[HN Gopher] A Day in the Life of Your Data [pdf]
___________________________________________________________________
A Day in the Life of Your Data [pdf]
Author : abouelatta
Score : 121 points
Date : 2021-01-29 14:58 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.apple.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.apple.com)
| pwinnski wrote:
| Apple knows they're going toe-to-toe with Facebook, and they
| don't seem to plan to lose.
| voteflipper wrote:
| Well, it's because it's a winning strategy to anyone who
| remotely gets concerned or paranoid about being spied on.
| ogre_codes wrote:
| Considering how much digital spying happens, it is not
| paranoia to be concerned about it. If you caught your
| neighbor peeking in your windows 5 times a day, putting up a
| fence isn't being paranoid.
| warkdarrior wrote:
| The fence manufacturers and installers would like to remind
| that all your neighbors are peeking in your windows.
| quesera wrote:
| What part of this document is about Facebook and not Google?
| ogre_codes wrote:
| Facebook is at least for the moment the company which is
| vocally fighting this. Google probably just quietly changed
| their API to use undetectable fingerprinting.
| m463 wrote:
| has google updated their apps yet?
| lapcatsoftware wrote:
| This feels to me like Apple creating a convenient Orwellian
| enemy. They're not even competitors, because Apple doesn't have
| a social network, Facebook doesn't sell computers, and indeed
| Facebook is currently among the grossing apps in the iOS App
| Store, 30% of which Apple gets.
|
| If Facebook was as terrible as Apple makes them out to be, why
| would Apple allow Facebook in their App Store and take 30% of
| the generated revenue? It's hypocritical for Apple to criticize
| Facebook. If anything, the App Store made Facebook more popular
| than ever, so it's a "monster" that Apple helped create.
|
| EDIT: My perspective is that the App Store and iOS lockdown
| have been harmful to user privacy, and Facebook is merely a
| convenient enemy to distract from the harmfulness of Apple's
| own current business model. On the Mac, I can install Little
| Snitch and prevent software from phoning home to _both_
| facebook.com _and_ apple.com. I can 't do any of this on
| iPhone. (And indeed, Little Snitch is not even compatible with
| the restrictive Mac App Store rules, so it has to be
| distributed outside the MAS.) The iPhone platform is designed
| such that software like Facebook thrives, and software like
| Little Snitch cannot exist.
| user-the-name wrote:
| Apple gets no revenue from Facebook, their app is free and
| has no in-app purchases.
| lapcatsoftware wrote:
| Please check the App Store before you make obviously false
| and easily refutable assertions.
| user-the-name wrote:
| Hmm, looks like a recent feature. I doubt it is
| particularly large.
| lapcatsoftware wrote:
| > I doubt it is particularly large.
|
| Facebook is currently 43 in the list of the top grossing
| apps. I'm still running iTunes 12.6 which shows these
| lists.
| user-the-name wrote:
| Ok, so Facebook is the 43 top grossing app. What exactly
| do you want them to do? Single them out and not allow
| them to use IAPs?
| quesera wrote:
| I wish you had posted the constructive form of reply,
| e.g.: Recently, Facebook added in-app
| purchases for things like X.
|
| Because here I am still wondering what the hell X could
| possibly be.
| ogre_codes wrote:
| > This feels to me like Apple creating a convenient Orwellian
| enemy.
|
| Apple isn't "creating" an enemy here. They aren't running
| full page advertising against Facebook. Apple is making it so
| users have to _give permission_ before companies can utilize
| an API. Just giving that one power to end users has
| apparently scared the hell out of Facebook.
|
| > ...why would Apple allow Facebook in their App Store and
| take 30% of the generated revenue?
|
| Apple doesn't get 30% of Facebook's generated revenue. It
| gets 30% of sales and in-app purchases. Facebook doesn't use
| either as far as I know.
|
| > If anything, the App Store made Facebook more popular than
| ever, so it's a "monster" that Apple helped create.
|
| If they had perfect foreknowledge, Apple would likely have
| done this from the start. Steve Jobs made it very clear at
| the time that Apple itself should ask permission before
| collecting information every time. If they'd foreseen
| influential companies like Facebook creating APIs which were
| widely spread through the App Store, they'd have likely
| closed this door a long time ago.
| lapcatsoftware wrote:
| > It gets 30% of sales and in-app purchases. Facebook
| doesn't use either as far as I know.
|
| Facebook does have IAP, as already discussed in other sub-
| comments.
|
| > If they'd foreseen influential companies like Facebook
| creating APIs which were widely spread through the App
| Store, they'd have likely closed this door a long time ago.
|
| It's been more than 12 years since the App Store opened.
| Apple didn't need perfect foreknowledge to take action long
| before now.
| avianlyric wrote:
| > If Facebook was as terrible as Apple makes them out to be,
|
| Where is Apple doing this? Far as I can tell Apple are just
| saying that people don't understand how their data is being
| used, and that companies should educate, and get informed
| consent.
|
| It's Facebook that's demonising Apple here, not the other way
| around. Other than in direct responses to attacks by
| Facebook, where has Apple even used Facebook's name?
| lapcatsoftware wrote:
| > Other than in direct responses to attacks by Facebook,
| where has Apple even used Facebook's name?
|
| They don't have to use the name. Everyone including the
| news media knew that Apple was implying Facebook.
| avianlyric wrote:
| I'm not sure that's true. All of Apple announcements seem
| to more broadly target the large data brokers you've
| never heard of.
|
| Facebook seems to be making themselves look like the
| target for browny points, that plus their recent data
| fuckups means they're probably the first name that pops
| into people heads when you say "abuse of peoples data".
| But that's just an inditement of Facebooks dodgy data
| practices, not evidence that Apple implying or targeting
| them.
|
| Quite frankly I don't think Apple gives a shit about
| Facebook. Why the hell would they? There's no profit in
| targeting them specifically.
| lapcatsoftware wrote:
| > they're probably the first name that pops into people
| heads when you say "abuse of peoples data"
|
| > I don't think Apple gives a shit about Facebook. Why
| the hell would they? There's no profit in targeting them
| specifically.
|
| I think you answered your own question. :-) Facebook is a
| convenient punching bag. Which is the point of an
| Orwellian enemy, who isn't actually an enemy except for
| the need of some enemy.
| avianlyric wrote:
| Your premise is still based on the idea that Apple has
| deliberately made out that Facebook is their enemy, but
| you've provided zero evidence for this. You claim that
| Apple have implied Facebook, but are you sure it isn't
| just you incorrectly inferring Facebook?
|
| If I say "I believe that company's that abuse my data are
| bad, and we should do something about that" have I also
| made Facebook an Orwellian enemy?
| lapcatsoftware wrote:
| > you've provided zero evidence for this. You claim that
| Apple have implied Facebook
|
| There were dozens, maybe hundreds of news media stories
| yesterday stating that Apple was attacking Facebook, so
| it's not just me. Here are 2 examples:
|
| https://gizmodo.com/tim-its-pronounced-
| facebook-1846152682
|
| https://www.engadget.com/tim-cook-privacy-
| cpdp-2021-slams-fa...
|
| Moreover, the original comment that I _replied to_ said
| "Apple knows they're going toe-to-toe with Facebook", so
| I'm not even the first one in these comments to make the
| suggestion. Some commenters are acting like this all came
| from me, but it didn't.
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25958158
| ogre_codes wrote:
| Now we've come full circle.
|
| You claim Apple "Created" an Orwellian enemy. But all
| Cook did was describe a company which spies on people to
| make money, We didn't need him to call out who it is
| because everyone knows who it is based on the Orwellian
| description.
|
| Yet Apple somehow (You claim) "Created" them.
|
| Facebook is this Orwellian, we all know it based on what
| we know about Facebook. Tim Cook didn't fabricate this,
| it's public knowledge.
| lapcatsoftware wrote:
| I said: "This feels to me like Apple creating a
| convenient Orwellian enemy. They're not even competitors"
|
| In other words, Apple is creating an enemy _for
| themselves_ , an enemy of Apple. When in fact the two
| companies are not enemies in the business sense of having
| competing products, and indeed Apple profits directly
| from the In App Purchases in the Facebook app -- IAP
| which do exist, contrary to several other false claims in
| these comments -- and profits indirectly by having
| Facebook in their App Store. Facebook too has profited
| and become more popular by being on iPhone and the App
| Store.
|
| But now Apple's App Store is under serious scrutiny, not
| to mention lawsuits, so Apple is looking to justify its
| lockdown, and "privacy" fits the bill there, despite the
| fact that Facebook has always been "creepy", since the
| beginning of the App Store and before.
|
| The purpose of an "Orwellian" enemy is to justify the
| heavy-handed control of the rulers and to distract the
| populace from that situation. "Good thing we have Apple's
| strict App Store rules to protect us from evildoers like
| Facebook!"
| ogre_codes wrote:
| This whole idea is convoluted.
|
| We're talking about adding a permission the user can
| select.
|
| This is increasing the amount of control users have over
| their device. Yet you want to use this bizarre
| Machiavellian scheme to try and make it look like some
| sinister Apple Plot.
|
| Guess what. Adding a dialog that warns me people are
| trying to spy on me isn't bad. Ever.
| Zelphyr wrote:
| Because Facebook users are Apple customers. If Apple kicked
| Facebook off the platform you know as well as I do that the
| number of people screaming at Apple for doing so would be
| overwhelming. And that's before the media got involved.
|
| It's the lesser of two evils for Apple. So instead of pissing
| off their customers, they have chosen to piss off Facebook.
| lapcatsoftware wrote:
| Apple kicked Parler off the App Store, and a lot of people
| are screaming at Apple, including powerful politicians.
|
| In any case, part of my previous comment was noting how the
| decade+ of the App Store has actually contributed to and
| encouraged the advertised-financed "attention economy".
| Apple wasn't just an innocent bystander that whole time;
| they designed the platform and the App Store.
| pwinnski wrote:
| This week, Mark Zuckerberg declared that Apple is one of
| their biggest competitors[0].
|
| Apple may not see Facebook as a competitor, but that feeling
| is not mutual.
|
| Given Apple's focus on privacy combined with their huge
| footprint in the US, Facebook may see them as an existential
| threat, and be using the word "competitor" to represent that.
|
| 0. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/27/facebook-ceo-zuckerberg-
| says...
| lapcatsoftware wrote:
| > Given Apple's focus on privacy combined with their huge
| footprint in the US, Facebook may see them as an
| existential threat, and be using the word "competitor" to
| represent that.
|
| I agree that Apple is an existential threat to Facebook,
| given that Apple has absolute control over software
| distribution on iPhone. In that sense they're competitors,
| but not in the standard sense of having competing products.
| coreyrab wrote:
| The way Apple paints this is that it's them vs. evil Facebook.
| Don't get me wrong, Facebook has certainly overstepped several
| times in their data mining practices, but a lot of these changes
| will almost exclusively hurt small and medium sized businesses
| that have been able to inexpensively reach target customers for
| niche and/or local products.
| newfeatureok wrote:
| I'd argue it's impossible to enact any change that would only
| hurt large businesses and not small/medium sized businesses.
|
| Also, for niche products wouldn't keyword advertising be just
| as effective?
| avianlyric wrote:
| Just because you built a business on technologies and
| techniques that cause social harm, doesn't mean you have the
| right to continue using those technologies and techniques after
| society has decided they no longer wish suffer the harm they
| cause.
|
| Certainly some business will die, but I suspect the vast
| majority will find other inexpensive avenues of reaching their
| customers, without having to step on their privacy.
| ogre_codes wrote:
| First and foremost, no company should benefit from this kind of
| lopsided non-arrangement to spy/ track me. I don't care if it's
| Facebook or Bob the window washer, they shouldn't be tracking
| me this way without permission.
|
| Also, I don't agree that this is going to broadly affect small
| businesses. I accept that it's possible a few businesses in
| some places will be hit, but there isn't a ton of evidence that
| it's going to have a broad impact. Facebook still has massive
| profiles of users to provide a broad set of ad targeting tools.
|
| The hair dresser down the corner isn't going to lose sleep over
| this. Nor is my favorite taqueria or sandwich shop.
| christiansakai wrote:
| I wonder which one is easier to implement. A future utopia where
| every thing is great for everyone or an ad-less society.
| IndySun wrote:
| It's a good pdf by Apple. And clearly aimed at Joe Public.
| Getting Joe Public to understand some of the damage being done
| via data mining is not easy. Policing abuse of that knowledge
| through unenforced laws, business ethics, or guidelines, has
| failed. Now Governments internationally are going to impose new
| laws on the giants. It'll level the playing field for those with
| already with ethical practices, but for sure, greater
| restrictions will be bound in to the new laws that spoil things
| for everyone, and it'll be within 12-24 months.
| polishdude20 wrote:
| I've got a pixel 2 at the moment and it's working alright. I
| think I'd like to switch to an iPhone next. Which of the older
| models of iPhone is good? I don't want to spend the large price
| for the newest iPhone, I'd be happy with a generation or two
| back. Does this privacy setting affect older generations?
| pchristensen wrote:
| iPhone XR is still very good and about half the price of the
| 12. Has the new design, bigger screen, smaller bezels,
| FaceTime. I don't know about this privacy setting, but Apple is
| good about supporting older phones with new iOS releases, and
| the changes from XR -> 12 are much less than 8-> XR.
| ndiscussion wrote:
| Try iPhone SE, it's the cheapest one with a good processor, and
| will probably be supported for several more years, I'm still
| using the iPhone SE first gen from 2016.
| cronix wrote:
| Note that this article is from 2010, 3 years before Apple joined
| the NSA's PRISM program approx 6 months after Steve Jobs passed.
| Jobs reportedly wouldn't go along with it. The data flow is much
| different now.
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants...
|
| How about hardware implants?
| https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2013/12/30/the-nsa-rep...
| hprotagonist wrote:
| The document is dated 28 JAN 20201.
| [deleted]
| snet0 wrote:
| > Note that this article is from 2010
|
| Which article? The one above is new.
| sneak wrote:
| Apple products do a _lot_ of things with your data without
| asking; this seems like farce to me.
|
| I'm all for marketing to one's strengths, but Apple products leak
| so much data (hardware serial numbers, for example) that this
| sort of marketing strikes me now as actively dishonest.
|
| Apple collects just as much data (sometimes more!) as all of
| these shady data broker types they vilify in the document.
| djrogers wrote:
| Care to share any examples or references of where Apple is
| being dishonest here?
| sneak wrote:
| The Jobs quote on page 2. All iOS devices and all M1 macs
| maintain a persistent serial-number-linked connection to
| Apple at all times, even if you don't use iCloud, don't have
| an Apple ID, don't use FaceTime/iMessage, don't use the App
| Store, and have analytics turned off. No indication that this
| is happening is displayed, and there's no way to turn it off.
|
| Your client IP discloses the city the device is in, and the
| ISP. This means that Apple has a city-level, ISP-level
| location tracklog of every iOS device and all M1 macs (and
| possibly intel macs too) by serial number.
|
| You're not asked, you're not even told. This is the exact
| opposite of their headline founder quote on the first non-
| title page of the doc.
| user-the-name wrote:
| Again, it would be nice if you presented evidence of your
| claims.
| sneak wrote:
| It's called APNS, and the evidence is in the network
| traffic of every M1 mac and every iOS device. This isn't
| a secret, the way APNS works has been documented for
| years.
|
| Would you like a pcap? I can send you a pcap.
| user-the-name wrote:
| APNS is the notification service? Notification tokens are
| randomly generated, and are refreshed regularly. I have
| heard zero suggestion anywhere that they would be used
| for any kind of tracking, other than routing
| notifications to the correct device.
| Cilvic wrote:
| >I have heard zero suggestion anywhere that they would be
| used for any kind of tracking Yet it could.
|
| GP just said Apple has the info and it can't be turned
| off.
|
| Which I find interesting in the context of the PDF above.
| avianlyric wrote:
| I would like a pcap.
| sneak wrote:
| Email me, I have done the testing on M1 systems recently
| (I bought one just for the purpose!).
| cecja wrote:
| You are literally asked to read their terms of services
| when you first start your phone or mac. You are just
| spreading FUD like all the other dropship cunts around
| here. Fuck your t-shirt and fuck off.
| user-the-name wrote:
| You don't seem terribly interested in providing any evidence to
| back up these claims.
| [deleted]
| actuator wrote:
| If ads are just restricted to intent based on page/video/query,
| small advertisers lose out on effectiveness but is this is a big
| issue for big advertisers?
|
| I have read FB engineers comment on HN that FB has a long tail of
| advertisers. Is that why they are being more vocal out of all
| companies?
|
| In any case, I personally don't have a problem with ads as a
| revenue medium for companies, just the expansive data mining,
| especially when it is not communicated to the user clearly. Ads
| do provide a very good avenue for revenue generation for products
| where most users won't pay for the service because of competing
| products or just the frequency in which they use them. On the
| advertiser side, they do help push information about new products
| which we might not have known earlier.
| pradn wrote:
| It seems reasonable to me that data collection enables more
| cost-effective targeting for small businesses. At the same
| time, it's done involuntarily and has privacy and self-
| censorship implications. It's likely that reducing user-
| identified data collection will both be a win for privacy, but
| also a detriment to the long tail. Of course, when Facebook
| makes this argument, it seems false, given their long neglect
| and, indeed, antipathy toward privacy. It also seems false
| because it uses small businesses to cover for large ones (who
| probably need less targeting anyway, given their mass-market
| products.) Tide won't suffer but artisan knitting needles
| might.
| fsflover wrote:
| > If ads are just restricted to intent based on
| page/video/query, small advertisers lose out on effectiveness
|
| Any research proving this?
| actuator wrote:
| Just quoting FB's wording and my hunch. As the other
| commenter gave an example, if you have a niche product which
| only a fraction of people would be ever interested in, it
| would help if you can know who those are, and restrict
| targeting to them.
|
| I can search for knitting needles or be viewing a knitting
| post on Instagram. If an artisan needle seller wants to
| target his product it doesn't help targeting people who are
| not interested into artisan stuff. So to maximize the ad
| budget impact the ads are better left targeted specifically
| to people who have a higher likelihood of buying artisan
| stuff. This problem doesn't affect some mass market knitting
| needle seller.
| throw_awy_1 wrote:
| I'd imagine that the advertiser could only show needle ads
| next to content about sewing / knitting and be very
| effective at reaching the desired audience without
| resorting to collecting PII about that audience.
|
| Any reason this wouldn't work?
| actuator wrote:
| As I wrote in my example, this intent based method works
| for a big advertiser which is making a mass market
| product; but say someone producing a niche artisan
| knitting needle which only say 1 in 100 people who are
| interested in knitting needles will be interested in,
| would benefit from targeted advertisement. Otherwise,
| they would end up spending a lot of money on ad space not
| worth bidding for.
|
| A nitpick, the advertiser is not collecting and getting
| PII. FB the ad platform, owns and controls that data.
| throw_awy_1 wrote:
| Understood. My suggestion was that Facebook "target"
| based on the content of the post/article/website. Thus a
| needle ad is shown next to a kitting post. This can
| certainly be an artisan needle producer buying 1000
| impressions...
|
| Fully understand that Facebook is keep the PII close -
| that's their differentiation.
| m463 wrote:
| Your Apple iOS device still doesn't let you: -
| figure out if and when your apps are active - figure out if
| your apps using the network - figure out what sites are
| they contacting - block network access
|
| Additionally apple collects tons of data. On iOS it is not
| blockable. Even coarse data like your zipcode can be used to
| raise prices.
|
| On macos, they may have updated it so the third-party Little
| Snitch can block apple traffic (untested).
|
| Even anonymous data shouldn't be collected without asking. And as
| google is showing, a fingerprint be deduced from imperfect data.
| solarmist wrote:
| Sure, it's not perfect, but it still miles a head of everyone
| else in consumer tech.
| monkin wrote:
| I'm wondering what kind full page response will Facebook make
| now. :D
| msoad wrote:
| The regular user just clicks "accept" on every prompt they see.
| Yes there might be days that privacy is the top news. But most
| people ignore it. $FB is down because of this new cycle but mark
| my words. Facebook will make even more billions using data people
| "clicked accept to share".
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| A lot of this is about Google, not Facebook. Why are we talking
| about Facebook.
| __jf__ wrote:
| Are we witnessing a veiled announcement of Apple Search where
| it would be a key driver for Apple One adoption?
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| why is this a PDF? Sure for portability or to make it seem like
| 'official' 'whitepaper' etc....but geez, put it on a website with
| an added download c'mon
| fossuser wrote:
| I think Apple will win this war and FB will lose.
|
| Nobody cares that small businesses benefit from targeted FB ads
| except FB and small businesses, customers certainly don't, users
| don't.
|
| The small group of users that _would_ care about that is the same
| group that hates Facebook and Amazon already and won't be
| persuaded by FB on this or really even listen.
|
| Apple's argument is clearer and more directly benefits their
| users.
|
| FB and small businesses don't have the political power to force a
| win here and their argument isn't as persuasive as Apple's.
|
| It doesn't look great for them.
|
| I think they're probably correct about the long tail ads and the
| benefit to small businesses, but I also don't care. I'd rather
| the targeted ad model fail.
|
| Ben Thompson argues that if Apple wins this then _only_ FB,
| Google and other ad monopoly mega corps will be competitive in
| the ad space because they're the only ones that can collect
| information on users in other ways even with Apple's move to stop
| tracking.
|
| That may be true in the short term.
|
| If legislation trends in the CCPA, GDPR direction and users
| prefer the moves Apple is making then the ad model may start to
| falter for them too.
|
| The sooner, the better.
| ogre_codes wrote:
| > Nobody cares that small businesses benefit from targeted FB
| ads except FB and small businesses, customers certainly don't,
| users don't.
|
| This is about Facebook, not small businesses. There is little
| evidence that small businesses will be significantly impacted
| by this. I'm sure some ad-supported developer firms will be
| hit, but most small businesses won't notice this.
| fossuser wrote:
| They get hit indirectly, not because the small businesses
| sell ads - but because they buy targeted ads on Facebook (and
| those targeted ads work).
|
| Edit: Smaller companies also rely on these IDs because they
| aren't able to track in other ways in the way that the large
| companies can.
|
| That said, I still think this ad-driven model is bad and if
| it became non-viable I'd hope long term privacy restrictions
| would also make it non-viable for the large players too.
| ogre_codes wrote:
| These vague claims this will impact the ability of
| apparently _all_ small businesses are blown way out of
| proportion. Small businesses did just fine before FB.
|
| If you run an Italian restaurant, how does this impact you?
| You can still sell advertising to Facebook users in your
| area because Facebook itself has your location. Facebook
| still knows you eat at Italian restaurants every Tuesday
| night _because they buy your credit information_.
|
| Facebook still has piles of user information to sell
| targeted advertising against. So tell me again, how is this
| impacting small businesses advertising?
| fossuser wrote:
| I think the issue is a little different than I suggested
| (though the small business ads are a part of it).
|
| I think this is a worthwhile read:
| https://stratechery.com/2020/privacy-labels-and-
| lookalike-au...
|
| > "Small businesses did just fine before FB."
|
| You can't really compare the old pre-internet, pre-amazon
| world with our current one and assume things that were
| 'just fine' then still apply.
|
| A local restaurant is a bad example, better examples are
| small companies making a niche product or independent
| platforms in a niche. This affects companies buying ads
| on FB, but also those trying to understand their own
| customers to compete with Amazon and the other large
| companies. I don't work in ads, but I've talked to
| Googlers that do and the ads really do have a big impact
| for small businesses. I'd believe this is true.
|
| From that Stratechery article:
|
| "Amazon, meanwhile, is increasingly where shopping
| searches start, particularly for Prime customers, and the
| company's ad business is exploding. Needless to say,
| Amazon doesn't need to request special permission for
| IDFAs or to share emails with 3rd parties to finely
| target its ads: everything is self-contained, and to the
| extent the company advertises on platforms like Google,
| it can still keep information about customer interests
| and conversions to itself. That means that in the long
| run, independent merchants who wish to actually find
| their customers will have no choice but to be an Amazon
| third-party merchant instead of setting up an independent
| shop on a platform like Shopify.
|
| This decision, to be clear, will not be because Amazon
| was acting anticompetitively; the biggest driver --
| which, by the way, will also benefit Facebook's on-
| platform commerce efforts -- will be Apple, which, in the
| pursuit of privacy, is systematically destroying the
| ability of platform-driven small businesses to compete
| with the Internet giants."
| ogre_codes wrote:
| > A local restaurant is a bad example, better examples
| are small companies making a niche product or independent
| platforms in a niche. This affects companies buying ads
| on FB, but also those trying to understand their own
| customers to compete with Amazon and the other large
| companies. I don't work in ads, but I've talked to
| Googlers that do and the ads really do have a big impact
| for small businesses. I'd believe this is true.
|
| This is kind of my point.
|
| People keep echoing this phrase "Harming Small Business",
| the implication is it's an issue which affects all small
| businesses. It doesn't.
|
| It's not even clear based on your post what type of
| business is impacted, or how many. Just some niche
| products... what does that even mean? Sellers on Etsy?
| fossuser wrote:
| If it doesn't affect small businesses then who is buying
| all of the FB ads?
|
| If you look through your ad feed what do you see? When I
| had FB, most of the ads were for products (or services)
| from small businesses. Maybe you can dispute small, but
| that was the majority.
|
| > "Sellers on Etsy?"
|
| I think that'd be included yeah, also anyone with a
| shopify store, etc.
|
| I'm not the right person to ask but I'd believe there's
| large volume here, I'd also be happy to be proven wrong.
| ogre_codes wrote:
| > When I had FB, most of the ads were for products (or
| services) from small businesses.
|
| What makes you think the quantity of quality of
| advertising on Facebook is going to change? They still
| have:
|
| - Your location
|
| - A list of what you post about, what you link, what
| photos you've shared, what activities you've attended,
| what groups you are in, etc etc.
|
| - All of the above about many of you friends and family
| members just in case there are interests you don't talk
| about on Facebook.
|
| So how exactly is whether Facebooking that I checked the
| weather on the corner of 3rd and Center at 7pm going to
| help those small businesses advertising on Facebook?
|
| Is there going to be some flash umbrella store around the
| corner if rain is in the forecast?
| fossuser wrote:
| We don't really disagree, FB, Google, and Amazon will be
| less affected by this change than everyone else that
| can't do all of the things you're suggesting. That's the
| harm Stratechery is talking about.
|
| The affect on FB ads specifically I don't know, I'd
| suspect it being harder for FB to be as effective with
| targeting which could make the ads less useful (and that
| could harm small businesses that use them).
|
| The ability for other non-megacorp companies to
| understand their customers is more the issue.
|
| I think you're focusing on a narrow thing and ignoring
| the rest.
| ogre_codes wrote:
| I think the emphasis on small businesses is a distraction
| from the main point. (See it's working!)
|
| Fundamentally, whether this is going to favor the mega-
| corps or not, I don't want people tracking me. I don't
| want companies having the sort of information Facebook
| and Google have, they've demonstrated they are poor
| stewards of our data. At the same time, I don't want
| _additional companies_ to gain access to a stream of
| information about me, regardless of whether that helps FB
| and GOOG or not.
|
| If helping FB and GOOG is the cost of keeping more
| information about myself (My family, etc) private, then I
| guess I'm Ok with that. It's the lesser of 2 evils.
| anonypla wrote:
| " If John had used Apple Maps to check the traffic, his location
| data would have been linked to a random identifier, which is
| regularly reset and not linked to John. As a result, no one but
| John would end up with knowledge of his location. " Well, no-one
| except your cell provider of course which knows precisely where
| you are anyway and will use and sell this data anyway.
|
| " If John had bought the ice cream using Apple Card, his bank
| would not use his transaction information for marketing purposes.
| Had he used Apple Pay, Apple would have used on-device
| intelligence so that John could view his transaction history on
| his iPhone without Apple obtaining information about where he
| shopped, what he purchased, or how much he spent. " Without Apple
| knowing maybe but not without Mastercard/VISA knowing everything
| anyway?
| ogre_codes wrote:
| I'm missing your point here.
|
| You seem to be suggesting that just because some data leaks
| which is outside Apple's control that it's ok for all data to
| leak? But that makes no sense.
| anonypla wrote:
| Just that at least the first statement is technically
| incorrect. And that the second is a bit misleading IMHO.
|
| Edit: And adding that some of the data in question is in
| Apple's control (the IMEI for instance that could also be
| randomized/changed).
| IndySun wrote:
| Yes, as you rightly point out, and although I applaud this from
| Apple, it is carefully worded.
|
| But we knew that. It's for Joe Public.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-01-29 23:02 UTC)