[HN Gopher] Facebook testing notification to users about Apple p... ___________________________________________________________________ Facebook testing notification to users about Apple privacy changes Author : asimpletune Score : 387 points Date : 2021-02-01 16:40 UTC (6 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.axios.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.axios.com) | imheretolearn wrote: | I am happy that this is happening. It was about time someone gave | it back to FB. FB has time and again crossed boundaries for which | it has had to apologize everytime. It seems like they cannot | regulate themselves so someone from the outside has to step in. I | hope this changes the individual tracking landscape a bit even | though the Big G is still a larger issue that needs to be | addressed | grishka wrote: | > Apple's new prompt suggests there is a tradeoff between | personalized advertising and privacy; when in fact, we can and do | provide both. | | We provide both as long as you trust us. | kerng wrote: | To be honest, I dont accept the argument that extremly detailed | tracking is the only way to show relevant ads. High level | information is probably enough and I'm sure FB would still make | tons of money by even showing random ads. | | Makes you wonder if there is actually another reason for | collecting all that data? Like building AI and ML models for | other purposes. | cwkoss wrote: | If regulations don't prevent them from doing so, I expect FB to | pivot into Surveillance As A Service for authoritarian states. | 0x0 wrote: | So I guess you should click "Allow" in the first facebook- | designed prompt, to trigger the second Apple iOS level system | prompt, and click "Don't allow" there, to actually register the | do-not-track request to be enforced on the OS/API level? | | If you just click "Don't allow" on the first FB screen, it | doesn't look like iOS will know about the do-not-track preference | at all? | temp667 wrote: | Thank goodness we've all been conditioned by the EU cookie | consent screens to say yes to every damn popup that pops up! | | Seriously - the EU is bombarding us with damn cookie notice | screens. I wish apple had been more in charge of the web than | these EU folks. | ruined wrote: | do i get a consent screen if i don't have an account | metalliqaz wrote: | if you don't have a FB account, why would you install the app? | rolph wrote: | in my case i would install so i can sniff the connections and | suss out the code where possible, likely tuck all that away | into a folder for development of a putative anti app. | code_duck wrote: | FB has been known to maintain marketing profiles for people | who have never or no longer use their services. | moolcool wrote: | "Support business which rely on ads to reach customers" | | Well if you put it that way... still no. | yters wrote: | https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theonion.com/cias-facebook-... | reaperducer wrote: | Non-Amp link: https://www.theonion.com/cias-facebook-program- | dramatically-... | yters wrote: | I wonder if Google ever sanitizes web pages filtered through | its amp servers. | acheron wrote: | I thought the more appropriate one is | https://www.theonion.com/entire-facebook-staff-laughs-as-man... | racl101 wrote: | I'm ok with Facebook having to beg for my permission to use my | data instead of just taking what they want without telling me. | Lammy wrote: | I'm impressed (in a bad way) at the subtle emotional manipulation | in the combination of "support businesses" and the header image | they chose for this design. | mtnGoat wrote: | i wonder if that would have even be a useful ploy if covid | hadn't of damaged so many businesses in the last year. tugging | on the ole heart strings. | cronix wrote: | From what I gather, Apple has been using IDFA since 2012. It's | baked into the OS and Apple generates the ID. It was enabled by | default. Before IDFA, Apple used UDID. My question is why did the | privacy focused Apple ever include such a thing in the first | place? They provided the tools. Others, like FB, used it and were | profiting. I'm no fan of FB (I don't have an account) but it | seems the blame is being laid at the wrong feet? | | https://branch.io/idfa/ | rolph wrote: | actual title: | | "Facebook testing notification to users about Apple privacy | changes" | dang wrote: | Yes, that was bad. Changed now. (Submitted title was "FB | testing screen to encourage users to accept active tracking") | | Submitters: please follow the HN rules, which ask you " _Please | use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; | don 't editorialize._" | | https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html | 29athrowaway wrote: | Myspace wasn't that bad after all. | tnt128 wrote: | Here is the logic, if you allow tracking, we would show your more | relevant ads, if you don't allow, we will spam the shit out of | you. Either way, you see tons of ads, but allow tracking, you see | ads more relevant. | | Of course that's not how they word this. They framed it as a | benefit, | | Notice how it's worded - allowing for better personalized ad | experience - I bet when worded this way, a good percentage of | people will think, of course I want the ads to be more related to | me and click allow. | gowld wrote: | What's wrong with ads? Facebook costs money and effort to | produce for its users to enjoy. | | I don't use FB, but people who do use presumably enjoy it. | cwkoss wrote: | Because Facebook's ads require a panopticon of surveillance | across every page with a FB like button in order to function | in current form. | | People are sending much more data to facebook than they | realize, and are typically upset when they learn the scope of | facebooks dragnet. | | If Facebook only used data from the Facebook platform itself | (and none of their web of acquired companies), I think people | would have much fewer objections to the tracking. | wackget wrote: | It's hugely ironic that this article is written/hosted by a | website which runs entirely via the Google AMP platform. | | You can't read the article without going via Google's AMP | servers, unless you use a website like https://printfriendly.com | to parse it for you. | ffpip wrote: | Disable javascript for axios.com. You can do it with uBlock | Origin. | | Then simple click Firefox's reader mode icon. Even if the page | is blank, just click the reader mode icon. | golondon wrote: | if FB stops using IDFA completely and just create the profile out | of the logged in user ID, wouldn't that be enough? At the end of | the day, mobile Facebook app gets most of its data from FB | servers? So, If someone has liked /YellowBirds page and spent 2 | hours on /BirdsBirdsBirds page, you kinda get they are into the | birds? Wouldn't that already provide looots of information? | | If they don't use IDFA, I guess they would loose capability of | linking the events from different apps. I don't know targeted | advertising world that much, but is that a big deal? I think even | without cross app tracking, FB has capability to provide quite | detailed targeting. I'm not sure why they reacted this | aggressive, feels to me like there is egos involved, possibly | Zuck struggling to accept Tim can force him to do something. | | Other thing I wonder is how this notification going to look like | in the apps using FB SDKs. | ArmandGrillet wrote: | Wow, those encouragements are very weak. "Get ads that are more | personalized", "Support businesses that rely on ads to reach | customers": why would I support businesses relying on that when | only 1 out of 5 ads in my feed is not garbage? | | These encouragements make me think that Facebook seems to believe | that their ads are useful, which is a bit insane from a user | perspective. | gameman144 wrote: | Agreed that a lot of ads are useless, but I've personally seen | a few that I wouldn't have otherwise known about. For instance, | there's a really cool used technical bookstore near me that I | only discovered because I saw an ad for it. Also I would have | missed a Humble Bundle that I really liked without an ad. | | Don't get me wrong, I probably hate the average ad more than | most people (any Liberty Mutual ad just makes me angry), but to | say that ads are _not_ useful from a user perspective is a bit | too absolute a position; for me, the good ones definitely are | useful. | grishka wrote: | Have you ever talked to someone who works in adtech? They do | sincerely believe that ads are helpful to people. | lumost wrote: | I worked in ad-tech for years, ultimately the convincing data | is that people actually do click on ads. They do buy the | products, and they do this more often than they would have | had we not shown the ads at all (for some market segments). | | I've often wondered if there is a population of users who | simply hate ads to the extent that any impression will be net | negative value to the advertiser, and what mechanisms could | be used to stop showing them ads. There used to be services | which let you purchase all of your own ads, but I think | people want something more transparent which outright removes | them from the services they use. | local_dev wrote: | >if there is a population of users who simply hate ads to | the extent that any impression will be net negative value | to the advertiser | | This segment of the population absolutely exists and I | would guess that it is growing. Many people in my circle | block ads on every device possible. Seeing any ad is an | immediate negative impression for my group of friends. | | This is entirely anecdotal, but I've seen this same | sentiment in many other circles and am hearing it more and | more often. | grishka wrote: | > I've often wondered if there is a population of users who | simply hate ads to the extent that any impression will be | net negative value to the advertiser | | Yes, I would characterize myself as such. The best products | gain their exposure through word of mouth, and don't need | paid advertising. Incessantly raping my eyeballs with your | brand would just make me hate it even more. Especially so | if it's happening on my own electronic devices against my | will. | | But then there are people who legitimately _want_ to be | advertised to -- I know some personally. | | > I think people want something more transparent which | outright removes them from the services they use. | | These are called ad blockers. I use them in some form on | every device I own. | AlexandrB wrote: | > I worked in ad-tech for years, ultimately the convincing | data is that people actually do click on ads. They do buy | the products, and they do this more often than they would | have had we not shown the ads at all (for some market | segments). | | This says nothing about whether ads are useful or | beneficial to people. Buying a product does not mean the | product was not a net loss for the customer, with the | classic example being cigarettes. | otabdeveloper4 wrote: | Complaining about advertising is like complaining about | money. Advertising is inevitable in any economy. | wtetzner wrote: | I'm OK with advertising existing, it's just the way in | which it's being conducted that's objectionable. | tehjoker wrote: | Tech companies have been using this kind of rhetoric since the | early 2000s. Back then, people were sympathetic to helping keep | websites online, especially blogs and such owned by | individuals. The line has lost its charm when it's turned into | an inescapable global surveillance apparatus. | 1123581321 wrote: | I'm not on Facebook so I can't speak to what you personally | see. However, I think the "support small business" angle is | going to be somewhat compelling. I have, for example, two | friends who are starting a niche business, offering a good and | ethical service, and reaching people in that niche through | Facebook and Instagram ads. The customers they find _love_ what | they're doing and happily paying. If I had Facebook, I could | see doing my small part to help them find a few more of those | types of good businesses succeed. | | I also kind of despise Facebook, hence no account, so I don't | mind if this permission screen fails. :) | purplecats wrote: | I have no empathy for them. I tried to advertise my dating | business on there, and got insta-banned both times because | they basically don't let you compete with their dating | services. | ddoolin wrote: | Wow! Really. I'm currently working on a nascent dating | business and that's kind of disappointing to hear as I was | counting on being able to advertise through that channel. | Thanks for sharing. | bluesign wrote: | I bet for every one small business like your friend, there is | 10 scammy business (something like selling 1$ item for 20$ | with 40% discount) who is betting 10x more than your legit | friend for impressions. | blinktag wrote: | I don't know if the mockup is what will actually appear in | production, but there is some psychology about showing a flower | and a smiling black woman. The image plays first to trust | (nature, a mother figure, the smile) and if that isn't enough, | secondly to guilt (I need to start trusting black women) to prime | the user into accepting the prompt. Imagine if it were a | cartoonish Mark Zuckerberg with his tight little smirk, and | instead of a flower, a piggy bank. | | Facebook isn't stupid or random. This image must have been very | carefully developed and run past some of their staff PhDs. | Assuming this is real. | bluelu wrote: | I know that this is unpopular here, but a lot of people | (including me) don't mind that they get targeted ads. | | If you fear for abuse, then there should be clear laws what | should not be allowed and severe punishment for this. | | But forbidding facebook to track behaviour and then allowing | apple to do so (e.g. they even track what programs you run, is | just wrong. Who knows, maybe apple will even start its own | "privacy" network later on. | JMTQp8lwXL wrote: | The button saying "Ask App Not to Track": is it binding or non- | binding? If I kindly asked an app to not track, I'm fairly | certain the app would tell me to pound sand. | Nextgrid wrote: | "Ask App Not to Track" just means the app will be denied access | to the IDFA (which you can already do by turning on "Limit ad | tracking" in settings). It's worded like that because this | can't prevent the app from using something else (IP address or | device fingerprinting) to track you. | JMTQp8lwXL wrote: | Is the discussion moot if users can be easily fingerprinted | without IDFA? It makes life slightly more difficult for | advertising partners and social media companies, but not | impossible. It's just a small additional barrier to friction | that buys Apple some good PR. | K0nserv wrote: | That's against Apple's guidelines, violations of which will | get your app kicked off the only distribution channel on | iOS. We'll have to see how this shakes out in reality, but | as a deterrent it's pretty strong. | Nextgrid wrote: | There has been an article on here just a day ago where | the "app privacy" labels turned out to be false, so | clearly Apple doesn't actually police this very well. | K0nserv wrote: | I found at least one instance of that in my own research. | Do you have the link to that submission? | JMTQp8lwXL wrote: | Apple might dislike Facebook, but it's difficult to | imagine a world where it's removed from the App Store. | colejohnson66 wrote: | Apple, almost exactly 2 years ago, revoked Facebook's | _enterprise signing key_ after shenanigans they had | pulled with their fake VPN. Until that was fixed, | Facebook devs were unable to install new builds on their | testing devices. | | Based on that history, I don't think Apple is scared of | Facebook. They probably won't pull the app because it | would be flipped back on Apple, but I'm sure they could | find something to push back on Facebook with. | | [0]: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/01/facebook- | and-google-... | Nextgrid wrote: | At least it's a start. | criddell wrote: | If it was irrelevant, Facebook wouldn't be worried. | comeonseriously wrote: | That's all well and good, but does anyone believe that this won't | be a broken feature? | | Edit: Also, I am absolutely positive that some of my family will | agree because they'll think FB would not work correctly (update | their feed) otherwise. | 3gg wrote: | Do not miss the Facebook articles linked from the page. | | "We disagree: personalization doesn't have to come at the expense | of privacy. We can do both, and we can do both well. We've built | products that lead the industry in transparency and offer | settings and controls to help people manage their privacy." | | "So if you recently bought a hiking backpack from a local outdoor | gear supplier and are no longer looking for a new one, you can | choose to remove the outdoor gear supplier from this list of | businesses, and disconnect that information from your account." | | For a company that prides itself with transparency, you could | start with not lying to people in such a blunt and despicable | way. See, I don't want you to know that I bought a hiking | backpack. Why should you know? Why do you think you are the | arbitrer of the market, that people cannot do their own research | and that small business need you? This is a false premise, and | your position is a blatant JOKE that at this point is also sad | and unremarkable. | | Stop lying to people, you sad surveillance capitalists. | | https://about.fb.com/news/2020/12/personalized-advertising-a... | | https://about.fb.com/news/2020/10/a-path-forward-for-privacy... | danShumway wrote: | > "Apple's new prompt suggests there is a tradeoff between | personalized advertising and privacy; when in fact, we can and do | provide both." | | It's a somewhat bold but not completely implausible claim to | argue that highly personalized ads are compatible with privacy. | There are theoretically schemes that could make that work. | | But it is, however, a wicked bold claim for Facebook to go a step | farther say they are already _currently_ providing both privacy | and personalized advertising. Does anyone, at all, believe them | when they say that? | midrus wrote: | The more I know about Facebook, the more I like Apple | chrischen wrote: | Facebook makes so much money off of tracking users... why don't | they just start paying us. | yalogin wrote: | I am really surprised the amount of tantrums FB is throwing in | this saga. This is a golden opportunity for them to reset their | platform and change their brand in the world. | | Large businesses don't get these kind of opportunities often and | this is something, I thought, they will seize. I really thought | they will build security/privacy into their platform and weed | things out. They could have gone to a paid model in some cases | and doubled down on privacy in others. They would have lost | revenue in the short term but would be great in the long term. | | However, they are doubling down on the catering to fear | mongering, cult marketing type things and kicking and screaming | without much to show. | Balgair wrote: | Likely this is because they do not have other options. Ever | since 2016, they have been 'alerted' that their stack is | fragile to regulation and other outside forces. Zuck has been | hauled up in front of Congress a few times now over many | things, including the tracking issues. The C-suite is very much | aware of the problems. | | I suppose they are trying to throw a fit now, and then relax to | their secondary position when they must. But knowing how large | bureaucracies (don't) work, there is no fall-back position. | There is no 'there' anymore. | Havoc wrote: | >Ask App Not to Track | | Gotta love how they flipped that phrasing around from facebook | asking you for permission to you requesting something from them. | | This whole thing reeks of having been A/B tested to death for max | psychological manipulation without straying into territory where | they can be accused of aggressive dark patterns. | RL_Quine wrote: | That's the text provided by apple. | erentz wrote: | What would happen if legislation were passed to ban all tracking, | across the board? Perhaps also inclusive of limits on targeted | advertising also (to reduce the incentive to gather personal | data). | | It seems this kind of universal disarmament (so to speak) still | leaves FB in the same dominant position from an advertising | perspective. It has the same huge audience, and it's advertising | product is the same as everyone else. If so why wouldn't FB be | actively lobbying for this right now? | | (I'm just putting aside questions of monopoly, etc. Purely from | an FB self interest stand point.) | gameman144 wrote: | One worry I have is regarding poorly handled legislation | hobbling national companies more than intended and driving | consumers to worse options (as opposed to just preventing them | from doing creepy things.) One of the prime examples here is | search: if Google didn't keep a history of my search terms | and/or other data about my account, the results they'd return | would be far less personalized. I could (and do) use DuckDuckGo | instead, but the search results are far less convenient (e.g. | when I look up "compilation", DDG shows me literary | compilations, Google shows me code-related things). | | This in itself is fine, as long as either: 1. The drop in | convenience isn't so high that people would prefer an | alternative service 2. We can impose these rules worldwide. | | If the drop in convenience isn't too bad, then even though | there's a little more friction, there's not a mass exodus from | these services. If we could impose these rules worldwide, | that'd also make this an easy decision. | | Given that the web is global, however, my biggest area of worry | is that we squeeze all national companies to protect privacy, | but it turns out the consumers really _did_ like the | personalized and convenient experiences and immediately switch | over to Baidu or some other site that falls outside national | jurisdiction _and_ personalizes user experience well | (presumably through even stronger privacy invasions). | | tl;dr: I am cool with legislation, but given the global scale | of the web we need to make sure we get the incentives/changes | _just_ right. | flavius29663 wrote: | I have a different idea other than banning: make companies pay | a tax on each bit of user information they hold. | vaduz wrote: | Great idea! It means that the company gets to do the tracking | as much as it wants as long as it shares some of these | profits with the government, and as a bonus gets to enjoy a | reasonably confidence that any initiative to futher enhance | privacy will be quashed in a hurry - with bipartisan support, | too, especially in the current tax revenue slump thanks to | the ongoing pandemic. /s | | The word you were probably looking for is _fines_ , but they | would have to be punitive and extraordinarily risky to stop | the practice... | flavius29663 wrote: | what I meant was taxes high enough to matter for the bottom | line. Also, this would force the companies to open up their | databases for government or public inspection, kind-of like | we do today with uranium processing. This alone would | expose dark behavior much earlier than today | broknbottle wrote: | Tax, how about royalties to the user. They use that data to | advertise to other users within a family or circle. It's data | about us, why shouldn't they have to pay a royalty to users | and get our permissions beforehand when they want to utilize | the data in different ways. | | We have different licenses for code and projects. Why not | have something similar for user data / metadata | gameman144 wrote: | You could argue that they _do_ pay a royalty to users, and | that royalty gets put toward free access to software and | services. Whether or not that royalty is sufficient is fine | to debate, but at the end of the day someone is footing the | bill. | chias wrote: | > ban all tracking | | That's a whole can of worms. Does the existence of things like | your website's Apache request log count as "tracking"? Or does | it only count if it's multiple domains? Maybe we'd need to say | multiple organizations, to account for applications with | multiple domains (e.g. facebook.com, fbcdn.com, etc.) But then | what is an organization? If I sign an agreement with you to | sell you my Apache request log, is that now illegal? If so, | what was it about that that made it illegal? How do you make | that illegal without also making it illegal to share these | otherwise benign logs with people for the purpose of debugging | website issues? Are you going to base this on "intent"? That | is, "you're free to share this data with X as long as X does | not intend to use it for advertising, or to share it with | anyone else who might [...] who might intend to use it for | advertising"? These kinds of intent-chains are spectacularly | ineffective, in part because the advertising ecosystem is set | up to make these chains as convoluted as possible, and suddenly | someone just has some data there and _why not_ make profiles | out of it? etc. | | :\ | lumost wrote: | There are a few factors at play here when it comes to | advertising. | | 1) Digital is taking over all ad-channels | | 2) Digital ads can be tracked and attributed ways that were | never possible with traditional media | | 3) It turns out most non-targeted ads aren't actually that | effective, and aggregate ad spend is falling. | | FB ads are effective and high value _because_ of tracking. If | tracking goes away, FB ad revenue will fall to that of banner | advertising at roughly 1 /100th to 1/10000th the price per | impression that FB currently receives. | | Such a change would effectively force a rethink of the entire | consumer technology business, and see FB/GOOG re-structure to | some form of subscription revenue or shutdown large feature | sets and product offerings which would no longer be tenable. | mgreg wrote: | > 3) It turns out most non-targeted ads aren't actually that | effective, and aggregate ad spend is falling. | | While this is a commonly held believe in many corners it | doesn't appear to be well backed by data & research. | Freakonomics also covered this topic in some detail recently. | | Some examples where it's proven untrue: | | Nytimes drops targeted advertising in Europe: | https://digiday.com/media/gumgumtest-new-york-times-gdpr- | cut... | | >"The fact that we are no longer offering behavioral | targeting options in Europe does not seem to be in the way of | what advertisers want to do with us," he said. "The | desirability of a brand may be stronger than the targeting | capabilities. We have not been impacted from a revenue | standpoint, and, on the contrary, our digital advertising | business continues to grow nicely." | | Danish broadcaster grew revenue after dropping targeted ads: | https://techcrunch.com/2020/07/24/data-from-dutch-public- | bro... | | >The data shows the NPO grew ad revenue after ditching | trackers to target ads in the first half of this year | lumost wrote: | Typically, platforms with smaller reach ( read < 10 million | DAU) will only have a few big advertisers who are willing | to purchase _most_ ad positions. Behavioral targeting on | such platforms with large advertisers will probably only | limit spend by cutting out bad impressions, and the in- | house or external behavioral targeting isn 't anything | close to what FB offers. | | FB/Goog dominate ad-spend as they are able to effectively | match _small_ advertisers with the appropriate audience, | and these advertisers typically have specific customer | goals in mind. If the goal of the ad buyers on the NYT is | simply to associate their brand with the trustworthiness of | the NYT, then there won 't be much benefit from behavioral | targets. | grishka wrote: | How much does Facebook earn from one user, $1 a year? No one | would've died if they switched to a $1/year subscription | model. People tend to respect companies that are honest with | them. Except Facebook won't ever be able to regain its | reputation, but still. | Zelphyr wrote: | Doing that would equate to $2.7 billion a year in revenue. | They currently generate about $70 billion a year. So, yeah; | they'd pretty much die if their revenue dropped that much. | grishka wrote: | Imagine how much money they could save if they stop | redesigning every little thing all the time to squeeze | every last cent. Imagine not needing hundreds of | developers working on a single app. | judge2020 wrote: | https://mondaynote.com/the-arpus-of-the-big-four-dwarf- | every.... | | Depends on the metric you use. | | > Facebook's revenue per user is roaring. For Q4 2018 vs. | Q4 2017, it's global ARPU increased by 19 percent to $7.37, | and the US-Canada ARPU by 30 percent to $35. Between 2011 | and 2018, the social network global ARPU rose nearly 6x, | while the US-Canada grew 11x. With a domestic revenue per | user of $112, Facebook is the equivalent of a publisher | charging $9 a month. It does that with a free service. | grishka wrote: | TIL. I thought these kinds of numbers weren't at all | possible with an ad-supported business model. | lumost wrote: | Assuming that the only users who would be willing to pay | are those who use one of FB's services at least once per | month; then FB would need to charge $26/yr to match their | current revenue. Given that they already have 2.7 billion | MAUs it's unlikely that they could grow their way out of | such a change, and serving ads is ultimately inexpensive. | marketingtech wrote: | In Q4 alone, they made $53/user in US/Canada, and $10/user | worldwide. This revenue is not evenly distributed, and the | type of user who is willing to pay $50/quarter for FB is | worth much more than that to FB advertisers. | | source: Slide 4 (ARPU) https://s21.q4cdn.com/399680738/file | s/doc_financials/2020/q4... | throwaway2245 wrote: | > It turns out most non-targeted ads aren't actually that | effective | | Non-personalised television advertising is still doing great. | marketingtech wrote: | No, it's not. Eyeballs are down, thus prices and market | share are down compared to digital. Different industry | sources have different figures, but everyone agrees TV | spend was down >5% in 2020 and expected to drop faster in | 2021 as digital continues to grow at >30%. | | There's now a mad rush to standardize tech for personalized | tv advertising, as providers plan to use the email/phone | number you used for your cable/streaming service as a | personal identifier that can be joined against 3rd party | targeting data. | | I'm not trying justifying this - just describing where the | industry (and money) is going. | throwaway2245 wrote: | Is it not right that 2019 was the highest spend ever for | TV advertising? | | And a 5% drop would be less than the drop in broader TV | production, via coronavirus? | | Major events that are associated with large advertising | budgets haven't happened: the Olympics didn't happen. The | Eurovision Song Contest didn't happen. | otabdeveloper4 wrote: | > FB ads are effective and high value | | Not really. | | Digital advertising, frankly, sucks from the advertiser's | point of view. It's just that people are online now and | advertisers have no choice: the inventory providers are | monopolistic and unregulated. | lumost wrote: | A more fair comparison might be that all advertising sucks | from an advertisers perspective... but we just didn't have | a good way to measure it. | | In the world of Nielson and print the only consistently | measurable ads were brand ads - and brand awareness had a | loose correlation across businesses with revenue. There was | no way of rigorously testing whether individual customers | propensity to purchase a good from a given business was | actually tied to any of the brand awareness ads that were | being purchased, or customer's brands they had heard of for | trust reasons after deciding on a purchase, or if | customer's simply didn't care about the branding. Bear in | mind, any negative datapoint that indicates customer's | didn't care could always be taken as a sign that the | "brand" had to be improved. Not that the ads were | worthless. | | Now on digital any brand exercise, direct pay per | conversion, or other form of ad gets attributed to | downstream revenue, and we're quickly discovering which | half of the marketing budget isn't working. | Permit wrote: | > Digital advertising, frankly, sucks from the advertiser's | point of view. | | What advertising does not suck from the advertiser's point | of view? How are metrics gathered that demonstrate these | forms of advertising work? | metalliqaz wrote: | Does Android have any analogue to this kind of tracking | protection? | metalliqaz wrote: | Ok I found that Google does have a GAID/AAID and you can hide | it in Android under Settings -> Google Services -> Ads | munchbunny wrote: | I'm glad Apple is at least making sure users are aware that this | is even a thing. While people on HN are much more likely to | follow the issue and do something about it, a lot of laypeople | are just vaguely aware that Facebook might be a privacy problem | without really understanding what levers they have to manage it | themselves. | VRay wrote: | all I hear from my non-tech friends is "Oh yeah, the government | and companies have 'my data' nothin I can do" | | they basically just assume they're living in a totalitarian | society already and don't even think having any semblance of | privacy is possible (or understand how easy it is for sinister, | small-time third parties to spy on them via publicly- | purchasable advertising data..) | throwaway789394 wrote: | There's also people here who have a financial incentive to | dismiss privacy concerns bc it conflicts with their RSUs. | | For a forum named Hacker News were very accepting of Zuck and | his shenanigans. | whammywon wrote: | Yes, but I think it would be a bit naive to think that Apple is | doing so out of the kindness of their hearts. | | Apple already has access to all the metrics that Facebook would | be interested in. It seems to me like this is a set-up for | Apple to force FB to buy the data directly from them. | judge2020 wrote: | But Apple isn't selling any of that data (which is really | just 'downloaded apps' - they don't have the web browsing | habits that FB and GOOG have). Their financial interest here | is selling privacy with the price being the ongoing | commitment to buy Apple products. | whammywon wrote: | Perhaps, but who is to say that they don't have plans to | branch out into that business? | | It's possible that they have no intent to do so, but a | corporation's primary interest is making profit. And what | would be a simple, yet significant, source of new revenue? | Selling user data. | TimothyBJacobs wrote: | They tried offering an ad service called iAd that would | do things the "Apple" way. No one used it. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _it would be a bit naive to think that Apple is doing so | out of the kindness of their hearts_ | | Good. If they were doing it out of charity, a bit profit | pressure, shareholder activism or change in management and | the move is reversed. Being grounded in sound business logic | and self-interest makes me trust it. | whammywon wrote: | I never meant to imply that I thought Apple's (possible) | intent was a good thing. | | I just think that a significant number of people will see | what they're doing and thing "Oh, they're looking out for | me." I think it's best to be skeptical of any company's | motives, whether their current business decisions seem to | help their users or not. | 52-6F-62 wrote: | I don't think it's that. More that Apple in this case is | the old "devil you know". | toiletfuneral wrote: | Apple is openly trying to sell 'premium' privacy services | at consumer costs, be as skeptical you want but this is | an obvious business decision and in many ways they | actually are looking out for people...at a price | alex_young wrote: | Can't FB incentivize this a bit? I understand that they can't | gate the app with ad tracking approval, but what if they promised | to provide you with discounts on the merchants this tracking | promotes or something like that? | sneak wrote: | Better: Opt in or your WhatsApp stops working. | nerdo wrote: | Opt in or get universally deplatformed and lose access to the | banking system. Private companies btw. | notyourwork wrote: | Why would anyone agree to this? I don't see a benefit to letting | Facebook or any company track me across the internet. When did we | ever decide this was what consumers wanted? | | Every time this topic comes up I check Facebooks stock price and | realize how detached people are from facebooks revenue driven by | the advertisement market. | chias wrote: | I think a big factor is that you don't have an easy choice. | Notice it's not "Allow" or "Reject", it's "Allow" or "Ask us | not to". | | The only "Reject" is to flat out not use Facebook, and probably | throw a few related domains into a blackholed HOSTS file. | That's a steeper price than most are willing to pay. | dr-detroit wrote: | Facebook is a dying sexapp platform and they are hoping to.... | save face. YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAHH | otabdeveloper4 wrote: | You're not the consumer here. You're not paying for anything. | catacombs wrote: | > You're not the consumer here. You're not paying for | anything. | | But you are the PRODUCT. | throwaway2245 wrote: | You are quite literally the consumer - you consume the | service. | | You're just not the one paying for what the service is. | meekrohprocess wrote: | People like you and I didn't decide that it was what we wanted. | We just have no other options, because the companies which | impose the terms aggressively snuff out or buy up their | competition. | | I would argue that people are accepting these terms under | duress; "consent" is the wrong word. | | The market believes that Facebook et al will be able to | continue enforcing their will unilaterally, and that is good | for the companies, so their stocks go up. | randmeerkat wrote: | Everyone has options. I deleted FB years ago. No one actually | needs FB. | _jal wrote: | I never signed up in the first place. | | But I don't go to a school that posts assignments on FB (I | have heard of this quite a bit), my workplace doesn't use | it (ditto) and I'm in a comfortable-enough place that | putting up with the passive aggression from family and | friends when they whine about my comm preferences is no big | deal. | | Yes, everyone has options. But not everyone operates under | the same pressures. | samstave wrote: | I absolutely detest FB - and I don't like the fact that you | can't determine if FB is tracking you even when you do not | use it. | meekrohprocess wrote: | I agree in principle, and so did I, but there's no denying | that it puts a major crimp on your social life. It's wrong | that people are forced to decide between accepting | predatory terms or losing touch with friendly | acquaintances. | | Also, if you own a small business, there's a real chance | that you'd rely on Facebook for a significant portion of | your business, because without a presence on their | platforms you had may as well not exist. | madeofpalk wrote: | > but there's no denying that it puts a major crimp on | your social life. | | I completely deny that. | | I deleted Facebook when I was 25 and never once missed | it. It never once put a crimp on my social life because | my social life was never really organised around facebook | in the first place. I still wanted to keep in touch with | friends, and they wanted to keep in touch with me, | without facebook. | logifail wrote: | > if you own a small business, there's a real chance that | you'd rely on Facebook for a significant portion of your | business | | Source? | | Even if this is true for _some_ types of small business, | in _some_ markets, it 's a bit of a stretch to claim this | applies across the board. | cmorgan31 wrote: | Yes, valid points. Also don't think they should hold | social interactions hostage in an effort to not lose | their grip on selling your attention span. If their | product is worth paying for or the individuals in | question are too cheap to pay for it without using ads | then so be it. Let them monetize on ads, but I don't | expect anyone to give a shit about small businesses | profiting off our data. I didn't agree to support them by | selling my data so I don't feel any emotional attachment | to their situation. | umvi wrote: | > but there's no denying that it puts a major crimp on | your social life | | In what way? Social lives existed before 2008 when FB | went mainstream. I don't have a FB anymore, and I still | text my friends for get-togethers. | artful-hacker wrote: | I deleted my facebook account a long time ago, but I | definitely do not get invitations to some parties and | events because of that. Facebook events are the easiest | way to invite people to a party or other gathering. | logifail wrote: | > I definitely do not get invitations to some parties and | events [..] | | Our 7 year old goes to an arts and crafts centre, in the | aftermath of the furore over the WhatsApp Terms of | Service update the organizers changed their contact | details to suggesting reaching them via Signal instead. | So we switched. Job done. | ska wrote: | > In what way? | | In the obvious way for some people? It's disingenuous to | pretend that opting out of FB doesn't have negative | social consequences for some (many?) people, and | dismissing their concerns probably isn't a good way to | change anyone's mind. | MonAlternatiu wrote: | A lot of my friends use social media to stay in touch. | Not being on social media would keep me out of the loop, | which is not desirable. I try to restrict its usage as | much as possible though. | umvi wrote: | Collect alternative methods of staying in touch with | friends you care about before leaving social media (phone | numbers, email addresses, mailing addresses, etc.) | ryandrake wrote: | Yea. If your friends will abandon you just because you're | not on social media anymore, then I have bad news for | you: they probably aren't really your friends. When I | ditched Facebook about 10 years ago, I lost contact with | a whole bunch of people who weren't really part of my | life anyway, they were simply "names I recognized." | | My social life actually got better after dropping social | media simply because I'm spending less time scrolling in | front of a screen. | MonAlternatiu wrote: | > If your friends will abandon you just because you're | not on social media anymore | | That's a very binary view of the world that I don't | share. But that's not a topic I want to get into. | | Can you keep in touch with a certain group of friends | through non-social media platforms? Absolutely. I do it | daily, but that's not the point. | | The point is that staying away from these social media | platforms reduces your ability to have a social life. | It's quite like saying that you decrease your chances of | finding work without a driving license or cellphone | number. | | I could probably get away without social media today | (modulo telegram/whatsapp). But at what point would I | surrender? Most people of my generation use it, and it | looks like newer generations will have even higher | usages. | OkGoDoIt wrote: | Actually I run a live theater venue and the vast majority | of our tickets are purchased through a combination of | Facebook advertising and Facebook event pages. There's no | getting around that. I had deleted Facebook but needed to | reinstate my account once I got involved in the theater | industry. It's really frustrating actually. Facebook is the | Comcast of social media, you don't really want to use them | and you know they're abusing you, but you don't really have | a choice. | ska wrote: | > No one actually needs FB. | | No one actually needs a car either. Or to eat industrially | produced food. Or etc. etc. | | "Nobody actually needs X" where X is a thing that | empirically a huge percentage of people do, is I suspect | never a compelling argument. | | edit: bordercases brings up a good point, I picked | particularly entrenched/difficult areas for examples but it | wasn't necessary. | | My point was more about the futility of observing a common | behavior and rejecting it superficially, so perhaps I | should have used "Nobody needs a smart phone" or "No family | of 4 needs a >2000sq/ft house" or the like as examples. | zepto wrote: | "No one actually needs a car either. Or to eat | industrially produced food. Or etc. etc." | | This is a false equivalence. | | Facebook is nowhere near at that level of need yet. | ska wrote: | I think it's not really a false equivalence, as a matter | of degree - but see edit made in response to this. | | There is also an issue of Maslow style leveling here, but | the core point is identical. | zepto wrote: | I still think it's essentially a false equivalence: | | > Nobody needs a smart phone" or "No family of 4 needs a | >2000sq/ft house" or the like as examples. | | Even these are in a totally different class of 'need' to | Facebook which is trivially substituted by comparison. | ska wrote: | I think you miss the point the point I was trying to make | (i.e. I didn't articulate it well). | | Regardless of how trivial you think it is, the fact that | so many people demonstrate a preference not to should | make you think harder about the problem. It's not just | the technology, and many tech people tend to get this | wrong consistently. | | Let's put it another way: if it was actually as trivial | as you seem to think, it probably would have happened | already. | zepto wrote: | That makes the point a lot worse, and really just comes | across as you responding to a set of assumptions nobody | is actually making. | | What is the 'it' which you imagine people think is | trivial? | | Who is saying anything is trivial? | | Where is anyone saying it's just technology? | | Who said people don't have a preference to use Facebook? | | How do you know how hard people have thought about this? | | I don't think Facebook is trivial to replace, but that | isn't because people are dependent on it in a way that is | comparable to the other examples you mentioned. | | Unlike the examples you listed, _people can easily do | without Facebook_. There just isn't much incentive for | most people to do so, since they don't perceive the | downsides adequately. | bordercases wrote: | Categorically yes, but the connotation is that it's still | possible for the vast majority of people to get rid of | Facebook and still lead a satisfying life. I can buy | this. I can reason that it's likely true from e.g. the | hedonic setpoint. There are a lot of people that were | happy before Facebook and will be happy after Facebook is | gone. | | Facebook is only ~15 years old and it deals mostly with | aggregating text-based communications from people that | feel the compulsion to post almost entirely because it's | there. And they don't need Facebook, they just need the | functions it provides; there was a time when these | functions would have been split up into separate services | until they were acquihired or integrated. | | And although Facebook is monolithic, its monopoly is | primarily enforced by network effects and conventions. | Shit happens, like stock rallies or privacy scares. | Facebook might still be around but the exodus of e.g. | WhatsApp to Signal still shows the power of close | substitutes to challenge what is "necessary". | | There's also nothing fallacious in your counterargument. | Both cars and industrial farming are being challenged in | their own right. Cars for issues behind pollution and | sprawl (resulting in ride-sharing, electric cars and | transit) and industrial farming for its ethics and | chemical impact on the environment (organic food, | veganism, greater awareness of bioaccumulation of | pesticides and microplastics). In educated circles these | have become widely considered as Good Things, but would | involve challenging the assumption that things we take | for granted as necessary are actually so. That's just | progress. | dfxm12 wrote: | Is Facebook still creating shadow profiles? Whether or not | you have an account with them, they might still be | harvesting data about you. An individual can't really | "delete FB". | dTal wrote: | It's very narrow-minded to assume that because _you_ don 't | need Facebook, no one does. Facebook clearly provides some | value, or no one would use it at all. Some people can't | afford not to take advantage of that value. You can't tell | a small business "don't use Facebook for social media | outreach, it's evil and monopolistic" when the alternative | is being outcompeted by those who do. | phito wrote: | Totally agree. I have a very niche small business (you | can check my comment history) and all the community is on | facebook, it has completely replaced forums. I don't have | a choice, I need facebook and instagram otherwise I | wouldn't be able to reach them. | intrasight wrote: | Also, remember that this is only about the FB app - and | only on iOS. You can use only the FB site like I do and | have all tracking and ads disabled. | rdiddly wrote: | So that the ads you don't want, are also creepily specific to | things you mentioned recently? :D | reaperducer wrote: | _Every time this topic comes up I check Facebooks stock price | and realize how detached people are from facebooks revenue | driven by the advertisement market._ | | People don't drive stocks. Banks and bots do. | | Except for GameStop. But that's a different fish. | flatline wrote: | If you think that's all retail driven I have a bridge to sell | you... | [deleted] | adrr wrote: | More relevant ads would be the benefit for the user. | api wrote: | To see the dancing bunny, of course. | | (There's a term "dancing bunny attack" for putting interesting | content behind a confirmation dialog you want people to click. | Facebook kind of does that implicitly. All they have to do is | hide appealing content behind this option.) | sneak wrote: | Millions of people already agreed to this: this is how every | iPhone works right now, and always has. | | Apple shipped this tracking feature in the first place. | Nextgrid wrote: | They didn't agreed per-se, it was just a default and Apple | should be shamed for this. | m463 wrote: | > Why would anyone agree to this? | | And that is the entire story of dark patterns. | newscracker wrote: | > Why would anyone agree to this? | | To help small businesses that thrive because of Facebook and to | show the finger to greedy corporations like Apple. /s | | That's kinda how Facebook will paint this, without directly | mentioning its disgust for Apple in the message prompt. | Facebook will also paint a picture of it being the protector of | privacy of the user and how it doesn't "sell" information. | There will be a lot of smoke and mirrors, for sure. | PeterStuer wrote: | Why would anyone agree to this? | | Because the opt-out is hidden under the third pane behind the | per party 1 by 1 drop-downs of the opt-outs for "legitimate | interests", in a list of 120 "vendors" that require individual | sub-pane drop downs and a radio button all having an "agree to | selected" button that will immediately negate all your previous | selections and just blast you to the content as if you "agreed | to all". | HotHotLava wrote: | There's no opt-out, that's the whole point of the change. | naiveai wrote: | So that the ads are more personalized. I know this sounds | weird, but if I'm going to get ads anyway, I'd like them to | potentially be products I'm going to maybe have a use for and | might make my life easier. | | I get the privacy implications, but asking "why would _anyone_ | agree to this " is kind of narrow-minded. | afterburner wrote: | Funny, I feel the opposite. If they're going to try to | manipulate me, I want it to be shitty and ineffective, not as | effective as possible. | ryanianian wrote: | There are many ways to have relevant ads that don't track you | as an individual. | | You may find that only 70% of the ads are relevant versus | 75%, but you will not find that you've unwittingly given away | your personal information for the pleasure of buying | something. | bavent wrote: | Does that actually work though? I've been buying things on | Amazon for over a decade. For a while I got my groceries | through them, I watch a lot of stuff on Prime Video. You | would think they, of all people, know what I like. I can't | think of more than a couple times where anything suggested to | me was actually something I wanted. | | Even when I used FB, the ads were so off target from things I | am interested in as to be laughable. Like, THIS is the best | you can do with teams of engineers making > $200k/year | throwing AI at everything? I'm not convinced that all of this | tracking crap is just a way for them to market their ad | business - "Look we gather all this data about people, your | ads will definitely be seen by people who we know for a fact | will be interested in them because of coding and algorithms | and machine learning and blah blah blah." | Terretta wrote: | Perhaps a small cohort of targeted-ad-susceptible users | skew the targeting efficacy stats so far it looks like | targeted ads work overall. | | Perhaps this cohort doesn't overlap much with, say, New | York Times readers, which might be why NYT and every other | brand that tried first party non-retargeted ads saw an | uptick in ROI. | | For most of us, perhaps these ads don't work or are | negative, while this cohort are more like Candy Crush in- | app-purchase whales -- for them they really really work, so | they spend enough that most players think the game is "free | to play" while griping about the endless in-app-upsells. | bavent wrote: | Ah so it's the "Nigerian Prince" scam, basically? | reggieband wrote: | > THIS is the best you can do with teams of engineers | making > $200k/year throwing AI at everything? | | Maybe it is the best we can currently do and maybe it isn't | objectively great. But the real question: is it better? I | mean, better than the random shotgun approach that was TV, | magazines, bus wraps, billboards, etc. Is it better than | the spam flyers or "yellow pages" the post office delivered | to every single household in some geographic area? | | Rather than compare to some idealized perfect, we should | compare to the practical alternatives. Maybe this is | legitimately the best we can currently do given the state | of AI and machine learning. If that is the case, the right | question for both advertisers and consumers is whether or | not it beats the available alternatives. Because if it | does, and advertisers seem to think it does, then that | explains why Google and Facebook are worth what they are | worth and how they can afford to pay what they pay. | svachalek wrote: | Is it one tiny increment better? Maybe? I'm with others | who are not really impressed. For years the best Facebook | could do were "Hot single [your gender preference] in | [your city] are looking for [your age] [your gender]". | Thanks, Mad Lib ads. | | But for the sake of argument let's say there is some | small increment. What is the cost we are willing to pay | for that? Databases that know exactly how much time we | spend on the toilet? Political disinformation campaigns? | Insurrection attempts? | | It's like making baby monitors a little bit more | convenient, but in the process opening the door for pedo | hackers to speak directly to your children's cribs. Tiny | conveniences aren't worth sacrificing everything we have. | bavent wrote: | I don't buy that. For example - I bought a rowing machine | on Amazon. It was the first piece of home gym equipment | I'd ever purchased. For months after, other rowing | machines were suggested to me. I already bought one, why | would I buy another, especially if I hadn't returned the | first one? | | Ads like this are very common for me - a purchase that I | would consider to be a one-off thing (at least, for | several years, whatever the standard lifetime of that | product is) just leads to more ads for different models | of that same thing. Occasionally, accessories that only | go to a different model or brand of that thing. | | I don't see how this is any better than the random | shotgun approach - these ads that are 100% irrelevant and | not going to lead to a purchase are taking up space that | ads that are possibly < 100% irrelevant (even if | completely random) could be occupying. | | It seems like this would be a solvable problem for Amazon | - aggregate the data of everyone who has purchased X | model of rowing machine and see how many of them | purchased a second rowing machine, which brand it was, | and how long after purchasing #1 they bought #2. Don't | show ads for rowing machines to people who have purchased | X until time is >= avgTimeBetween1And2, with some fancy | statistics in there somewhere. | | Clearly I'm missing something in my logic, because plenty | of people a lot smarter than me work on this adtech | stuff. | reggieband wrote: | > Clearly I'm missing something in my logic | | Your logic may be solid but you probably lack sufficient | data. Plato was a pretty smart guy but he thought the | four elements were Water, Fire, Air and Earth. His | mistake wasn't intelligence or even flaws in his logic - | it was missing data. If you begin your logic from one or | more faulty assumptions then you will arrive at wrong | conclusions regardless of how intelligent you are or how | flawless your application of logic is. | | I don't have the data either - but you should at least | use logic to consider possible reasons why you are seeing | the same products you have purchased previously. Perhaps | this is a strategy that wins significantly more often | than you assume and you just lack the data to illuminate | why. | | As the other commenter noted, you are but one data point | in the literal hundreds of millions of data points | available to Amazon. It would be humble to consider that | they've tried your best first guess approach and it was | suboptimal compared to the alternatives running now. Or | maybe you choose to believe you are smarter than every | single engineer that has worked on the problem there? And | you believe this while lacking any data, having performed | no experiments, etc. | kd0amg wrote: | > Clearly I'm missing something in my logic | | Sampling methodology. Every ad impression in your sample | was shown to the same person, but the ad industry is | interested in billions of people. | bavent wrote: | I'm sorry, I don't really follow. Could you explain a | little bit more? | 0xffff2 wrote: | >Ads like this are very common for me - a purchase that I | would consider to be a one-off thing (at least, for | several years, whatever the standard lifetime of that | product is) just leads to more ads for different models | of that same thing. Occasionally, accessories that only | go to a different model or brand of that thing. | | I don't have the industry expertise to know how true it | is, but I've seen it stated numerous times in threads | like this that this is entirely intentional. Supposedly | the data shows that a person who just bought a rowing | machine is actually quite likely to buy another one | (because they aren't satisfied with the first one, | because they collect rowing machines, etc) compared to | most other demographics. | artificial wrote: | It comes down to the advertiser who is creating the | audiences on the platform. "I can haz this many people?!" A | terrible analogy is no programming language can save you | from yourself. The current issue is the inaugural purchase | mechanic, like buying a big ticket item or something that's | a one off like toilet/toilet seat and now that's all you | get moving forward. | tal8d wrote: | Marketers aren't trying to match you up with products that | meet some unfulfilled need you have, they are trying to get | you to buy anything in the very limited window available to | them. You seem to be under the impression that they'll | maximize that opportunity by presenting you with something | you'd find useful. There are more effective ways to sell, | with an enormous amount of research dedicated to perfecting | the process. Unsurprisingly, the result of such efforts - | unbounded by any sense of morality, are pretty disgusting. | Depression. Depressed people make the best consumers. That is | what they are looking for when they're tracking your off-site | activity. Do you imagine they are above trying to induce | depression? | pmlnr wrote: | Long, long time ago, when last.fm radio was still a thing on | it's own, I loved it: instead of pre-arranging a playlist, it | kept adding the next song by searching for similar ones based | on the one currently playing. It kept crawling away, | sometimes into terrible direction, but more often into an | area I'd like to refer to as "satellite". | | "Satellite" would be friends-of-friends or even friends-of- | friends-of-friends in social media terms. | | And this is how it comes to ads: when I bought a magazine, I | got a set of ads that only had a rough idea about their | audience. Those edges were the ones that allowed ads to | broaden my views on the world, and, therefore, ads were | useful for me. This, and the financial impossibility of ever | getting one - early teen in Hungary -, were the reasons why I | loved Sony catalogues in the '90s. | | Targeted ads are the polar opposite: they want to change me, | force me to buy a certain, specific product, instead of | gradually opening my interest to a lot more things in the | world. | TRcontrarian wrote: | I feel the exact same way about sampling 'alien' ad | culture. It's fun to switch on the local TV station in a | new city and see what ads are being shown to people there. | It's like a form of social calibration that shows what 'is | available.' Same thing with reading the ads in the back of | Popular Science or The Economist. I don't get that online | unless I VPN+incognito, and I absolutely cannot get it on | my phone, which is locked down much tighter. | Spivak wrote: | I want personalized ads _when I'm searching for product_. I | really don't get the fetishization of sticking ads next to | unrelated content. Like I get the whole brand mindshare | aspect but that's not exactly a small-business type of ad | campaign. | | Like Jesus. If a company had good ad targeting I would | actually pay to access it and use it as my product search. | It's remarkably difficult given the type of product you want | to buy to survey the market and find different people that | sell it. I'm currently going through that hell trying to find | a water filter dispenser/pitcher. All of the search results | are garbage. I know there is more out there than just the 17 | models of cheap plastic crap from Brita/Pur but it's an | absolute slog to actually find anything. | spaetzleesser wrote: | I remember the good, ol' days when you were on a | kiteboarding site and the ads were for kiteboarding | equipment and not for more toasters after I just bought | one. I don't mind ads in the old style but I seriously | resent the current state. | ryanianian wrote: | The Wire Cutter (NYTimes) is doing this more and more and | iirc they're quite profitable in doing it. They find the | "best" products and give you referral links to buy them. | | Sometimes your site searches will show lists of things | ("looking for a jacket? see our list of the best cold- | weather gear"). This isn't a dark pattern. It's not | targeting you the individual, it's targeting you the person | who just explicitly showed intent to buy X. It's really how | buying online would ideally work in all scenarios. | Const-me wrote: | Interestingly, my preference is opposite. If I'm going to see | ads anyway, ideally I want to see them in a language I don't | speak. | dvfjsdhgfv wrote: | Tracking aside, I prefer not to have "personalized" ads for | two reasons. First, they create another bubble based on their | perception of me. Second, their personalization is so poor I | sometimes wonder how come advertisers believe them. | | And this is all assuming you actually _want_ to see ads. I | don 't. It's only when I need to buy something I enter the | buying mode: I disable adblockers and start doing research - | this is the only small window when ads are allowed to bother | me. | ryanianian wrote: | If ads weren't clickbait, obnoxious, or misleading (and | didn't violate your privacy) you may find yourself more | open to seeing them. Even if they're not always super | relevant to you and only you. | | Respectful advertising will always have its place whenever | the buyer has a choice. It's when the companies selling | those ads learn how to manipulate their audience that the | 'respectful' parts of the equation get dropped and | consumers start to push back. | | My Kindle shows me ads. I could pay to opt out, but I | actually like the way it handles them. My (former) Alexa on | the other hand was IN MY FACE with ads whenever I wanted to | even just set a timer. That is grossly disrespectful of me | as a human being, so it was shown the door. | HenryBemis wrote: | > My Kindle shows me ads | | I have no experience on Kindles, but on my Amazon Fire | HD, I have rooted it, uninstall 50-60% of the bloatware, | I have installed "NoRoot Firewall" to cut down on the | unwanted comms between my tablet and Amazon, and I now | have a perfectly functioning tablet for reading. | | Extra tip: install ReadEra and you can read the non- | Kindle-app pdf, mobi, epub, etc. | ljm wrote: | They're essentially asking their users to bail them out by | trying to garner sympathy towards the nebulous 'small | businesses' who probably wouldn't notice any difference anyway. | Unless FB threw a bunch of them under the bus first and then | tried to blame Apple for it. | | FB aren't entitled to a user's entire internet presence | (digital and physical) just because the user doesn't pay for | the account. | idreyn wrote: | I'm a simple man -- if I see a button with a primary intent | color standing between me and my content I've been conditioned | to press it, often before I realize what I'm doing or reading | the accompanying text. Probably tens of millions of people will | do the same here. | rickdeveloper wrote: | What do you think about a 10s delay (or whatever an | appropriate reading time is) before the buttons become | active? | mqus wrote: | I propably already learned the "don't klick the obvious | button asap" lesson pretty early, when websites had like 5 | "Download now" buttons (ads) and you had to search for the | small text with a link to actually get the download. | godelski wrote: | While I agree with your point about this and that most people | will do this it really brings up a lot of questions about | what consent actually means. Especially with dark patterns | and asymmetric information. | vincentmarle wrote: | True but looking at my own iTunes App Analytics dashboard for | example, about 50% of users don't opt-in to share analytics | with us. | | At Facebook-scale 50% means at least a billion users will | still opt-in, but probably significantly less than what they | were tracking before at the 100% level. | smhg wrote: | > if I see a button with a primary intent color standing | between me and my content I've been conditioned to press it | | While cookie-laws have good intentions, this side effect | should have been properly researched first. An internet full | of shady and useless pop-ups which drive this behavior makes | me sad. I'm still hoping they will someday disappear. | jakear wrote: | The skeptic in me bets that side effect was quite | thoroughly researched, by the media companies, who found by | normalizing intrusive banners they could get users to agree | to whatever they heck they'd want. | asddubs wrote: | used to be like this but these days there's so many dark | patterns that try to make you pay for extra shit (or sign up | for prime), i instinctively look for the non highlighted | button if the button stands out a little too much | MaxBarraclough wrote: | Same here. If I understand correctly, the GDPR states that | if the user is tricked into clicking that they give | consent, that doesn't count as them truly giving consent. | Despite this, many otherwise reputable websites try to | deceive you into 'agreeing'. Disappointingly, TomsHardware | is one such. | | These dark patterns will only go away once there are | properly enforced laws against them. | Wowfunhappy wrote: | Remember though that this doesn't replace Apple's prompt! | idreyn wrote: | That's true, I forgot about that. I appreciate that those | prompts don't highlight a particular option which tends to | force you to read them. | | I wonder how often Apple will allow apps to re-request this | permission when it's been denied; I have a handful of iOS | apps that are constantly asking me to grant permission to | see more of my photos, and I wish they'd rate-limit that | kind of abuse. | egypturnash wrote: | Shit, every time I reboot my iPad it asks for permission | to connect to my phone for wifi calling, and I keep on | saying "no" and I wish I could just say "never ask this | again". It's just as annoying when Apple does it. | metaxis78 wrote: | You can disable this feature, it's specifically a thing | that you enabled at some point. The reason you're getting | prompted is because you indicated that you want it. IIRC | it's something to do with the wifi calling settings on | your phone, not your ipad. | | It IS annoying that their nag box doesn't have a "go to | settings" option, at least. | [deleted] | monadic3 wrote: | > I wish they'd rate-limit that kind of abuse. | | They do. Observe that apps will prompt you in-app, and | only if you indicate you're open to it will they invoke | the system prompt, which will only trigger from the app a | single time before you have to change it from the system | preferences pane. | dmitrygr wrote: | It actually is. A while ago, someone (i think fb) | produced an article that showed that to avoid the issue, | they find it is best to show user their own similar | screen, and only if the user clicks "yes", show the OS | screen (cause for that one you only get one chance). I | suspect you're seeing the apps' first "app-made" screen | and not the OS one. Look carefully. If so, click yes | there, and NO on the OS screen. | roblabla wrote: | Wouldn't this be against the Apple TOS? Might want to | report application that are using this kind of dark | pattern. | monadic3 wrote: | If it is, virtually every app on my phone is in | violation. | ryandrake wrote: | Similar theory behind those "do you like this app" | prompts that come from the app itself. If you tap "yes" | they'll give you the prompt to rate on the AppStore. If | you tap "no" they won't. This can seriously inflate an | app's rating and help prevent low ratings. Nice, | underhanded and effective dark pattern! | InitialLastName wrote: | The funny thing is when they do that, you leave a bad | review, they delete your review, and then keep begging | you to leave a review. | Aulig wrote: | This is called review gating and isn't allowed: | https://appradar.com/blog/ask-users-leave-review-in-app- | stor... | ryandrake wrote: | Interesting! It's obviously been a while since I was in | the 3rd party app business because in my day, the use of | these was widespread! Nice to see the vulnerability was | closed. | allenu wrote: | Is it actually explicitly disallowed in Apple's | guidelines? Their wording almost makes it indicate they | want you to only ask for a rating when people are happy | with the app: | https://developer.apple.com/app-store/ratings-and- | reviews/ Make the request when users are most | likely to feel satisfaction with your app, such as when | they've completed an action, level, or task. | another-dave wrote: | I understood that to mean, if you've goals within you app | (e.g. CityMapper -- completing a journey; Dropbox -- | uploading a file; some game -- beating a level), ask | after the user has completed them, rather than what apps | used to do (e.g. before you've been created an account, | or getting in your way while you're changing some | setting). But when they _do_ ask theyre meant to show the | rating dialog either way, not first check what rating you | would give. | idreyn wrote: | No doubt FB is preparing to A/B test dozens of variants | for maximum "conversion" :) | | The dialog I am constantly seeing is this one, which | seems to come from the OS: | https://i.imgur.com/7JGotq3.png | | Now that iOS allows you to share only some photos with | apps (which is great) I see this before practically every | photo selection dialog in third-party apps. My choice | here doesn't affect my ability to share a single image | with the app in that moment; they just want to suck my | whole library of photos in for background processing. I'd | very much like to not see this dialog more than once a | month. | 0bit wrote: | Go to Settings, scroll down to find the app, and select | it. Then you get the "Allow <app> to access" and a list | of entitlements, one of which is "Photos". Select | "Photos" and you get three options "Selected Photos" | (which is what you likely have), "All Photos", and | "None". Push "None" and you should never see that dialog | again. | hobofan wrote: | If the notification consent prompt on iOS is any | indication, it will only be shown the first time it is | requested, which is the reason these notification | requests usually already have a "testing screen" like the | one described in the article. | Illniyar wrote: | I assume the button will prompt a system alert of some kind, | no? | MonAlternatiu wrote: | The article has precisely that prompt in one of the images. | | The thing is, just like certain apps require certain | permissions (camera app wants to access the camera, device | files, etc..) I believe a lot of people will just accept | these conditions without realizing they are completely | optional. | Illniyar wrote: | A lot of people will. | | But there's also strong education regarding system | prompts. Users know when an app is asking for extra | permissions (which this is basically the same of). Those | people who care about what permissions apps have will | know what to click. | | Those who don't care, that's the most you can do. Besides | even Facebook estimate that only 10-30% will click allow. | I'm not sure if you can ask for more at this point. | MonAlternatiu wrote: | It would be awesome if the users were forced to navigate | a settings menu, find the app on a list of apps, and | manually enable the option. | | One can only dream. | drran wrote: | Better ads. | dredmorbius wrote: | </s>> | retrac wrote: | Why would anyone ever agree to the terms in most software | EULAs? | Wowfunhappy wrote: | Because otherwise you can't use the software? | ATsch wrote: | This is said so often it's become a platitude, but: Your free | labor of creating and curating things people want to look at is | the product. It's the companies bidding on access to content | you're willing to look at, in hopes of changing your behaviour, | that are the consumers. | godelski wrote: | There's weird cases. In my DnD group only one person has not | switched to Signal and they refuse to. Their answer is that "I | can't fight them so why switch?" Which weirds me out since this | is exactly how you fight tracking. Btw, this is someone who has | a PhD in computer science so it isn't like they are tech | illiterate. But I've seen several people like this and honestly | I don't understand. | | I think at this point a lot of people are now apathetic and | have given up. And we know people like to double down on good | or bad positions when faced with adversaries. Doing things like | "switching to Signal" (when you already have most of your | friends there) and "using an adblocker" seem like very simple | things that easily respond to "what can I do about it?" | purplecats wrote: | wow what a weak mindset your friend has | mensetmanusman wrote: | I would rather get advertisements about tech toys than get | advertisements about debeers diamonds. | Nextgrid wrote: | I'm the opposite. | | I spend 8+ hours a day in the tech world; if the "tech toy" | is any good chances are I already know about it and/or have | it. | | If I absolutely have to see ads (which I don't - haven't seen | online ads for years) the last thing I want is _more_ tech. I | 'd rather see ads for stuff I don't actually know about. | criddell wrote: | If HN were supported by non-tracking ads, do you think you | would be more likely to see an add for a tech toy or a | diamond here? | mensetmanusman wrote: | I hope it would be ads about recent companies Y has helped | start :) | fabatka wrote: | Why would anyone read this and think about the implications? I | may be overly pessimistic, but I think the average user just | sees this modal as a potential obstacle between him/her and the | content their brain tells them to consume. I know _my_ first | instinct would be to go on the path that minimizes the risk | that I don 't get to do the things I set out to do. | [deleted] | 2Gkashmiri wrote: | what... benefit can facebook offer to its sheeps now with this | consent screen? pennies? | albanberg wrote: | It would be great to see the public bombard these companies with | a demand for privacy. Petitions/demonstrations/email | campaigns...whatever it takes. | cellar_door wrote: | lol @ people who think Apple pushing back on FB tracking is out | of their goodness of heart. | | They want FB to introduce a subscription model so they can rake | in that sweet 30% commission. | | I am in favor of more consumer options, always prefer | subscriptions to ads/tracking, and am a huge fan of Apple | products. The issue is more that 30% commission is extortionate | imo. | twostorytower wrote: | I would hate to be the PM on this project. They would be lucky to | get 5% conversion. That's still worth billions in the long run. | DLay wrote: | Are all the smaller social media companies like Twitter, | SnapChat, TikTok, and Reddit struggling with Apple's new rules | too? | bezout wrote: | I think that this is going to end well if: | | - Facebook educates people about how the company uses their data | - Apple doesn't make it hard to access data for companies that | got their users' consent | United857 wrote: | Not unique to FB, these days it seems every news site has (at | least) a nag popup if a ad blocker is detected, with many having | a hard block on content. | grishka wrote: | Disabling JS for that site helps and most news websites don't | make any good use of it anyway. | metalliqaz wrote: | do you use a plugin for that? | grishka wrote: | Yes, this one: https://github.com/mtimkovich/one-click- | javascript-toggle | indymike wrote: | In the end, they will end up asking each user until they consent. | mensetmanusman wrote: | Usually Apple hates when App developers make any user prompts | that points out changes Apple has made. | | I wonder if Apple will pull the Facebook app in response. | bnj wrote: | It's simultaneously remarkable and utterly unremarkable that | Facebook has been dragged kicking and screaming into building a | consent screen for this kind of tracking. | | Watching this tracking notification conflict unfold in the media | has really helped me to refine where I stand on this: if a | business depends on non-consensual tracking to be able to | survive, then I'd prefer that the business has to fold before | stripping users of their opportunity to understand and agree to | the surveillance infrastructure at issue here. | kibwen wrote: | You're more forgiving than I am. As far as I'm concerned, | individual-targeted advertising has such inherently perverse | incentives that even those starting out with good intentions | (e.g. consensual opt-in) will eventually find themselves | engaged in unethical, privacy-eroding behavior as a matter of | course. | | Consider what would happen if you outlawed individual-targeted | advertising. Ad relevancy falls overall. What then? | | Would ad companies like Google make less money? Not really. | Overall advertising budgets are not dominated by the | effectiveness of advertising, but by adversarial spending by | their competitors. Companies have to spend money on ads because | the competition is spending money on ads. It doesn't matter how | absolutely effective the campaign is, as long as it's | relatively more effective than your rival's. | | Would consumers spend less money? No, a consumer has a budget | that is independent of the relevancy of the ads they see. | | The advertising industry thrived for a long time in the absence | of individual user tracking. It could do so again. | aledalgrande wrote: | If the company is public, multiply that by 10. | sriram_sun wrote: | Exactly! How do you grow by 25% quarter over quarter _without | discovering new business models_? "Knowing" us even more and | getting us to fork over 25% more! Or moving spend from a site | outside of FB to within it. | sanedigital wrote: | > Overall advertising budgets are not dominated by the | effectiveness of advertising, but by adversarial spending by | their competitors. | | This is absolutely not the case. Google's biggest ad clients | achieve pretty incredible ROI (called ROAS) on each dollar | they spend. And they track these obsessively--I supported a | large travel client that had a small (but highly skilled) | engineering team dedicated exclusively to their SEM bidding | and monitoring systems. | | The reason digital advertising is so valuable is pretty | exclusively related to attribution and tracking. If companies | weren't sure they could make so much money with their spend, | their budgets would absolutely drop. | kibwen wrote: | Companies obsess about these metrics because they don't | want their ROI to be less than their competitors', because | that would put them at a competitive disadvantage. It's not | in doubt that individual-targeted advertising is more | effective than than the alternatives; by eliminating user | tracking you would be decreasing ROI across the board, but | that's fine because, again, all that you're fighting for is | a higher ROI than your competitors. And to reiterate, it's | not like consumer dollars are just vanishing into the | ether; every dollar a consumer makes either gets spent or | saved, and regardless of the ROI of a specific ad campaign | they've still got to buy dish soap or diapers or what have | you. Just because advertising ROI drops does not mean that | the company revenue/profit will drop; if it did, that | probably means another company has better ROI (and if they | can do so, and as long as they're not tracking users, then | good for them!). | kortilla wrote: | This model is based on the assumption that ads are for | things the consumers already know about. This is not | correct. | | Example: I type "housing insurance" into Google and the | "organic" results are dominated by the mega insurance | companies. | | Without targeted advertising, the ads are also dominated | by mega insurance companies because they have the biggest | advertising budgets. | | With targeted advertising, I can see an ad from a | provider specific to my location that I didn't know | existed who offers way better rates because of the | different risk pool. | | The same applies for thousands of other products/services | that are localized. | | Similarly, the ads for someone interested in DIY vs | someone who is happy to pay for skilled labor are | drastically different when you search "drywall repair". | somedude895 wrote: | > Without targeted advertising, the ads are also | dominated by mega insurance companies because they have | the biggest advertising budgets. > With targeted | advertising, I can see an ad from a provider specific to | my location that I didn't know existed who offers way | better rates because of the different risk pool. The same | applies for thousands of other products/services that are | localized. | | You're talking about geo targeting here, which imo should | still be possible. That's an in-the-moment targeting akin | to an advertiser choosing to show their ad on a local | news site. This doesn't require extensive tracking and | profiling of users. | biztos wrote: | I don't think these examples require individual targeting | at all, but I agree with your point. | | When you are looking for housing insurance and Facebook | shows you divorce attorneys, because they know you're | gonna need one pretty soon, _that_ is a spend that would | be affected. | olex wrote: | On both examples, the user can trivially reach the | desired search outcome by manually adding their location | or "diy"/"for hire" to the search query, without the | search engine needing to know a single thing about them. | majormajor wrote: | You aren't necessarily disagreeing - their ROI would be | even better if their competitors were spending less. | | Or, flipping it: if some advertisers are extremely | effective, that pushes up the price for the ones that | aren't. | betenoire wrote: | Advertising has existed without this feature in other | mediums forever | fingerlocks wrote: | At least someone in this thread gets it. Ad tracking really | is about attribution, personalized ads are secondary nice- | to-have. | | This is how small businesses figure out their advertising | budget. Where are our customers coming from, or more | importantly, where are they _not_ coming from, so we know | where to spend or not spend our limited resources? | | But I'm not surprised this isn't pointed out more often. | The hardcore privacy zealots really blow up when you try to | explain that it's mostly innocuous. | josephg wrote: | It can be mostly innocuous. And I feel no sympathy for | facebook's business model here. I don't want my attention | to be bought and sold like a horse between faceless | companies. I'd much rather pay $1/year to WhatsApp than | have the content of my personal life analysed by the | world's marketing teams. I want to be the customer, not | the product. I want the software I use to be primarily | designed around my needs - not the needs of advertisers. | Closi wrote: | So you mean their REAL purpose is attribution, but they | just chose to build giant databases covering peoples | locations, friend groups, hobbies, desires, careers, sex, | sexual preferences, relationship statuses, political | alignment, voting probability, race and more in order to | implement a 'secondary nice-to-have'? | | And that's better? | | As a side point, I don't see why attribution tracking | requires any form of cross-site tracking or | fingerprinting. It seems like it would be pretty trivial | to implement this without all the privacy issues (i.e. | just direct the ad to domain.com/ad123 and track the user | on-site from there). | fingerlocks wrote: | None of that has anything to do with this topic. This is | about Facebook's access to the Apple IDFA. There are no | web URLs involved[0] when you click an ad on instagram | and it launches another app on your phone. These are | separate issues, and I don't entire disagree with the | others you brought up. | | [0] Before someone comes in to correct me, I know I'm | handwaving here. The point stands. | danShumway wrote: | The apps on your phone would not have the ability to suck | up isolated pieces of data about your usage and combine | them into a single profile with your age/gender/etc... if | they didn't have a set of shared identifiers that they | could use to associate that data across multiple sources. | | It seems very relevant to me. The larger privacy problems | wouldn't be quite as bad if there was no way to tell what | device an app was running on or who was using it. That | seems like it would limit data collection in a pretty | significant way. | bordercases wrote: | The tracking technology itself has a much wider scope of | application than "small businesses focusing their | development budget". Ads are used as a commercial | justification for broadening the larger ability to | surveil. | danShumway wrote: | Because (all other concerns and objections aside) the | intent doesn't matter. | | Apologies for the crude analogy, but if I install a | camera in your bathroom and say, "okay, technically I | _could_ watch you poop, but the only reason I 'm actually | doing this is to figure out when you're out of toilet | paper", that explanation won't leave you satisfied. | | Similarly, if someone is tracking me across the web and | trying to link my identity across multiple sites/devices, | I don't really care whether or not they're worried about | attribution. The concerns about attribution are secondary | to the fact that they're still watching everything I do | online. | fingerlocks wrote: | Filming me defecating in the privacy of my home is not | comparable to a quasi-anonymous unique value traveling | from my computer to another. | | Also, please remember that this conversation is very | specifically about Facebook's access to the Apple IDFA, | not about general web tracking or other data vacuuming | issues. The fact that these two separate issues get | conflated is part of the problem. | danShumway wrote: | > about Facebook's access to the Apple IDFA | | Which is used to uniquely identify me across apps, a | totally equivalent level of tracking as identifying me | across websites. It is the same result, just on a | different platform. | | And all of this data gets combined and utilized with the | "other data vacuuming issues" you're talking about. You | can't treat those like isolated issues, the unique | identifiers across websites/apps _enable_ the data | vacuuming. | | You're arguing that these identifiers aren't primarily | being used to build profiles, that they're mostly | innocuous, and then you're saying that the fact that | profiles are being built and data vacuuming is happening | is a separate issue that's not relevant to the current | conversation? No, the data vacuuming wouldn't be possible | to nearly the same degree without persistent identifiers. | That makes it relevant. | | > is not comparable to a quasi-anonymous unique value | traveling from my computer to another. | | You're arguing about a matter of degree. The point I'm | making is that violating my privacy doesn't become | automatically OK just because the advertising industry | promises me they won't look at the extra data they're | getting. And I think the reasoning behind why it's not OK | is the same in both scenarios -- because in both | scenarios, it's not reasonable to trust the person | gathering that data to keep it secure or to never misuse | it. | | People bring up "quasi-anonymous" as if it's some kind of | perfect defense that puts these identifiers into a | separate category of information, but it's not. If it was | actually anonymous, you wouldn't need to put the "quasi" | in front of it. But if it makes you feel better, I'll put | a camera in your bathroom and then disassociate the video | stream from your home address or name, and then I'll blur | your face with an AI. Then the video stream will be | quasi-anonymous too. I promise I won't ever try to link | it to a real identity, you can trust me. | | The point is, it is a violation of my privacy to track | every website I visit and every app I use. The reason why | a company is doing that _doesn 't matter._ | TeMPOraL wrote: | You're too generous. I disagree with the parent that the | intent is innocuous. | | The intent is almost always to convince people to | purchase something where they otherwise wouldn't purchase | it - by a mix of catching them in a vulnerable moment, | and brainwashing them with repeated exposure over time. | It's malicious. | squeezingswirls wrote: | 'When Big Brands Stopped Spending On Digital Ads, Nothing | Happened. Why?' | | https://www.forbes.com/sites/augustinefou/2021/01/02/when- | bi... | fingerlocks wrote: | What happens when small brands don't spend on digital | ads? _Nothing Happening_ is the worst possible outcome. | sriram_sun wrote: | Exactly! How do you grow by 25% quarter over quarter _without | discovering new business models_? "Knowing" us even more and | getting us to fork over 25% more! Or moving spend from a site | outside of FB to within it. | | What could be the end result? I give the algorithms my bank | account and they are responsible for restocking my fridge, | refilling prescriptions to purchasing books and investing in | my stocks? | | Some aspiring product manager (of course another algorithm in | training) is furiously jotting down all of the above... | TeMPOraL wrote: | What bank account? With everything-as-a-Service, minimalism | being trendy (a form of consumerism as a lifestyle), ever | shrinking buffers in supply chains, ever shrinking | apartments - soon we won't be collecting money on accounts, | we'll be paid in and paying with _securities_. Your | position at ACME will entitle you to 100 units of payment, | which you 'll allocate to different services... | imheretolearn wrote: | >> Overall advertising budgets are not dominated by the | effectiveness of advertising, but by adversarial spending by | their competitors | | I would like to know how this conclusion was reached. By that | logic, the advertising industry would not really need | individual targeting at all | kibwen wrote: | _> By that logic, the advertising industry would not really | need individual targeting at all_ | | You're right, they don't. But the point is not to argue | that ad relevancy itself is bad. In a vacuum, improved ad | relevancy is good! However, the improved relevancy of | individually-targeted advertisements is not offset by the | social detriment of user tracking. | | To use an example, on a Facebook group for gamers, it would | be fine and dandy for Facebook to establish a market where | PC hardware and video game companies bid to show ads to | users browsing the group page. Note that this doesn't have | to involve advertisers receiving any identifiable data | about _who_ the ad was shown to, and nor does it have to | involve Facebook tracking your behavior online in order to | show ads based on _other_ sites you 've visited, e.g. | gaming communities on Reddit. The targeting is as simple as | "show the game ads to the people in the game group"; it's | extremely coarse demographic-based targeting that doesn't | require any sort of persistent user profiling. It's no more | of a privacy issue than back in the old-timey days when a | company would buy an ad in an enthusiast magazine. | imheretolearn wrote: | >> But the point is not to argue that ad relevancy itself | is bad. In a vacuum, improved ad relevancy is good! | However, the improved relevancy of individually-targeted | advertisements is not offset by the social detriment of | user tracking | | Agreed, this is where the incentives of the users are | misaligned with the incentives of the ad tracking | companies. But users don't have a choice, hence | individual ad tracking. | panta wrote: | Individual ad targeting is needed only as soon as someone | does it. It is not "needed" per se. | bluesign wrote: | For sure there are some advertisers, they would not be | able to advertise if there is no individual targeting. | Problem is for one of those honest businesses, there are | 10 dishonest ones abusing the individual targeting. | panta wrote: | If it is targeted without explicit direct consent of the | targeted individual, it is not honest, at least from my | personal point of view. If it was for me, targeted | advertising would illegal. | dylan604 wrote: | Have you ever spent time around advertising people? This is | exactly how they talk to each other. An agency shooting a | commercial for a hospital in Houston, TX shot in Amsterdam | because the director wanted to. Another agency person | bragged to a person in another agency about how much they | spent. It's a game to these people. Once you become a | brand, it is less about advertising a product/lifestyle as | much as it is to keep the name prevelant in people's mind. | prostoalex wrote: | This would just return to 2000-esque state of affairs, | where the ad model was based on selling page views, clicks | or actions. | | That model favors small publishers (as niche advertisers | flock to niche publications) and disadvantages large | generic publishers (social networks, email clients, | portals). | AlphaSite wrote: | I'm not entirely convinced this is true, but equally if | it is I see it as an absolute win. | somedude895 wrote: | > That model favors small publishers (as niche | advertisers flock to niche publications) and | disadvantages large generic publishers (social networks, | email clients, portals). | | I agree. Advertisers would have to go back to contextual | targeting, identifying websites that are likely to appeal | the target audience, rather than simply buying the | audience programmatically on Google's ad network | liaukovv wrote: | Which in turn would create an incentive to actually | create websites attracting different audiences? | mc32 wrote: | >" Would consumers spend less money? No..." | | I'm not sure about that. A lot of advertising is about | appearances and superficial things. Example. Do we need cars | in the US to get from place to place (NYC, etc excepted) Yes! | Does it have to have bells and whistles? No. Can an entry | level car do the job in the great majority of cases? Does it | have to be a "luxury" brand? Or an upscale model? | | Spending would go down. Good, bad? That's another discussion. | fuster wrote: | I think there is the question of what people would do with | the money they save by buying only the entry-level car. | Would everyone really just save the money? I expect people | would just spend it on something else (that maybe has more | effective advertising, even if via word-of-mouth or | something else). So spending would remain roughly the same. | I don't have any hard research I can personally point to | though. | jfk13 wrote: | Given how many people seem to find themselves with | crippling debt, or unable to save enough of a buffer to | handle unexpected (but not especially unusual) expenses, | I'd be inclined to say "good". | | Much of the advertising industry isn't about getting you to | choose Company A's product rather than Company B's, or to | choose the deluxe version rather than the entry-level one; | it's about getting you to buy things you would never even | have considered otherwise, and certainly have no "need" | for. | EGreg wrote: | _Would ad companies like Google make less money? Not really. | Overall advertising budgets are not dominated by the | effectiveness of advertising, but by adversarial spending by | their competitors_ | | This premise seems wrong to me. It assumes that advertising | is always a net positive, regardless of how targeted it is. | | As someone who runs a company that built apps and have spent | ZERO on advertising and PR, I can tell you that is _usually_ | not the case. | | In fact, the biggest component of user acquisition cost is | the untargeted advertising. Much better to reduce that cost | to zero by increasing the viral k-factor and user retention. | Those two metrics matter way more than advertising. If you | can reduce the ad spend per user, or per customer, you are | BETTER off, not worse. | | For example, Google adwords nor any other advert network | offers NO WAY of targeting MacOS, only iOS and Android, so we | couldn't make any money advertising our Calendars for Mac | app. | | And trust me we experimented with all kinds of monetization | in that app: | | https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/technology-43386918 | | Original article was im ArsTechnica: | https://arstechnica.com/information- | technology/2018/03/there... | | https://www.google.com/search?q=qbix+mining&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-. | .. | acchow wrote: | > Would ad companies like Google make less money? Not really. | | I disagree. Currently, targeted advertising is able to hold a | premium over non-targeted advertising. The more targeted, the | higher the premium. Facebook wants to keep up in the arms | race with Google (and others) in how targeted it can be. | hctaw wrote: | > if a business depends on non-consensual tracking to be able | to survive, then I'd prefer that the business has to fold | before stripping users of their opportunity to understand and | agree to the surveillance infrastructure at issue here. | | Up there with "we can't afford to pay our workers a living | wage." Businesses do not have an unalienable right to exist. | ROARosen wrote: | From Facebook's consent screen: "This doesn't give us access to | _new types of information_ " [emphasis mine] | | I don't know whether to laugh out loud or to cry. It literally | shows the consumer that - at least according to Apple - the | data Facebook was collecting up until now is detailed enough to | require an extra prompt. | | How exactly is that supposed to reassure someone who would | supposedly deny them tracking once the prompt shows?! | rationalfaith wrote: | Apple is doing a great service for the industry. Google should | follow very promptly but then again, Google's business model is | on tracking users :p | ryanisnan wrote: | "This won't allow us to collect new types of information..." | | Yeah, just information you've already been shadily collecting. | hourislate wrote: | Do people who use facebook actually care about privacy? | | I can't understand why any user would want to be targeted by | tailored ads or any ads for that matter? It's psychological | warfare with the goal of separating you from your money. Stop | spending, you'll realize you don't need all that shit they try to | peddle. | | Less is more... | judge2020 wrote: | The difference is that this will show up for every app that | uses FB's audience network to show and make money from ads, so | many mobile games will have this show after install. | edmundsauto wrote: | I think most people prefer ads to paying for something. The ads | are only a means to what they care about. | jraph wrote: | > Do people who use facebook actually care about privacy? | | Many people probably both use Facebook and care about privacy. | Many probably would rather quit Facebook but think they can't | because a part of their social life they think important is | there. Or even a part of their education is (many students have | a Facebook group for their class). | | I sympathize with you but it would help to try and understand | people who care about privacy but still use Facebook if the | goal is to solve this problem. | | I've had luck so far I haven't got trapped in Facebook though. | kin wrote: | Call me weird but if I had ads at all, I prefer that they be | relevant. I hate being shown something that I have zero | interest for. I actually really enjoy when a targeted ad is | spot on at showing me something that I would want. I can | sympathize with the idea that it is psychological warfare and I | think I'd rather pay for an ad-free experience over seeing | irrelevant ads. | mensetmanusman wrote: | I wish we had consent forms like this in regards to medical data. | | There is so much to be learned and gained if people were more | sharing of aggregate data in this area. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-02-01 23:01 UTC)