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.
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.
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.
... 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.
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.
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.
I think that would be a good way to set things up.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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 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..
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.
But yes, I did mean to imply two different companies.
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  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 , 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.
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.
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.
If I would give up my Facebook account, I would miss out on a lot of events that happend in town(pre covid).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
To many people, "making a website" sounds like a big complicated scary thing that only big serious players do.
It's extremely frictionless, and easy to start tiny.
The point is only that there is no fundamental reason this facility needs to be part of Facebook.
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.
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.
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 miss contextual advertising.
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.
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.
I feel they did acknowledge this. But added that this doesn't justify privacy invasion on a massive scale - something your not countering.
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.
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.
No business built on unawareness is long term sustainable.
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.
You presuppose people are apathetic not resigned. "Google has most of my email because it has all of yours."
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 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.)
When given a choice, 70% of people opt-out. This is terrifying to Facebook.
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.
Whether there is an actual default or just a pair of options, I don’t know.
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.
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
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.
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
How easy is it to port contacts and texts over from the Google ecosystem?
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...
Fortunately, servicing the iMac RAM is easy in present generations.
You could argue that the tax incorporated in the price comes down with depreciation though.
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.
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 attention, and that’s much more valuable.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 knows much more about you than your activities on facebook or facebook partners would have you believe.
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.
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.
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.
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 contextual ads. They achieve similar goals for the advertiser without following me around the web.
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.
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.
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.
Even if the decisions are made in the name of noble causes like privacy, this raises huge antitrust flags.
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.
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.
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.
I suspect they know very well that this group of people is "newspaper readers".
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.
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?
Or, in the words of the dude, you’re not wrong, you’re just an asshole.
How are Facebook arguing that they're entitled to people's data??
There's a different between small businesses running a facebook and small businesses actively using fb ads.