
Facebook apologizes to users for Apple’s monstrous efforts to protect privacy - kiyanwang
https://www.theregister.com/2020/08/27/facebook_ios_ads/
======
detaro
previously:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24284613](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24284613)

~~~
dang
Also
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24284046](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24284046)

------
SllX
Just a friendly reminder of the facts on the ground that the change that great
folks at El Reg are reporting on and the folks at Facebook in their blog post
are posting about is a toggle in iOS 14, which while there in previous
operating system releases as an opt-out toggle, will be an opt-in sort of
toggle. iOS will now ask for explicit permission on behalf of Apps to let them
track you using an identifier Apple made available to developers like Facebook
(“IDFA” aka “Identifier for Advertisers”) rather than relying on the implicit
permission of an opt-out toggle.

This does not kill all forms of tracking, nor does it eliminate IDFA as an an
option, but it does make it more obvious to iPhone/iPad users what exactly is
going on behind the curtains with _this_ tracking tool and let them make an
informed and explicit choice about whether they want any part of that.

~~~
CWuestefeld
I was going to protest what sounded like a silly taunt of "great folks at El
Reg". Then I went and read the article.

Holy mackerel, compared to this, the folks at Fox and MSNBC are paragons of
neutrality. This may be the worst example of journalism I've ever seen. I'm
looking all over for something that says "opinion" or "editorial", but no...

~~~
srmatto
Have you ever read The Register? Its been this way as long as I can remember
(1999?). I consider it more of a cheeky, poking-fun style rather than it being
inflammatory. They've always created an air of not taking IT/Technology too
seriously.

Take this job listing for example:
[https://www.theregister.com/Page/devoops.html](https://www.theregister.com/Page/devoops.html)

1\. DevOops.html

2\. Titled: "Vultures seeking penguin-tamer"

~~~
egypturnash
I feel like the fact that The Register has been the Internet home of the
Bastard Operator From Hell stories
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastard_Operator_From_Hell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastard_Operator_From_Hell))
since 2000 really sums up its attitude. It is tech news by and for BOFHs.

------
kstenerud
"We’re encouraged by conversations and efforts already taking place in the
industry - including within the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) and the
recently announced Partnership for Responsible Addressable Media (PRAM). We
look forward to continuing to engage with these industry groups to get this
right for people and small businesses.”

Translation: "At least we have these guys house trained, so it's not a total
loss."

~~~
ffpip
A comment from yesterday -

To be fair though, don't you remember how the DNT header worked really well
for everybody involved, and how all these advertisers today universally
respect it, and how they totally didn't abandon the entire concept as soon as
it started seeing mainstream use and platforms started turning it on by
default?

What could go wrong if we give them another spot at the table?

I mean, PRAM has already released so many good plans, like... a mission
statement. But that counts! I mean, come on, it has 'Responsible' right in its
name!

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24286463](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24286463)

~~~
virgilp
I worked for an advertiser a while ago - they were totally respecting DNT
header, _except_ on the browsers that had it on by default. The business
argument was that "it's bogus/meaningless if the user didn't set it
explicitly" \- industry wanted that to be "opt-out-of-tracking" not "opt-in-
to-tracking".

~~~
Cthulhu_
There is something to be said about that tbh, the do-not-track option should
be an option on first launch.

Then again, I'm sure very few people are like "Sure do track me pls". I know
Microsoft tries to package and word it nicely in their Windows setup (then
ignores it at a next update).

~~~
the_other
No. Privacy is generally considered a right. Opt-in/off-by-default is the
correct position.

~~~
iso1210
I'd be happy to compromise on a single question, asked once per device:

Would you like advertisers to be able to track you (Yes) (No)

Of course advertisers know full well people will press No, and that will harm
their income.

~~~
gganley
Exactly, although I would never hit yes I think it is important to give
customers the opportunity to make their own, educated choice.

------
firloop
Parts of this fall flat as the author doesn’t grasp what they’re satirizing.

>Facebook actually gave some of the money it made from running those ads
through its system to the business that paid for those ads. Which doesn’t make
any sense but shut up, Facebook is the good guy, ok? And Apple is wrong to be
doing this.

Facebook Audience Network, affected by these changes, includes display ads
running in 3rd-party (read: not Facebook) apps. App makers showing ads receive
a split of the ad revenue in those cases.

~~~
daminimal
So, by this logic Facebook is the good guy, because it is receiving less money
by helping 3rd parties without its capabilities also invade users privacy,
while taking a cut of the profits?

~~~
pm90
The argument made by advertisers and Facebook is that this is anonymized data
which helps in making advertisements more relevant to people.

~~~
sheeshkebab
What’s wrong with showing ads simply based on content a person is looking at?

~~~
lnanek2
That's called contextual targeting: " If iOS 14 users opt out, they will still
be shown ads, but they’ll be based on other methods like contextual targeting
rather than based on their IDFA. " [https://clearcode.cc/blog/apple-
idfa/#apple-skadnetwork](https://clearcode.cc/blog/apple-idfa/#apple-
skadnetwork)

That works so poorly Facebook doesn't even bid on showing ads for those users
currently: " And Facebook doesn’t even bid on iOS users that have Limit Ad
Tracking (LAT) enabled " [https://www.adexchanger.com/data-exchanges/what-do-
apples-pr...](https://www.adexchanger.com/data-exchanges/what-do-apples-
privacy-focused-idfa-changes-mean-for-facebook/)

~~~
anonymousab
Does it work too poorly on its own, or too poorly compared to tracking ads?
Perhaps their value will go up with less presence of the latter.

~~~
pm90
The issue is not effectiveness as much as measurement. Advertisers value the
insight obtained by tracking user response to ads. That is something they are
willing to pay premium for. Without the ability to do measurements, Facebook
does not provide as much value.

~~~
ric2b
Ad with id X was shown, Ad with id X was clicked, Ad with id X led to a
purchase. Is it that important to know more than that?

------
byefruit
This isn't necessarily a principled campaign from Apple.

Apple no longer has an ad network which means it can't take it's cut from ad
revenue. By reducing the effectiveness of ads on the platform it pushes more
people to in app purchases which it receives a heft chunk of.

~~~
AdmiralGinge
I'm cautiously optimistic about this, even if it is self-interested. Ads are
very much a necessary evil rather than something desirable in society I think,
and providing developers with an alternative business model isn't a bad thing.

~~~
chrisseaton
> Ads are very much a necessary evil rather than something desirable in
> society I think

You think advertising is 'evil'?

How far do you take that? For example does a listing in a local newspaper
advertising a law cutting service count as evil? Is any form of telling people
that you off a product or service really an act of evil?

~~~
smolder
Letting people know your product exists is fine. State of the art advertising,
that is, propaganda aimed at maximizing sales, seems to have forgotten about
ethics. I'd argue that advertising as a practice today is more evil than
neutral or good.

------
kevsim
The title should be that Facebook apologizes to its _customers_, not its
_users_. Its customers are people buying ads, not the users using the social
network. As the saying goes, if you're not paying, you're the product.

~~~
jp555
So the I'm a "product" of Wikipedia? WordPress? Blender? Linux? mySQL?

~~~
kevsim
I guess the saying could have appended "when dealing with for-profit
businesses" but that loses a bit of catchiness and brevity.

~~~
jp555
Or maybe it's just a cynical oversimplification?

Am I a product of the Oracle DBs behind the websites I use for free?

How about credit cards? Isn't the merchant and issuing bank the customer
there? As long as I pay off my monthly balance, it's free for me.

My Facebook data is worthless. ONLY in aggregate is FB data valuable, and only
if it is kept mostly secret from their customers (advertisers).

The more FB data you're using, the less you know about me.

------
tednash
> “That’s right, Facebook actually gave some of the money it made from running
> those ads through its system to the business that paid for those ads. Which
> doesn’t make any sense but shut up, Facebook is the good guy, ok? And Apple
> is wrong to be doing this.“

So it appears the author has no idea what a mobile advertising network
is/does...

FB aren’t wrong to highlight that this will have a detrimental impact for many
thousands of publishers who offer content for free, due to the fact they run
an ad supported model.

Let’s see how it plays out...

~~~
onion2k
_FB aren’t wrong to highlight that this will have a detrimental impact for
many thousands of publishers who offer content for free, due to the fact they
run an ad supported model._

Those apps will still show adverts, publishers will still get paid, and
advertisers will still pay to show ads. The only thing that needs to change is
the way Facebook choose which adverts to show. Instead of an algorithm based
on huge swathes of personal data that they've tracked it'll need to be a
simpler "what categories of ads should we show in this app?" form. Adverts
will be a bit less effective, which could drive revenues down a bit, but the
sky is not falling on the ad model.

The real thing that Facebook are sad about is the fact that they will no
longer be able to sell access to the tracking data. That's a lucrative
business, and it's one that only really benefits Facebook and data brokers.
Cutting off their supply of tracking data isn't a bad thing.

~~~
disgruntledphd2
Facebook's and Google's first-party businesses will be totally fine. It's the
marketplaces (ad sense, audience network) along with all the smaller players
in mobile measurement/attribution/advertising that are going to be harmed by
this.

File this under actions by a megacorp that increase the power of them and
other megacorps.

~~~
thor24
+1 on this. I expect Mobile Attribution Companies (like branch.io etc.) to die
a slow death because of this.

In the short term I expect companies like Liveramp (which acts as DMP (Data
Management Platform)) to get more business because one theory here is all free
apps will start to force users to login (using email/mobile number) which
effectively becomes another ID you can track folks with across-apps over time.

~~~
mattmanser
I'm absolutely fine with this though.

I don't want to be stalked online, and I'll raise a glass over their
bankruptcy notices.

Also, forcing users to login may also be in breach of GDPR, if you don't have
a good reason to need a login, you're unnecessarily collecting personal
information.

One obvious example of this is NVidia, you've paid for the card, yet they
force you to login to use their apps.

~~~
thor24
I also game for this. Let's see how this evolves.

One thing I am curious to see (how it pans out) is if device fingerprinting
(IP + Device+ Some other attributes etc. to map you) evolves to solve this
problem.

In my experience, it is pretty bad (at best 30% compared to IDFA/Device Id
solutions) but I see few companies pitching this as an alternative.

------
InsomniacL
To play devils advocate, App developers will loose revenue from ads as they're
not as efficient at showing ads users are likely to click on. Those developers
may change their business model from 'free - ad supported' to 'features locked
behind an in-app purchase' which Apple receive around a 30% cut of. I
personally don't feel strongly one way or the other, both contain shady
practices.

~~~
avanderveen
There's three independent issues here affecting users and developers:

1\. People are tracked in ways they don't understand without their knowledge
or consent.

2\. Apple requires that in-app purchases go through the App Store.

3\. Apple does not allow 3rd-party app stores.

These can all be independently tackled and it would be a shame to gate
solutions for one problem on solving the others first or at the same time. For
now, apps can change their business models to ensure profits. Later, when the
other issues are taken care of, they can take advantage of that as well.

------
snalla
I've honestly been surprised at how much traffic Facebook has in my household
[1]. I use a Ubiquiti UniFi system at home and have the UniFi controller
installed which gives stats on traffic. It's just two people at home.

Facebook's traffic clocks in at 5.22GB on the network (from the beginning of
time for the controller). To give context, my wife and I don't use our
Facebook accounts at all. She hasn't logged in in 3 years and I log in maybe
once a month to once every two months. Surprised by how many apps in our
household use the Facebook SDK and pipe data to them.

Additional context, I don't even have "fun" apps. Just food delivery, Office
suite (outlook, word, etc), streaming services, etc.

LinkedIn makes sense, we've both been looking for jobs and use it on a daily
(if not hourly) basis but seeing Facebook APIs on the same level as LinkedIn
is astonishing.

[1] [https://imgur.com/HGwAXFK](https://imgur.com/HGwAXFK)

~~~
gfo
I haven't seen this, but I do run a PiHole along with uBlock Origin and rarely
visit Facebook's site directly.

Can I assume you aren't using either of these tools?

~~~
snalla
Yea, you can. I don't use anything like that.

------
gigatexal
Good. Let Facebook’s app die in a fire. Their propensity for user data is
second maybe only to Google. It’s creepy. And doesn’t really do much in the
way of good. I laud Apple for their move here.

------
simonebrunozzi
> Facebook has apologized ... and promised it will do its best to invade their
> privacy on other platforms.

Fantastic irony. As much as I dislike The Register, this sentence made me
smile.

------
corty
Very nice writing. The Register is always good for a laugh, but this one
stands out.

~~~
Hnrobert42
Interesting that you say that. Personally, I thought the article’s use of
sarcasm was unprofessional. It is not at all objective, a core tenet of
journalism.

As a result, I noticed errors like the statements that Facebook can no longer
sell user data. Actually, FB does not sell data. FB sells ad placement based
on user data. Still bad, but much less so.

If the Reg got that fundamental fact wrong, what else did they get wrong?

~~~
Dylan16807
> much

Citation badly needed, especially considering microtargeting.

~~~
sokoloff
Not GP, but: Micro-targeted ad placement affects me today. Selling my
underlying data affects me tomorrow and forevermore.

~~~
Dylan16807
Not if the entity selling the ad takes notes.

~~~
sokoloff
"Dylan might want to buy this jacket" transmits a lot less information than
"Dylan skis, Dylan lives in zip code XYZ where he might not own a jacket
naturally, Dylan's household income range is M, and Dylan was looking at ski
vacation packages".

~~~
Dylan16807
What do you think micro targeting means, then? Because I think it means there
is a different version of the ski jacket ad for each zip code and income range
and for whether someone is a skier. And they're probably only showing it to
people that have expressed a relevant interest. So effectively that's the same
information.

~~~
sokoloff
Giving an advertiser the somewhat opaque output of a totally opaque black box
transfer function conveys less reusable information than giving the advertiser
all the personalized inputs to that black box.

In my view, it’s in no way the same information.

~~~
Dylan16807
It's not exactly the same, but the claim was that it's " _much_ " less bad,
and in the presence of microtargeting I don't think that holds up. It's not
all the information but it's a lot of important parts. Combine several ad
outputs and it's way too much.

------
bitxbit
I know Apple does somethings wrong (App Store) but they’re one of few
manufactures keeping the big ad-driven tech companies in check.

------
Jumziey
Slightly opinionated, but very funny and scary at the same time. I guess you
could say I’m emotionally confused

------
dancemethis
To monopolize breach of privacy*

It's laughable at best that anyone would believe Apple isn't continuing to
make use of their massive personal information collection to appease their
partners, "official" and "unofficial".

~~~
egwynn
They have a ton of data, and they certainly get some value from it. But unlike
Facebook, profiting from the collection of data isn’t an existential issue for
Apple. They could lose all of the data tomorrow and still be an extremely
profitable business. That’s not true for a company like Facebook.

I’m not saying that Apple occupies any kind of absolute moral high-ground, but
their business model lets them safely and publicly take this kind of posture
on privacy.

------
msolujic
This reminds to that brilliant ad in 80's I want my MTV [1] where people are
used to put pressure to networks in order to get MTV on

Some numbers: Estimated revenue loss of 50% from audience networks [2]

[1] [https://totally80s.com/article/march-1982-i-want-my-mtv-
camp...](https://totally80s.com/article/march-1982-i-want-my-mtv-campaign-
launched)

[2] [https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/26/facebook-apple-
ios-14-could-...](https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/26/facebook-apple-ios-14-could-
cut-audience-network-revenue-in-half.html)

~~~
pabo
I can't resist posting this in response to "I want my MTV":

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTP2RUD_cL0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTP2RUD_cL0)

~~~
msolujic
Yep. That was intentionally put at song start :)

------
corobo
> While it’s difficult to quantify the impact to publishers and developers at
> this point with so many unknowns, in testing we’ve seen more than a 50 per
> cent drop in Audience Network publisher revenue when personalization was
> removed from mobile app ad install campaigns

Yessss. Hopefully this is just step one in the collapse of Facebook but I’m
not that hopeful yet.

~~~
elliekelly
My impression is that this might make it more difficult for facebook to track
people in the short term only. Surely facebook can and will find other ways to
achieve the same result through device fingerprinting, etc. It probably won’t
be as simple and easy as the IDFA but I don’t imagine it will be particularly
difficult for facebook either. And considering how much revenue they claim
they’ll lose it seems it would be a worthwhile use of resources. I’m not
really familiar with how facebook advertising works and I hope I’m wrong but
it doesn’t seem like an impossible ask to me and I’m guessing most of the
engineers at facebook are far more skilled developers and data harvesters than
I.

------
njsubedi
I think Apple made this move to increase their Search Ads business. Now that
those app install ads on Facebook and such are going to be a lot less
effective, iOS app developers and publishers will flock to Apple’s Search Ads.
I see this as a double win for Apple - free publicity, and more revenue.

------
nuker
Im seriously pissed that Garmin Connect iOS app has Facebook SDK in it. I
found it googling what apps were crashing because of recent few FB SDK bugs.
My Garmin watch has most sensitive data ever, health data like exercise, sleep
and heart rate, and location from GPS.

~~~
d0mdo0ss
I recently started using garmin products, is there a way to opt out?

~~~
nuker
Its in the app code, runs when you launch the app. I'm still not sure how this
compromises me, but it does not feel right.

------
ffpip
I'm whitelisting this site on my adblock just because of this article. They
earned it.

------
emiliosic
So Facebook users are not the people using its service, but the advertisers
that pay to collect data from them. Glad they made this abundantly clear.
Facebook users are the product they're selling.

------
retpirato
One of the comments said it best:

"Bad guy vs bad guy Privacy-invading ad giant flummoxed by developer-gouging
overpriced hardware slinger.

A plague on both their houses."

I don't use either one, & never will.

~~~
retpirato
another comment suggested Apple may really be doing this because they aren't
getting their 30% cut of the money going between facebook & these add
providers. Honestly it wouldn't surprise me.

------
blackoil
Will it affect other networks like Doubleclick/Google and more important,
Apple equally or is it something specific to do with the way FB works?

~~~
izacus
They split the setting in two and the 3rd party tracking setting is off by
default, Apple's tracking setting is on by default.

So it won't affect all networks equally - it continues tracking users for
Apple's own network and other uses.

~~~
pseudalopex
iOS 14 has a prompt for third party tracking.[1] It isn't off by default.

[1] [https://techcrunch.com/2020/06/22/apple-ios-14-ad-
tracking/](https://techcrunch.com/2020/06/22/apple-ios-14-ad-tracking/)

------
stunt
I think Facebook should blame itself and other ad-networks for opening their
platform to all kind of abuses like fake information and political campaigns
with nasty agendas.

They made tracking so harmful with no respect to users privacy that everyone
hates it now. It used to be that at least half of the users would prefer to
see relevant ads until tracking become the evil thing that is right now.

------
cblconfederate
The interesting aspect is that advertisers can measure the impact of FB-
targeting in ads to see whether facebook's promises were true

~~~
jefftk
Advertisers could already measure the effect of targeting: run two groups of
ads, one targeted and one not, and compare their impact.

------
rocho
To limit ad tracking (LAT) on Android, go to Settings > Privacy > Advanced >
Ads and toggle on Opt out of Ads Personalization.

------
occamschainsaw
I also hope these changes disincentivize the use of FB sdk (which I think
benefits greatly from the current cross app tracking system) for other app
developers. I am not sure how much value log in with FB adds to an app
anymore.

------
ashtonkem
And now FB discovers the downsides of low credibility; even if they had a good
faith argument to make, few will trust them as the messenger.

------
andy_ppp
No, they are apologetic towards their _customers_.

------
m3kw9
The FB apologies are starting to become sarcastic

~~~
abledon
probably what happens when everyone codes using the 'Don't ask for permission,
ask for forgiveness later' principle when handling errors

------
leshenka
Won't someone please think of advertisers!

------
nuker
This is going to be epic (accidental pun). A vs FANG gang[0].

Follow the money. Apple gets its money from consumers buying devices. Amazon
from selling stuff to consumers. FB and Google just feed on people's data.

[0] FAANG = Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Netflix (big tobacco)[1] and Alphabet
(Google)

[1]
[https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-48864769](https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-48864769)

------
freediver
Wondering what other big ad-companies are going to be hurt by this the most?

------
gramakri
I had to double check that I am not reading the onion!

------
amadeuspagel
What an obnoxiously written article.

------
phonebucket
I appreciate HN generally for its measured, evidence-based and logical
approach to most things.

But I can't help but feel that the anti-FB sentiment on HN goes too far when
parody articles with no substantial points made shoot to the top of HN within
minutes.

~~~
lnanek2
> parody articles with no substantial points

Personally, I found this article super useful. We've had long discussions at
my company about what Facebook's announcement about not supporting IDFA opt-in
means:
[https://twitter.com/rjonesy/status/1298662658934222848](https://twitter.com/rjonesy/status/1298662658934222848)

This article made it much more clear. It's one of the only ones that addressed
why Facebook says advertisers have to create a separate advertising account
for iOS 14 ads, for example.

What Facebook tells you: " To help preserve the fidelity of app install
campaign measurement, we will require the creation and usage of a dedicated
iOS 14 ad account "

What the article explains: " Unfortunately, however, it will require them to
set up a completely new advertising account to run campaigns for iOS users,
because it’s not going to apply Apple’s new privacy protection measures any
further than it has to "

Makes sense. Facebook's recommendation to apps showing ads is to implement
Facebook login or uploading hashed user information (Advanced Matching). Apple
is already cracking down on those approaches, like saying any app that has
social login must also support Apple login.

------
oblio
In case some users miss the context, The Register is kind of like The Onion
but for IT news, just with a bit less fiction and a bit more bite :-)

~~~
onion2k
That's really not what they are. The Onion is fictional news that parodies
politics. The Reg reports real stuff but with a sarcastic tone.

~~~
ChrisMarshallNY
The Register has _really_ sharp writers. They are serious journalism; not
satire.

That said, they deliberately take the role of British “Red Top” tabloids,
which are known to be quite “cheeky.”

