Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Facebook criticizes Apple’s iOS privacy changes with full-page newspaper ads (theverge.com)
218 points by Tomte on Dec 16, 2020 | hide | past | favorite | 185 comments



I have zero sympathy for Facebook. If they claim to care so much about small businesses, they should start by committing to change how they respond to any upstart social app that dares encroach on what they see as their territory.

That being said - and it pains me to say this - but there is absolutely truth to the fact that the style of targeting now possible on FB & Instagram has enabled an entire world of very small, hyper-niche businesses that otherwise wouldn't exist.

Ten years ago, there wasn't any way to reach very granular audiences the way there is today. There was massively broad and massively expensive brand advertising, there were poorly targeted display networks, and there were effective but prohibitively expensive direct response channels like AdWords - none of which were viable if you were selling, say, dog leashes to people with a penchant for the outdoors.

That isn't to dismiss Facebook's culpability for the liberties they take with their users' personal data, and they certainly didn't build their ad network out of altruism for small businesses, despite what you may think from the position the ad takes. Facebook's access to user data should be curtailed significantly, and sadly, businesses likely will suffer. There doesn't seem to be a good, evident third option just yet.


I'm sure there are a lot of businesses that can exist by knowing everything about me. And, frankly, I think it's ok if they do... as long as they have my permission.

The nice thing is that this is what this change does. It makes it more clear who, and what, is sharing information about me. A world where we have apps and websites that pop up with an alert "This website will share information about you with Facebook, even if you don't login. This information may be able to identify you", seems reasonable to me.


Ugh. The more I think about this the more complicated it becomes.

I think most people would be pretty ok saying "I'm a part of a classic car community on Facebook, so I get ads on Facebook for classic car things".

I think people would be less ok with "I played a game on my phone while standing in an auto shop. Now I'm getting car ads on my news site because game accessed my location, shared with facebook, who then shared with news site"

I don't know how to make these different use cases clear without having pages and pages of explanation that nobody will read.


I don't mind that my ads are targeted based on my location, content of my messages, etc.

... What I mind is that nobody can assure who the buyers of my data are, or what they're really using it for. Facebook says "small businesses", but there are no guarantees it's not your government, a foreign government, your employer, your insurance company, a scammer, etc.


But Facebook never sells the data itself, it only sells targeting capabilities. The government can only say "display this ad to people who fit these categories", but they can never see those identities.


The targeting capabilities are never fully revealed, even if you check the "why was I displayed this ad".

It's always something generic like "reaching people who are over 15 and located in $country".

...then why the fuck is the ad about the exact same thing I was browsing 20 seconds ago on my work laptop or chatted about with my friend on Messenger? I've even got ads on FB properties about products I chatted on IRC with someone I've got no connections on FB with, but most likely our graphs have merged somehow.

This is easy to test, turn off all blockers and go browse for some product you normally don't look for. A bread maker or a washer-dryer combo. Then count the seconds you start getting ads for that exact type of product on FB/IG.


See "Web Custom Audiences"[0] and "Lookalike Audiences"[1]:

Company X sends event logs to FB whenever anyone visits their website. They don't know who you are, but they pass metadata that helps FB determine who you.

Company X can then specify that their ads should be shown to anyone who visited their site in the last, say, 30 days. This is helpful for businesses who want to follow up with the digital equivalent of window shoppers.

Alternatively, Company X could create a "Lookalike Audience", and have FB show their ads to people who have similar characteristics to their existing site visitors/purchasers, but are different users entirely. This is useful for businesses who want to efficiently find new customers.

Most ads people see fall into one of these buckets.

[0] https://www.facebook.com/business/help/610516375684216?id=24... [1] https://www.facebook.com/business/help/164749007013531?id=40...


Even if this was true, the targeting can get so fine grained that you can basically narrow your ads down to individuals, and your ad can be whatever payload you want.

“Deliver this specific JavaScript to all white men in Vermont who own a 2015 iMac 21” who predominantly browse in Private Mode, drive a Mazda 3, and have visited Real Doll twice in the last month.”

That is basically one person. Now you know their location because the JavaScript loaded a unique file from service you have access to.



If the US passed laws that changed personal information ownership to be instead: "Personal information is permanently owned. Individuals cannot sell their personal information, only give licenses for use to individual organizations and licenses can be retracted at any time."

I think that would be a good way to set things up.


>I don't know how to make these different use cases clear without having pages and pages of explanation that nobody will read.

Expose the logic. Put a "?" Icon button on the add that lists every data point used in the decision making process, who collected the data, when, and how.

E.g:

1.1.2020 @ Starbucks on main st in 90210 you bought a medium coffee, a gift card, and a cookie.

1.3.2020 @ Barnes and noble you bought a book and m&MS.

So when the customer wonders why they're being shown advertisements for cat litter they'll be able to see how the ml algorithm thought they'd be interested.

If the logic can't be explained in real time to the advertised too then it surely can't be justified to the actual companies buying said advertisement.


But that's not how sophisticated machine learning algorithms work. Without knowing specifics, it gets us in the right ballpark to imagine they ingest all that kind of information and build an opaque representation of the user/customer, which allows various similarities to be computed between users and ads, regarding how likely they are to be receptive or how likely they will click. There's no short list of events you did. It can even contain stuff like how quickly you move your mouse cursor, whether you use the scroll wheel or the scroll bar, or who knows what else.


If all those metrics are being used to sell advertisements against me then I have every right to know each metric, all the details behind every single piece of data collected, from where when and whom, as well as the right to know to know how every data point and metric and is used to sell every specific advertisement to me. That means everything I just enumerated and more must be retained every time a query is run against my data or auction is ran to advertise to me.

What's that about a short list? Sorry, I may not have been clear, if you're using 1 data point or 1x10e999 I have the right to know every single one. I have the right to know the inferences drawn about me and how advertisers can target me. If companies aren't retiring data they are reckless and auditable records for every customer should help to rectify that imbalance. Likewise, if a model cannot be explained, proven mathematically, and reproduced then it's bad computer science. I'm sorry if this seems offensive but I'm sick of the whole move fast and break things when innocent people keep getting hurt or companies fleeced of their advertising dollars.

Either this stuff can be explained in reverse (so consumers know what privacy they've sacrificed, and advertisers know they're not being fleeced) or it can't and there's sketchy or bad computer science at work.


The ML algorithms are the ultimate "source: dude trust me"


Even if that were possible it wouldn’t really explain why you got this ad vs some other one, so the explanation would fall flat. That is just “how” you got it not “why” you got it.


You're missing my point.

Many ads are sold in real time auctions. Every metric exposed or used in that process should be accounted for and auditable by the advertised too. Let the user, or journalists, or researchers figure out the why from the corpus.


I agree with you about the 2 scenarios.

My concern, though, isn't about potentially pages and pages of explanations. It's more about the fact that I spend time opting out of that kind of stuff and some how still get the ad just because I was standing in an auto shop.

I've got a pi-hole on my home network, I've opted out of personalized ads on every site that gives me the option. I try to make it clear, "leave me alone."

But still I get ads that tell me I'm not being left alone.

The problem is these tools we're given to opt out, and we learn that they don't work; and a feeling that everyone in the world except marketers have to seek explicit consent.


I had a minimal Facebook account that I wasn’t really using, so I deleted it. Before deleting, I downloaded the third party vendors that Facebook shared data with and was shocked. I almost am never logged in to Facebook and yet here was Home Depot, the company I get face wash from, etc all linked back to my account somehow, and I had no idea.


> so I deleted it

I wonder if FB actually deleted it. FB, LinkedIn, etc maintain profiles of non-users as well, both to sell ads off property and, ahem, “to provide a better experience for new members”.

I think very few people realize that those “share” buttons on websites provide tracking info to the respective sites simply by exposing them.


I use 1 email address for most online services (Facebook, and online shops), and I'm pretty sure the shops used my e-mail to look up my "ad profile" on FB.

I wonder if they match people through other ways, like name and ZIP code (with Facebook knowing your ZIP code through harvesting your location through their mobile apps), or even more sinisterly, if a friend uploaded their address book to Facebook/WhatsApp, and said friend has conveniently organized their address book to link your name and phone number to your Facebook profile -- the same phone number you gave Home Depot..


Are there any other stores near you that you could’ve used instead of Home Depot?

The reason I’m suggesting in your particular case that this might have been a lucky guess rather than invasive Detective-Sherlock-type inference is that when I did the same to Twitter, I discovered that they thought I was interested in soccer (I’m not) and three languages I don’t speak and have never attempted to learn.


It wouldn't have made a difference. The problem is pervasive. I looked at my list on Facebook of the same data and also was shocked. It was hard for me to find websites I HADN'T visited. The most disturbing were entries for when I visited my online bank. What my bank needs to report to Facebook is a mystery to me.


That’s true! Some might be lucky. The face wash brand I use is pretty distinctive and not sold everywhere, and that was on the report, so I feel like there is a lot of truth in the products being linked back to me.


I think the more important question is... Home Deopt for face wash?


the etc implies this is a list of 2 different companies, I don't think he buys face wash from home depot


No no, I use sandpaper. So much cheaper than other exfoliating washes.

But yes, I did mean to imply two different companies.


Humor was intended but I really did want to know. Sometimes English syntax is ridiculous and I can be annoyingly concrete in my thinking.


I am an idiot and actually took it at face value I’m sorry to say


Interesting. How do you get that information?



This response reminds me a bit of how politicians talk to each other. Politician A says: "I feel bad for SMBs that will suffer if we prioritize privacy." Politician B responds: "I totally agree. They should just simply ask me for my permission, that seems fair, no?"

Politician B is likely aware that asking for permission is going to cause the outcome that Politician A is predicting and is unhappy about, so in a way they are saying: "My privacy is more important to me than the SMBs' ability to survive." Which, to be clear, is a perfectly reasonable answer, and one that the majority of people will support. Except, that's not what they are saying. Their response ignores the inverse correlation between the two choices and paints a picture that represents the best of both worlds. Really smart and really effective - you help other supporters of your view ignore its downside and make them feel better about continuing to support it.

I've been asking myself why people argue this way, and PG's article titled Refragmentation [1] helped me understand some aspects of the new world we're living in. An alternative explanation is that it is - ironically given the context - all Facebook's fault which has been reinforcing the echo chambers of ideologies. If you believe that the Earth is flat and you wanted to find some validation, Facebook will be happy to do that for you. Just search for "flat Earth", join the biggest Facebook group on that topic [2], and within days you'll start getting content (and friend suggestions) that will make it hard to escape that alternate reality. They will feed you with convincing arguments that are better than what you can come up with, so that the next time someone says: "Dude, what about the ISS?", you'll be able to say, "I agree with you and think you bring up a valid point. I also think that [insert an argument that cannot coexist with the concept of the ISS]."

I am longing for the days when people would openly disagree with each other, because that forced them to actually listen to the arguments and then address them as opposed to talking to each other like politicians do, whose job depends on getting their constituents to support them even when their ideology is wrong.

[1] http://www.paulgraham.com/re.html [2] https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794


We're supposed to assume good faith here.

Politician B can believe most people will opt in. Politician A has a history of claiming the tracking is consensual and still hasn't plainly retracted the claim.


I assumed that most people on HN are familiar with the dynamics of such opt-ins. For example, setting your newsletter subscription to opt-in vs opt-out will give you vastly different results. This concept of human laziness certainly translates to other industries as well: https://twitter.com/shawnxu/status/1339377828345757699.


Apple's change is showing a prompt. Opting out and opting in take the same effort.


We're starting to split hairs here. Sure, laziness is not at play here, but the point remains that businesses will have fewer people to serve targeted ads to. With that, you will see either fewer transactions or the same amount of transactions but on fewer websites (eg: Amazon). Either way, if you wanted to launch a small business that - to extend OP's example - sells dog leashes to people with a penchant for the outdoors, your CAC will increase and you will have to raise your price. At that point, some of your customers will go with the cheaper Chinese version sold on Amazon, or simply won't buy any. So we'll get more privacy and a stronger Amazon, and fewer people will be able to make a living with their SMBs. I am not judging either way, all I want is for people to be aware that there's a trade off here that we should discuss openly and honestly.


To me personally there's a faulty assumption baked into your comment that traditional advertising is needed for this interaction at all. For example, if I'm searching for a good dog leash I would much rather go looking for the best one that fits my needs based on reviews, community comments, maybe some YouTube impression videos, etc. rather than trust that the one thrust into my face via an ad is actually the best.


Exactly.

Why shop at all if we can just have a stream of door-to-door solicitors come to the front door of our homes with there wares and pitches? Something I think we can all get behind.


To play the devil's advocate, most small business in my area of Europe(bars, cafes, bands, jazz/rock halls, shops, restaurants and even dentists) rely on Facebook for reaching out to their customers or audience, organizing and advertising events and even for customer support via Facebook Messenger to the point where their Facebook page has replaced their main website as it's more alive since it's easier for their staff to use and keep up to date vs a dedicated website.

If I would give up my Facebook account, I would miss out on a lot of events that happend in town(pre covid).


Maybe it’s because Facebook has killed anyone’s desire to check out a website, penalizing those that don’t have an entry on the platform?


Most of those business dont need a website. They only need one place ( cough centralised cough ) where their customer can easily find them, have all the relevant information, ( Email, Tele, Opening Time etc ), and a small space for newest update. Which could be special menu once in a while. And that is it. It is the same thing as most business dont need an App.

And on the last point, you dont need a Facebook account to access those information. ( Although the UX pretty much sucks )

Apart from its "presumed" political problem, which dare I say I am increasingly leaning towards it has nothing to do with Facebook, I think Facebook on a whole is net positive. Especially outside America.


> Most of those business dont need a website. They only need one place ( cough centralised cough ) where their customer can easily find them, have all the relevant information, ( Email, Tele, Opening Time etc ), and a small space for newest update. Which could be special menu once in a while. And that is it. It is the same thing as most business dont need an App.

I feel like what you described is just a website. The "one place" to find businesses is your local search engine. Sure, a website isn't free, but if your business makes any amount of money whatsoever, the costs of hosting and maintenance will be a rounding error.

I could be overestimating people's willingness to leave the Facebook walled-garden, but to be fair, I've never used Facebook proper to find more information on products or businesses.


Websites can be free. Wix and Webflow will let you create and host one at no cost if you're OK with a subdomain of the vendor.

The cost and effort of moving that subdomain to a self branded domain is relatively cheap as well

Besides that, Google My Business also lets you create a barebones site, which is especially useful as it's integrated with Maps and shows open/close hours, manage reviews and feedback. Bing Places does this as well.


> The "one place" to find businesses is your local search engine

What businesses want is to show you these things without your explicit desire to find them, which isn't the "one place" a search engine needs to be.


> They only need one place ( cough centralised cough ) where their customer can easily find them, have all the relevant information, ( Email, Tele, Opening Time etc ), and a small space for newest update.

Google also offer this service, which lets small businesses display opening times and updates so that searchers get up to date info. I’d argue this is more useful as it lets new customers find you, as opposed to your existing followers on Facebook. In any case most business have to now update this info on multiple places.

But re “don’t need a website” — you can get one for less than €50/year, and you get a @yourbusiness.domain + email as well.

If this is too much for you, you’re not a serious player. In fact, a business running on a @gmail or @yahoo address, with the online presence being on Facebook screams “amateur” or even possibly “scammer”. In any case it’s a useful signal that the owner isn’t really committed.


>If this is too much for you, you’re not a serious player. In fact, a business running on a @gmail or @yahoo address, with the online presence being on Facebook screams “amateur” or even possibly “scammer”. In any case it’s a useful signal that the owner isn’t really committed.

This is very much in the context of US. The total Facebook user outside of US exceed the total population of US itself. And most of those business, especially in SEA are simply using amateur email address just to get things done or in some cases, dont even have Email at all as they rely on WhatsApp / Line or just Facebook Messenger.

Just trying to add a Global perspective.


SE Asia and China are a different animal altogether. Privacy laws there are much looser, but this is offset by much stricter government control and much less recourse by companies like WeChat to the courts. Hint: if WeChat doesn't toe the PRC government line, it will run into... problems.

Suffice to say that Asia, and particularly China, has a different approach to governance, privacy, and (broadly) the welfare of their citizens.

However, given the enormous rights corporations enjoy in the West independent of the government, it's important that we don't use SE Asia or China as a model, and ensure that proprietary platforms don't have too much power over small businesses. Luckily, most small businesses in the West know this already, otherwise AOL would still be doing gangbusters business.

PS. Something that's often missed about small businesses in Asia doing business solely on WeChat is that informal trust networks forged by 'contacts', are a huge thing in Asia. It doesn't matter if the seller of really cheap phone covers just has a WeChat ID if a respected merchant vouches for him. And platforms like Alibaba and Taobao exist for people who reach the limits of these informal networks and want to go to the next level.


Many people prefer looking at the companies Facebook page, rather than the website. Sometimes, websites are designed poorly and can confuse the visitor. Meanwhile, the Facebook page shows customer ratings, posts, comments, reactions, and other useful information.


That just seems like an opportunity for competition in the space of website builders for small business.


But people already know Facebook and know the concepts (pages, comments, posts, users, profile pics, groups), so there's much less friction.

To many people, "making a website" sounds like a big complicated scary thing that only big serious players do.


Yes, which is a situation begging for new entrants to make that scary thing easy.


The kebab shop around the corner won't think about "making a website", they won't try to find out whether it's easy or not. But they are personally on Fb, so they will easily click "create page" and fill in their opening hours and upload a smartphone photo of their menu card and their store front.

It's extremely frictionless, and easy to start tiny.


Nobody is arguing with you about why people use Facebook.

The point is only that there is no fundamental reason this facility needs to be part of Facebook.


I know that even some people calls to their ISP complaining that "internet is down".

When ISP support trying to figure what's going on they found that actually Facebook as service is down.

But people think that Facebook IS The Internet.


It's obvious that people like having access to a service like Facebook. This does not mean that Facebook has to systematically extract every shred of user data across the Internet and sell it to the highest bidder. We can very easily have one without the other.


RIGHT! Facebook has made it OUR problem that THEIR business model is based on selling ads. But it shouldn't be our problem.


I realise this is a devil’s advocate type argument, but I doubt Facebook is the only channel for most small businesses, and even if it was, it’s their fault for relying on a single channel and taking no precautions. Not even a website?

FWIW I know several small business owners (in Europe - well, in the UK) who use Google’s tools for business, Facebook, Twitter — most popular social media accounts, in fact. In addition to that they have a website, distribute flyers, publicise themselves with local newspapers/bloggers, and have “recommend a friend” programmes.


But are they using Facebook Ads for this or simply using a page/group? Nobody's trying to ban FB pages and groups, it's the insitious tracking and data sharing.


This is very different from the slimy tactics around our privacy and data.


I am always surprised by the extent to which advertising seems to rely much more on tracking instead of context.

I have a bunch of different interests and hobbies, and a lot of the time I spend online is very easy to match to a fairly specific category - for instance, if I'm reading or watching videos about music production, advertise music software to me. If I'm reading about hikes or other outdoors type content, advertise outdoor gear to me. If I search travel destinations, advertise new suitcases to me.

Instead most of these behaviors of what I do go into a big pool of data about me, and then whenever they want in the future these music software companies or outdoor gear companies or suitcase companies can choose to advertise to me, even if they weren't willing to bid above the current price at the time I viewed this content. But there's probably a fall-off in effectiveness, if you wait and advertise to me weeks later I might be less likely to convert if that thing isn't top of mind for me right then.

So just anecdotally, it's not clear to me that niche businesses won't be able to exist with content-based advertising instead of tracking. A lot has changed in the past 10+ years on the internet, so it's not exactly easy to prove causality that tracking is what allows these businesses to exist today. Obviously FB knows better than anyone what works and they're upset with this change, so I'm sure advertising will take a hit, but I'm interested to see how it plays out and cautiously optimistic that it won't just kill niche businesses.

Edit: another example I just thought of is the Litter Robot, a high tech cat litter box. This must be a very high margin product because they are one of the most aggressive brands I've seen tracking me online, I've happened across their site a couple of times and then I see no other ads on Youtube or other sites for many days afterwards. I honestly do plan to buy one for my cats at some point, I just haven't pulled the trigger yet. So the ads probably will convert eventually. But I don't spend that much time viewing content about cats online (watching a random cute cat video online is probably not that highly correlated with being a cat owner). This might be the perfect example of a seemingly very useful, niche business that wouldn't be able to survive without ad targeting


> I am always surprised by the extent to which advertising seems to rely much more on tracking instead of context.

I miss contextual advertising.


An automatic litter box might be the perfect example of a product that could spread through word of mouth and retailers.


> That being said - and it pains me to say this - but there is absolutely truth to the fact that the style of targeting now possible on FB & Instagram has enabled an entire world of very small, hyper-niche businesses that otherwise wouldn't exist.

Businesses like that have no right to exist if their business model depends entirely on the invasion and flagrant abuse of privacy. Even if we assume that these businesses exist thanks to facebook, the ends do not justify the means. The economic value added doesn't offset the privacy violations. It doesn't "make up" for it.

> Facebook's access to user data should be curtailed significantly, and sadly, businesses likely will suffer. There doesn't seem to be a good, evident third option just yet.

There doesn't need to be a third option. Facebook and businesses who rely on such granular data, which is able to be gathered only by massively violating privacy, can and should pay equally massive penalties and/or be wiped out.

Yes, people are behind those businesses, and rely on data collection/tracking for their livelihoods, but honestly, they deserve no sympathy. They can get a job at Subway instead. The ends do not, and have never, justified the means.

Whatever apple can do to drive a stake through the heart of Facebook (and goog and others, honestly), is a positive.


I feel like you’ve misinterpreted OP. Even after they explained themselves with clear disclaimers.

They meant that online ads have enabled small businesses to target niche clientele and make cool things, without burning money competing for adspace with everyone else.

This is absolutely true, you can ask lots of people, including tech nerds on HN who buy off Instagram ads.


> They meant that online ads have enabled small businesses to target niche clientele and make cool things

I feel they did acknowledge this. But added that this doesn't justify privacy invasion on a massive scale - something your not countering.


> business model depends entirely on the invasion and flagrant abuse of privacy

OP’s acknowledgment is not entirely valid - their business models don’t rely on ads per se. Rather the nature of capital and free markets leads to them being snuffed out by bigger ones.


> OP’s acknowledgment is not entirely valid - their business models don’t rely on ads per se. Rather the nature of capital and free markets leads to them being snuffed out by bigger ones.

As the OP, I would argue against this. I don't fully understand what you mean by the 'nature of capital and free markets' unless that's just a fancy term for 'the rich get richer'.

Let's take... idk a knitting business for example. A single entreprenuer knits and sells hats. In no way, shape, or form, does successfully selling knit items require tracking people from all over the nation/state/city, and all the small personal details of their lives, in order to sell them hats.

This is not to say advertising is not essential/important. But there are many options: A) cold-calls B) networking your friends/family C) print and post flyers D) Post on your personal/business social media accts E) have your own website F) Rent a billboard G) pay for space in magazines/newspapers H) try in-person sales, and so on and so forth.

This winner-take-all mentality is bizarre. Just because carhartt, for example, will always sell more hats than "Nina Knitter Co." doesn't mean she can't run a successful business.

Running a successful small business has never and will never require invading the privacy of your potential customers. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a morally bankrupt POS.

Edit: To better address the quoted text: These businesses DO rely on ads, and that is entirely of their own making and their unwillingness to choose other avenues of growth/advertising that are not exploitatative on such a massive scale. AND, if they have explored those options and found that it is not profitable to do so, then they are complicit in the theft and violation of privacy.


Fine. But when I opt out I want to be truly 100% opted out. Actually, I'd prefer the option to opt IN if I want to be tracked.

I think that's the real issue here. I know people who love targeted advertising. Great. Let them have it. But when I say I want no parts of it, my explicit withdrawal of consent should be honored.


If a business exists solely due to the fact that general population isn't aware they are being tracked across the web, then it is game over.

No business built on unawareness is long term sustainable.


This presupposes that consumers are unaware rather than apathetic. Only one in six baby boomers have ever even bothered[1] to adjust the privacy settings on their phone. That takes all of five minutes, and most can't be bothered.

[1] https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/retail-dis...


It's a conditional statement. Those businesses will suffer if people care and become aware. They won't suffer if people are aware and don't care.

The survey only covered the the last 12 months. How often do you have to adjust your phone settings?

47% of all respondents adjusted their phone privacy settings. Why single out the oldest group?

64% deleted or didn't download specific apps because of privacy concerns.

At least 28% refused to take another survey because of privacy concerns. Who knows how many refused to take that survey?

It was 2016. Only about 60% of Americans had a smart phone.[1]

You presuppose people are apathetic not resigned. "Google has most of my email because it has all of yours."[2]

[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/201183/forecast-of-smart...

[2] https://mako.cc/copyrighteous/google-has-most-of-my-email-be...


61% of iPhone users said default privacy settings were a significant factor. Half of iPhone users didn't know about IDFA. 61% of the half who did didn't know how to disable it.[1]

[1] https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/blog/what-half-of-iphone-u...


I'm curious as why Facebook is so much more effective, and I agree from personal experience that it is. In theory a display ad network has all the user web browsing behavior so should have a good user profile. So the ads should be almost as targeted. However the ad format is very different and I believe that benefits Facebook greatly in terms of smaller businesses (more constrained creative so less work, interactive, can respond to users, etc.).

edit: Also, a display ad shown across the web will never blend in with the style of every webpage it's shown on while a Facebook ad will inherently do so.


I think that you are right that the ad formats on Facebook are a lot more effective, but I'd also argue that they have orders of magnitude more data, and more opportunities to serve ads to anyone because of their scale. Most ad networks have a semi-random set of properties and limited ability to track and tailor when compared to what is possible when you are logged into an app and spending all of your time there.


> There doesn't seem to be a good, evident third option just yet.

I think a good middle ground here is an opt-out approach on Apple's end. Force the user to make a cognitive choice here with a clear understanding of what their choice means. Communication is key.

Some users may very well appreciate and value the hyper-relevant advertisements they see on services, and remain opted-in to the sharing of tracking data.

I personally know many people who have bought many things they value greatly that they discovered through advertisements on various social networks.

At the end of the day, it should be the choice of the user; not the system (Apple/iOS, Google/Android, etc.) or the relying third parties (Facebook, etc.)


That’s exactly what Apple is planning to implement, and what Facebook opposes.

When given a choice, 70% of people opt-out. This is terrifying to Facebook.


I think there should be an opt-IN model. Opting out can be made confusing and difficult and time-consuming.

I've gone to websites that list over 300 3rd parties that they share data with. Opting out means going to every one of those 3rd parties one at a time and hunting for their opt-out link. And those come with a warning:

If you clear your cookies, you'll have to do this again. And the opt-out only applies on this browser on this device.

Suddenly, the consumer has a part-time job that they didn't ask for.


My understanding is that Apple is going to present the option to the user. They won’t have to search for it.

Whether there is an actual default or just a pair of options, I don’t know.


This has me seriously thinking about paying the Apple premium and ditching Android.


People should be able to opt in to what they want, but as far as I’m concerned if a company can only exist by subjecting me to constant surveillance it doesn’t need to exist.


Thank you for the well written comment. You gave me a new perspective that changed my viewpoint.


This is a band-aid that needs to be ripped off. If a business is dependent on these kinds of ad networks, it was never a sound business to begin with, and deserves to suffer and hopefully die off.


Haha, yeah. FB's business model is everything wrong with us as people and capitalism: exacerbating the worst in us for greater engagement and clicks driving more and more to the FB ad machine. F that.

I wish Apple would go whole hog and drop the hammer on all tracking even going so far as to ban it from apps in the store, heck, don't stop there: make sign in with apple a requirement for all apps that require some sort of login and do away with social logins altogether.


I mostly agree but to oppose you first paragraph, I have always though that treating one person who behave differently to what it advocates for the other person as some kind of "ultimate sin" was kind of, i don't know, "naive" or weird, hard to find the exact words.

It's usually a better strategy for that person.

It'sl ike drugs: it's a good thing it's forbidden, but it's also a good thing it's available to anyone who spend 5 minutes searching for it. The end result is not that bad overall


>Many in the small business community have shared concerns about Apple's forced software update, which will limit businesses' ability to run personalized ads and reach their customers effectively.

But Facebook doesn't really lose "personalized ads"; what's changed is that the Apple iOS user must opt in to IDFA tracking to get FB's personalized ads.

So that's the issue: FB would rather that Apple join the duplicity and serve FB's needs more than the iOS customer. In other words, FB wants Apple to cooperate and make personalized ads a dark pattern and hidden default -- instead of it being out in the open and transparent as a customer choice.

I'm not against advertisement. I sometimes even pay to see advertisements. (E.g., when I pay for a ticket to a Home & Garden show at a convention center, I'm paying to have booth exhibitors "advertise" their new products to me.)

It's ok for Facebook to serve ads. They should do it in a more transparent way and this iOS 14 change to explicit IDFA is more consumer friendly and ethical.


Boo fucking hoo. There's a lot that I don't like about Apple. But I'm with them here. Anything that fucks with FB's terrible privacy invading business model is a-okay by me.


Ahhh, those sweet free Google Search advertising bucks for giving preferential treatment in the default search settings. FB obviously doesn't pay Apple enough to look the other way on "privacy" on this one.


One of the least-liked brands tries to smear one of the most-liked brands. Facebook will not come out ant better from this. It may even remind people how much spying facebook does to them.


that was my thought too. It'd be interesting to know the scenario planning that went on before FB decided to place these ads:

1. What's the risk that it backfires? It's pretty much guaranteed apple will respond if there's any sense of negative apple sentiment (i.e. FB's ads gain any meaningful traction). Apple is on pretty strong ground I'd imagine: "Here's why we did what we did - let us explain what FB is doing...". So FB's ads might actually create an escalating war of words that has the side effect of increasing consumer awareness of tracking.

2. It's such a material risk that FB have to do something, even given the backfire risk

3. FB is so resolute in it's belief that what it's doing is fine, and society just needs to suck up the reality of a post-privacy world

4. Something else.

Whatever the answer (and it's probably far more nuanced than any above), it's clearly hurting them. Can't say I'm sorry about that.

--

EDIT: fixed typos


A while ago Facebook banned my small businesses advertising account out of the blue with no reason given, and gave no option to appeal or even find out what (if anything) I was doing wrong. This move effectively killed my business. The idea of FB caring about the 'little guys' is laughable.


This feature and fb's hate for it makes me seriously consider moving back to. iOS.


I’m on iOS primarily for this reason. If you don’t want to pay the Apple tax just get second hand devices. I just upgraded to the iPhone 8 and it’s perfect. Feels premium still. Does everything I need.


the SE 2 is also a pretty good price, it's only a generation behind in the processor department (7nm A13), has touch ID (no mask moving for face ID) and is $400 (449 for 128gb). Apple's margins for this device can't be large given the iP8 it's modeled after costed $700 at launch.


I've had an SE 2 since May, it works flawlessly. I was worried I'd miss the headphone jack but wireless headphones fill the gap well.


It looks fantastic. The only downside for me is that it lacks a headphone jack.

How easy is it to port contacts and texts over from the Google ecosystem?


Extremely. Moving from Android to iOS was totally painless for me.


Just get Lightning to mobile jack adapter?


You can get a mobile Bluetooth transmitter/receiver so you can still use your cabled headphones.


I never understood what Apple tax is. They deliver according to their price. It's just people don't realize the value.


I don’t disagree but their markups on storage and memory for example are way above normal market rates.


No, you get that idea wrong...

It's great Apple pretty much delivers identical devices on a same product line except on the disk space. It's more than the disks for laptops but this means everyone pretty much gets the same experience even if you get the cheapest version and you don't have to go through the technical spec sheet that most people don't understand to figure what you're missing from the more expensive versions or you're physically missing on some features.

You'd rather get the same stuff at cheaper price if you don't care about disk space. It's not the disk space is more expensive than market price...


He's not wrong. The RAM is definitely more expensive to buy from Apple, to the point that I buy the iMac with the base 8GB and then replace with aftermarket RAM and save hundreds of dollars (approximately 15-20% of the price of the entire system).

Fortunately, servicing the iMac RAM is easy in present generations.


You still have to pay the Apple tax on all IAPs.


I don't have any IAP. All the services I use that I pay for I signed up via the web.


Google takes a similar cut on IAPs too, doesn't it? It just allows to integrate other payment methods in apps. It always felt fishy to enter CC number in an app. I still prefer to pay from the web sites where I can see the URL.


If you look at countries that have a tax on new cars, second hand cars in those countries are also expensive. Less expensive than new cars, but the tax is still there.

You could argue that the tax incorporated in the price comes down with depreciation though.


I just moved to iOS last week. Google won't be thinking about a move like this for at least a few years, if ever. The new iphones just got released, its almost the perfect time


If you're pissing off facebook, you're doing something right.


Yeah it’s nice of Facebook to tell us how serious these changes are.


It just proved iOS team already succeeded with the change even before deploying.


One of the reasons I've been on iOS for a few years now. As things stand, Apple is probably the least untrustworthy tech giant out there. I still don't trust them, but I'd rather go with Apple than Google at the moment.


Yes the Streisand effect is strong on this one :D


I would consider it except it often feels like iOS was designed specifically to aggravate me. I can hardly remember another interface I've used that was as painful. Is there any way to customize the UI on iOS or is it still just whatever apple decides for you? I remember jailbreaking used to be popular, not sure if people still do that


Some still do, but it's quite an effort to go through for not as many possibilities as there used to be. Most of the features that once required jailbreaking are already baked into the OS by now and theming is not as big as it used to be.

That being said, there are still some useful tweaks that convince people into doing it, and of course if one wants to just test their apps without worrying about signing them.


I never used an iOS device, but if Apple pulls this off, my next phone might be an iPhone.


Apparently their ads work so well that they're running this in the newspaper.


I'm guessing they target a population that reads paper newspaper and not facebook. And they want us to talk about it too.


Correct! They are speaking to the intelligentsia. They seem to recognize that the target class ditched Fb long ago.


One proper way of looking at this ad is in the context of the big-tech antitrust wave that's sweeping Washington and the EU. Facebook doesn't expect this ad will get individuals to opt in to tracking or to buy an Android phone instead of an iPhone. They don't try and make the case at all that Apple's privacy protections are actually bad for the end user. So really, this ad is targeted at politicians, and what Facebook wants to achieve is shift antitrust interest on Apple, either to saddle the company with regulations that effectively prevent it from limiting what Facebook can do on iPhones, breaking Apple up so that there is more competition in the phone OS market, or most likely, just to divert the attention of politicians and regulators from Facebook's antitrust issues.


It’s interesting that the ad text avoids stating what the bad thing that Apple is doing: requiring apps to ask users for permission.


I know my comment will get downvoted.

But there's a lot of misconception about Facebook, and the other counter-arguments are worth mentioning too.

Facebook does not sell our data, in fact, they keep it very secure. Facebook merely allows advertisers to target you based on your interests (which it learns from your activities).

Advertisers cannot identify anyone, they just select categories for which they want their ad shown to (example categories might be: Between 18 and 25, into IT, servers, hacking, living in Vancouver > Show ad for Vancouver Hacking Conference).

I don't see anything immoral about this. I remember when ads were flashing red/blue and said "You won $1M, click here to claim your prize". If I must be shown ads, I prefer ads that are relevant to my interests.


Facebook doesn’t sell your data, they sell your future behavior. Being identified the advertisers hasn’t been the point for years. Facebook knows that, so they make a righteous play by saying they keep it safe from advertisers.

Facebook doesn’t sell your data, they sell your attention, and that’s much more valuable.


What does that even mean?


What is an advertisement other than a calculated bet that X% of people will change their behavior because of it? What is a personalized ad other than a bet that /you/ will change /your/ behavior because of it?

Facebook promises advertisers $Y billion user-hours per month by providing an enticing skinner box for social creatures and sells personalized ads to the highest bidder.

“Sells your attention and future behavior” seems like a reasonable description.



Thank you


> I don't see anything immoral about this.

What's immoral is that they collect and use data about my interests without my explicit consent. Having a stalker following you and recording your every move doesn't stop being creepy if he pinky swears to keep that data to himself.


You get downvoted because user poll after poll reveal that users find "ads relevant to their interests" creepy, specially when phrased that way and specially when accompanied with web history tracking and the like.

In any case, I am sure Facebook does not sell their data. In fact, it would be suicidal for Facebook to sell their data. It's their goldmine; their only advantage. Why would they do it?

But already what they do with it _themselves_ is a problem.


> But already what they do with it _themselves_ is a problem.

That they have it is a problem. That one entity knows so much about billions of people, in such intimate detail, that's a huge problem.


> I prefer ads that are relevant to my interests.

A third party company that buys ads will decide on the content. What ads you see will be aligned with their interests, not yours; e.g. if you're a "high earner", you might see ads for more expensive products and no cheap alternatives. If you're "expecting a child", the ads might scare you into buying more child safety products than you need; etc.


It's in Facebook interests to show you ads that you like seeing, or feel are relevant.

Facebook gives you a lot of control to manage your 'interests'. You can do so here: https://www.facebook.com/ads/settings

If you're scrolling your feed and see an ad you don't like, you can click the three dots, and select "Hide this Ad". Facebook learns from this.


That’s the problem. It’s in Facebook’s interest to show me ads. And I don’t want to see ads. Ads are merely professionals paid to convince me I need things and should buy them from their client, placed at the edge of my perception when I’m getting a dopamine hit from something else. It’s psychological manipulation and it’s morally wrong.


It's exceedingly poor at "learning" from the Hide this Ad button. I got approximately 3 dozen of the same style "were you abused in the boyscouts?" Ads from law firms despite clicking hide on every one of them. It's worthlessness drove me to cut through their obfuscation BS and write an ad blocker specific to FB. I have to update it now and then, but it's worth the effort to not see the garbage ads people target me with.


What FB learns from this is not the fact that you don't like ads, it makes their ad targeting even better.

This is like A/B testing, they can show you two kinds of ads for one category and learn what kind of ad won't make you hide it. Then you'll get served more ads of that type.


Facebook has been caught selling your data (and also giving it away for free) but most damming of all, Facebook has also been caught BUYING your data. So, if they have as policy not to sell their own data, it doesn't go both ways.

Facebook knows much more about you than your activities on facebook or facebook partners would have you believe.


> If I must be shown ads, I prefer ads that are relevant to my interests.

Excellent, feel free to Opt-In when given the prompt next time you use Facebook on an iOS device. That's a solution that satisfies everyone's interests.



> Facebook merely allows advertisers to target you based on your interests (which it learns from your activities).

Yes, but those activities may include "browsed a store's page for products in category X". Data, which I didn't explicitly give FB permission to have, nor did I know they would or could track me on said store's page. Still, their magic algorithms can combine my browsing activity on pages containing their tracker with my identity on FB and target ads based on that.

It may not be "immoral", but it's really disturbing.


You're free to enable personalized ads (and tracking) in privacy settings though.


Or don't show ads.

I never bought anything from ads. Why do you even trust what they offer is any good? I'd rather search around and find what I actually want.

Ads only give you false impression it's what people want by reaching to users first.


I don't use any facebook product and I don't consent to them collecting information about me. Since I can't stop them I welcome any tool that helps me stop leaking my data to them.


You shouldn't get (be) downvoted for having an unpopular opinion. Unfortunately, I think this is a dangerous path we're on as a society.

But I do think you're wrong.

1. It's unlikely that FB doesn't sell your data if the buyer is willing to pay enough, have close enough connections. There's an asymmetry in your relationship with FB. You have no way of verifying that they behave in a way they say they do, while FB has huge incentives to behave in a way they say they don't.

2. Binning people is information about who they are. There are 2^33 people in the world. With 33 50-50 bins you can de-anonymize anybody. If you have an idea or a target in mind (say Italians, and then you bin by language), you can do much better than 23 bins.

For example, I could target my wife with personalized ads with, maybe, 5 bins - very unlikely nationality, unlikely job for a woman, unique set of languages. In fact, without knowing the nationality, job, or language, you can now probably target my wife fairly easily.

You example for Vancouver illustrated this. There's maybe a few thousand 18-25 year old security specialists that live in Vancouver. I'd guess less than 10k, certainly less than 100 000. A small group of people can manually comb through 100 000 profiles in a few days.

3. Given the spectacular security failures in this business, a mere claim of secure isn't good enough. Surely FB hires top talent, but they also have a history of epic failures or disregard for security to deliver early. If I can't trust Sony, a large tech (if not IT) company, to upgrade basic security after getting PWND the same way thrice, why should I trust FB? After all, Sony had great programmers before Zuckerberg was born.

4. Personalized ads necessitate a model of each individual. Most lay people never stop and think that that is the case, but most people are loath to have any profile of them being built and stored by anyone. Nevermind a company that has a (I believe a well earned) reputation for being sleazy.

5. You prefer personalized ads. Most people don't, especially when you point out that personalized ads necessarily means that a profile of them is being built by FB.

Most people prefer unobtrusive, lightweight irrelevant ads. Apple is not blocking personalized ads, they're changing their default settings to what it believes most of its consumers prefer.

I have never met an Android user say they prefer Android for the better ad or privacy experience. It's always price premium, feature premium, UI, and tightly locked down phone. In fact, I've converted many would be Android users by pointing out Google's more interesting practices (personally I'd get a librephone, but my original SE is still going strong).


> I prefer ads that are relevant to my interests

I prefer contextual ads. They achieve similar goals for the advertiser without following me around the web.


I’m not going to down vote you for being incorrect.

You are wrong because you are focused on FB abalone and ignoring the system. You are wrong because you are focused on what FB exports and ignoring what they import. You are wrong because you are focused on the present and ignoring the past history of abuses.


"We need to continue vacuuming up as much data as possible, so that small business can live, so please allow us to invade your customers' privacy as thoroughly as possible and don't let them control whether we can do that."

WTF?


I'm moving away from Android (after 10 years) to iOS for exactly this reason. Not much sympathy for FB on my end.


As a general tech enthusiast I jump back and forth between both ecosystems fairly often, but I have to wonder what's the point? If I'm not running any social media applications what do I have to fear from google not yet having this level of privacy toggling.


Just because you aren't running Facebook doesn't mean they aren't in your device. Many apps and sites contain Facebook libraries for logins, sharing, advertising, and analytics. If they include any of those, you are automatically sending data back to Facebook. With the way things are currently setup, Facebook can easily tie your activity in one app to your activity in another app. And as we have known for years now, Facebook creates "shadow profiles" for users it can't identify and attempts to tie those shadow profiles to real life people through the actions of their friends on Facebook and its other products.

So even if you use no social media whatsoever, Facebook is still compiling data on you. And this change in iOS will greatly limit their ability to do so (or at least increase the work necessary to accomplish it).

Frankly, it has me considering switching to iOS as well after running Android for over a decade.


It's a really good point; what really got me was Facebook being impossible to remove from my Samsung device (S8+) without rooting. Likely due to their tie-up with Oculus. I find the uncannily appropriate ads being served fairly disturbing, and an invasion of privacy. It's going to be a real challenge transferring data and settings though...


Apple App Store rules (will?) explicitly ban all kinds of tracking without permission. If you try, your app will quickly follow Fortnite to the abyss of banland.

The tracking permission is an OS level popup with strict rules on when, how and how often to display. The default is opt-out, it's up to the app maker to give users the incentive to allow tracking.


It’s sort of funny, if not maddening, to see elitists try to appeal to the little guy when their back is against the wall. I feel like this is a common trope. It reminds me of Aurelius Commodus in Gladiator.


Facebook are properly rattled, thanks Apple.


I would imagine the audience for these full page ads isn't the general public - it's regulators and lobbyists. The ad highlights that Apple has the ability to unilaterally make decisions that can damage revenues for millions of businesses overnight.

Even if the decisions are made in the name of noble causes like privacy, this raises huge antitrust flags.


Making the decision to let the user make the decision is raising antitrust flags?


Even for opted-in users, Apple is reducing the amount of click data that can be transmitted via both in-app browsers and Safari. This new protocol was rejected by multiple W3C committees because it breaks a lot of fraud prevention mechanisms, but Apple is moving forward with it anyways. https://webkit.org/blog/8943/privacy-preserving-ad-click-att...


The problem is NOT that data is used for targeted advertising.

The problem IS that I don't trust who owns and shares that data and what else it could be used it for.

--

In a theoretically perfect trustworthy world, would I relax my security settings if I knew that my information would only be used to show me advertisements for audio equipment and scotch? Totally.

But no, I do not and will never trust Facebook or basically any other corporation to not abuse my data.


Once again, this is why credibility matters. FB might have thought nothing about trashing their own name over the years (“what are they gonna do, quit?”), but now the moment they need to leverage someone else to change everyone’s response is going to be “haha, <bleep> off”.


I find the small business angle pretty interesting. I know a lot of people doing small businesses that use FB for marketing, yet if you were to ask them how FB works, they wouldn't have a clue. They see the interface, not the implementation.

Their interests are aligned in one way, both benefit from being able to find customers. But in another way, there's a principal-agent problem. FB negotiates with the shops for their cut of the pie, with a fair degree of power. They're also one of the few entities large enough to lobby government, which they can do for both or for themselves.


Facebook throwing a temper tantrum is a great promotion for Apple.


Two things here -

This only helps Apple and FB is showing that what apple is doing works. Apple is going to use this to show that their ecosystem provides a real service to the users.

Second, why is FB using newspaper ads? They should already know using their ad network which group of people is more likely to believe these lies and should target them instead. Or may be they should go to Cambridge analytics, if they haven’t already done so. This ad has crossed over into theshady realm for me.


> Second, why is FB using newspaper ads? They should already know using their ad network which group of people is more likely to believe these lies and should target them instead.

I suspect they know very well that this group of people is "newspaper readers".


Newspaper ads? At least Facebook knows their demographic.


Probably going to have a massive radio campaign next as well to keep up pressure.


As a person who doesn't use Facebook but can't do much beyond that about the shameless privacy invasion they do, their frustration is just _so_ _much_ satisfying. For a moment, I thought of buying a Macbook as my next laptop (only for a moment).


The government (maybe unknowingly) took a huge chance when they allowed acquisition after acquisition to transpire, now there’s genuine concern that that might have been bad for competition. I genuinely hope those same risk takers allow this to play out, too. If this is bad, it’s bad for Facebook along with the other businesses downstream; but just how bad — we should get to find out. And, if that happens, it will be great to see how Facebook will be able to quantify the impact. What data will they reveal about the small businesses? Will the data be of the variety that small businesses might not expect Facebook to have?


Facebook is standing up for Facebook. Hard to imagine them getting much sympathy from any customers. Only other large companies that make money after using customer data extensively and would prefer customers not be aware of that.


We need a paradigm shift in how society treats data https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Np5ri-KktNs


Interesting video, but it doesn't explain how we will get there. He highlights the issues people have raised about "MID" (mediator of individual data) (4 of them), but doesn't actually address them in depth.

1. "My data earnings are too small to be worth it": Not sure why someone would raise this issue. To me, it's better than getting tracked and not making anything, its not about data profits. If they really don't want to transition, its clear they don't care about facebook tracking them. Many people don't.

2. "People will never pay for Facebook!": What he means is people will never pay for the alternative that is more privacy centric. That is still a concern, just because Netflix can charge money, doesn't mean a Facebook alternative can. Netflix is cheaper and more convenient for most people who don't use their previous solutions: cable.

3. "This will price poor people from the internet!": Well it depends how expensive it, and how it's designed. Didn't you say people are making money in this scheme anyway.

4. "The tech giants will never go for this": Why would a tech giant miss out on this. The tech giants will go for what makes money. If you make a solution which is viable, tech giants will be able over you. Its just validation. You're not making it p2p are you?

The only concern I have, which he hasn't addressed (also there aren't many articles on MID): what exactly is it, and how would it be viable? Someone still needs to make money to pay for infrastructure and development. It still needs to work.


Facebook is only interested in small businesses because of the revenues they can get from them. They don’t give a crap otherwise. I don’t like companies who pretend to protect others when in fact it’s just to protect them. This is simply dishonest. If they showed in the past that they were on the small business side, that would be a different story. But right now, Facebook as a company should not be allowed to survive.


I'm completely impressed Apple is doing that no one can or will probably not do on the future by saving users instead of going for the money.

This is far more than "Don't be evil" that Google is trying to be but it's in the area of "Kill the evil".

Who has ever done this in the world of business?


Who wrote at Ad copy? Too many repeating words "businesses" seems kind of nauseating.


The kinds of people still reading paper newspapers will react exactly as expected. It will have the entire retirement home in an absolute frenzy.


Wait a moment, so Facebook is allegedly "exposing" Apple for the changes to make it harder to track its users? Who's the villain here? The interests and privacy of the users take priority over interests of Facebook's customers!


I can't help but think this ad will make people appreciate Apple's policy change more. I'm pretty sure people don't think of sacrificing their privacy as some kind of public service to small businesses.


While I don’t care about Facebook, the sad thing about all of this it’s almost always the smaller companies that will get fucked first.

Or, in the words of the dude, you’re not wrong, you’re just an asshole.


The only thing Apple is doing here is allowing the user to give their consent to being tracked and having their data used.

How are Facebook arguing that they're entitled to people's data??


This ad only affirms my decision to buy and use Apple devices and services, and further reinforces my generally negative view of FB.


So much win for Apple here good lord


Do full page PSA opinion pieces ever turn out positively for the people that make them?


Oh go away Facebook for goodness' sake, your game is coming to an end.


Facebook ordering a newspaper ad is rich irony, privacy matters aside.


I really hope this company finally goes under. Facebook is pure evil.


Good! That means it's working!


Reminds me of smoking companies.


This ad is a bold face lie. Advertising doesn't work.

There's a different between small businesses running a facebook and small businesses actively using fb ads.


ha ha, so their argument is that small cos will die. Ok, let them die. We need a few good big companies that people are willing to pay for things. The message needs to be that you can only get privacy when you pay removing the need for cos. to run ads




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: