wheeler That's a lot of text to read. If I were supreme overlord of the world I'd just ban all advertising now, then consider selectively unbanning some of it. You know, whenever I get the time.
-
@anonymous234 Beware unintended consequences. If nobody can get the word out about their products, it becomes a lot harder for non-entrenched creators to break in and establish themselves.
