Facebook claims Apple is "ruining the internet as we know it"

[mikey_c]

There is already a forum post about Apple's response to the matter, but it was missing Facebook's side of the argument so I wanted to create a post covering their original claims. I also really hope the LTT team picks this topic for the WAN show because I'd love to hear his perspective. 

 

 

Summary:

On Wednesday, December 16th, Facebook criticized Apple's new opt-in ad tracking settings with full-page newspaper ads in The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and the Washington Post. These are partly in response to Apple's new App Store privacy labels rolled out this week, but also in response to an upcoming update that will require developers to ask for permission to gather data and track users across mobile apps and websites.

 

Facebook claims Apple's privacy changes will have a negative impact to small businesses that rely on its ad network to generate profit. On Thursday, Facebook released another print ad stating Apple wants to 'stop the internet from being free,' and that their update 'would change the internet as we know it for the worse.' Apple has fired back at Facebook by more or less accusing the company of being the piece of shit that they are.

 

Facebook's new App Store privacy label

 

 

My thoughts:

Facebook is taking their disregard for users' privacy to a whole new level by trying to frame their personal vendetta against Apple as a disingenuous "fight" for small businesses (likely to appeal to legislatures who don't understand the underlying technology well). Apple may be seen as anticompetitive in other areas but Apple's advocacy for its users privacy is a large part of the company's ethics. I'm unsure why anyone would take a company like Facebook seriously as an advocate for morals, antitrust, small businesses, or consumers at large. This is an area of the internet that has gone unchecked for far too long. I stand with Apple. @Facebook, please don't ban my Oculus account.

 

 

Newspaper ad #1:

Spoiler

Newspaper ad #2:

Spoiler

 

 

Quotes from various articles:

Quote

At issue is an iOS update that will require users to provide explicit, opt-in consent to allow apps to track them with Apple’s Identifier for Advertisers (IDFA), a unique “anonymous identifier” on each iOS device that allows for companies like Facebook, as well as advertisers, to track users’ activities on apps. Currently, IDFA tracking is opt-out, meaning companies get that data by default [1].

Quote

Users will see a pop-up message when they open an application for the first time after this feature has rolled out. Users will see the notification for new apps as well as ones that they already have on their devices. This pop-up is where companies like Facebook can explain to users why they should enable tracking [2].

Quote

The changes impact Facebook's ad business, which relies upon data tracking to inform its algorithm that decides how to personalize ads for each online user, but the firm said it also affects small businesses, which draw sales from targeted ads [3].

 

Quote

"Without personalized ads, Facebook data shows that the average small business advertiser stands to see a cut of over 60% in their sales for every dollar they spend," reads one of Facebook's ads. Facebook also acknowledges that the change impacts "larger companies like us," but stresses that they will be "devastating" to smaller businesses [3].

Quote

Apple emphasizes that the new tracking control features apply to all developers equally, including Apple itself. The company continues to point out that advertising is still possible even with the new App Tracking Transparency feature, with the purpose being to give users more control over their data by requiring explicit consent [2].

Quote

“Apple’s move isn’t about privacy, it’s about profit,” Facebook said in a statement. It argues that Apple stands to gain if more of the internet becomes subscription-based, because Apple collects commissions from its app store [4].

Quote

The companies have radically different business models. Facebook last year made $70 billion from advertising, almost its only revenue source. Advertising sales are a small part of Apple’s $275 billion annual revenue, which comes mainly from device sales and app store commissions [4].

 

Source links are embedded in respective quotes.

[PlayStation 2]

Damn that 

transfer of wealth from small businesses to megacorporations

really be making Facebook crazy

[wall03]

those pictures broke

[Guest]

 

Does this look like the face of a normal, human meat creature that would lie to you and sell your data?

Surely not.

[williamcll]

1 minute ago, Den-Fi said:

 

Does this look like the face of a normal, human meat creature that would lie to you and sell your data?

Surely not.

Maybe he's actually an elf.

[FakeNSA]

22 minutes ago, williamcll said:

Maybe he's actually an elf.

Nah, lizardfolk.

I actually ran this as a meme character once, quite a bit of fun!

[Silentprototipe]

Stay mad boomerbook

[piratemonkey]

Facebook: owns the largest social media platform

Also Facebook: purchases an ad in newspapers, one of which is owned by Jeff Bezos

 

There's a conspiracy going on here. I can feel it in my plums

[Downkey]

59 minutes ago, mikey_c said:

There is already a forum post about Apple's response to the matter, but it was missing Facebook's side of the argument so I wanted to create a post covering their original claims. I also really hope the LTT team picks this topic for the WAN show because I'd love to hear his perspective. 

 

 

Summary

On Wednesday, December 16th, Facebook criticized Apple's new opt-in ad tracking settings with full-page newspaper ads in The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and the Washington Post. These are partly in response to Apple's new App Store privacy labels rolled out this week, but also in response to an upcoming update that will require developers to ask for permission to gather data and track users across mobile apps and websites.

 

Facebook claims Apple's privacy changes will have a negative impact to small businesses that rely on its ad network to generate profit. On Thursday, Facebook released another print ad stating Apple wants to 'stop the internet from being free,' and that their update 'would change the internet as we know it for the worse.' Apple has fired back at Facebook by more or less accusing the company of being the piece of shit that they are.

 

Facebook's App Store privacy label

 

 

Newspaper ad #1:

  Hide contents

Newspaper ad #2:

  Hide contents

 

 

Quotes from various articles:

 

 

My thoughts

Facebook is taking their disregard for users' privacy to a whole new level by trying to frame their personal vendetta against Apple as a "fight" for small businesses. Apple may be seen as anticompetitive in several other areas but Apple's privacy advocacy is a large part the company's ethics. I'm unsure why anyone would take a company like Facebook seriously as an advocate for antitrust, small businesses, or consumers at large.

 

 

Source links are embedded in respective quotes.

Facebook making fun of apple yet almost half of their userbase is on an iphone

[BuckGup]

Hahaha zucc zucc is maaaaad. Boo hoo 

[mikey_c]

42 minutes ago, piratemonkey said:

Facebook: owns the largest social media platform

Also Facebook: purchases an ad in newspapers, one of which is owned by Jeff Bezos

 

There's a conspiracy going on here. I can feel it in my plums

Ironic isn't it?

[piratemonkey]

1 minute ago, mikey_c said:

Ironic isn't it?

I wanted to be ironic. Honestly I hardly care about FB anymore. Hopefully they're forced to get rid of ig (ie Instagram becomes independent). Zucc is pretty much just a toddler at this point, throwing a fit (or whatever this is) when someone doesn't agree with them

[AndreiArgeanu]

For all I care, apple could solder their phones shut, and make you pay for a subscription just to use a device you already paid 1000$ for, as long as others don't follow I don't mind. As much as this is a good move for 'privacy', it also seems to be a move towards just locking down the device further, by removing the ability to opt in or out of things. But yeah, it's facebook what did you expect, to shut up and not say or try to do anything?

[mikey_c]

Just now, AndreiArgeanu said:

For all I care, apple could solder their phones shut, and make you pay for a subscription just to use a device you already paid 1000$ for, as long as others don't follow I don't mind. As much as this is a good move for 'privacy', it also seems to be a move towards just locking down the device further, by removing the ability to opt in or out of things. But yeah, it's facebook what did you expect.

Not sure we're on the same page... Apple is actually adding the ability to opt in or out of user tracking, which was previously enabled by default without users' explicit permission. 

[AndreiArgeanu]

5 minutes ago, mikey_c said:

Not sure we're on the same page... Apple is actually adding the ability to opt in or out of user tracking, which was previously enabled by default without users' explicit permission. 

In that case facebook and other services could just limit functionality if those settings are not enabled, or hell, even disable all functionality entirely and/or put it behind a paywall, I don't think anyone who uses popular services like youtube or facebook will be willing to give up on these apps to be honest, like what are you going to do, use vimeo?

[mikey_c]

7 minutes ago, AndreiArgeanu said:

In that case facebook and other services could just limit functionality if those settings are not enabled, or hell, even disable all functionality entirely and/or put it behind a paywall, I don't think anyone who uses popular services like youtube or facebook will be willing to give up on these apps to be honest, like what are you going to do, use vimeo?

I see what you're saying, I think the hope is that the consequences will force Facebook to figure out how to operate within a consent or "opt-in" based business model, rather than one that is predicated on tracking consumers. 

[Ashleyyyy]

17 minutes ago, AndreiArgeanu said:

In that case facebook and other services could just limit functionality if those settings are not enabled, or hell, even disable all functionality entirely and/or put it behind a paywall, I don't think anyone who uses popular services like youtube or facebook will be willing to give up on these apps to be honest, like what are you going to do, use vimeo?

well yeah but if the user either has to consent to having facebook know evertything about them or just.. not use facebook, i'm pretty sure most people will jsut give up facebook and use twitter. 

 

like, there are plenty of alternatives for facebook-owned services. 

instead of WhatsApp you use WeChat, iMessage, etc

if you want to see stupid stuff people post you can use twitter

if you don't wanna use instagram tiktok exists. 

[SpaceGhostC2C]

2 hours ago, mikey_c said:

"ruining the internet as we know it"

The internet as Facebook knows it can't die soon enough.

[mikey_c]

54 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

The internet as Facebook knows it can't die soon enough.

I say let Apple "ruin" it 

[Master Disaster]

[YellowJersey]

Pot, kettle, kettle, pot.

[RejZoR]

1 minute ago, YellowJersey said:

Pot, kettle, kettle, pot.

It's "Pottle" now.

[Master Disaster]

12 minutes ago, YellowJersey said:

Pot, kettle, kettle, pot.

Except in this case the pot is black and the kettle is more of a grey.

[mikey_c]

35 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

 

28 minutes ago, YellowJersey said:

Pot, kettle, kettle, pot.

 

26 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

It's "Pottle" now.

Yes, to be fair though I'd rather have Apple making money doing something pro-consumer (protecting our privacy) vs. Facebook making money doing something sleazy (collecting/selling our data).

[YellowJersey]

8 minutes ago, mikey_c said:

 

 

Yes, to be fair though I'd rather have Apple making money doing something pro-consumer (protecting our privacy) vs. Facebook making money doing something sleazy (collecting/selling our data).

I wouldn't necessarily say that apple is "protecting our privacy." It's more like "we want our customer's data for ourselves, you can't have any."