Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Just putting some excerpts here on the parts that I wanted to add on, not a critic, yours are actually solid comments
(…) Facebook social media I can do without but Meta, no because Meta owns hundreds of companies totaling millions of employees and I for one do not want to see all these people out of a job.

So please, can members be clear in their posts to stop the confusion, is it Meta you want closed or Facebook social media closed
Agreed on this, I tend to interpret it as Facebook/Meta changed. I wouldn’t want it to close either leaving potentially hundred thousand+ people out of a job, or if they have to do that then with several years worth of allowance for everybody, kinda tired of the stories about C-class executives that closed, fired and/or bankrupted x, y, z tech company, bank or retail store and congratulated themselves with $50million exit packages.

I do think that as it is though, Meta has to have the unlikeable cores of Facebook.

But your point stands, companies are made of people, people can change, people in general don’t wake up in the morning with the explicit first goal of the day to doing harm. I would rather they change, correct course, work with what should have been the rules since the beginnings and adapt accordingly.

(…) is it all of it or just the parts that can actually identify who the person is because some of that ID data is not personal identifiable data and thus can still be used by advertisers and data analysts. (…)
The explanation and scopes you mention make total sense.

This is my personal opinion: my issue with targeted advertisement whether as a group or individually identifiable is that in practice is not that different, they will manage to get to me with some social voodoo hack to entice, engage, trigger dopamine hits, group thinking, consuming thinking, making a need out of useless things, spam me with credit scores services, credit limit increases, yet another car, enraging articles, news (some of them fake), so on and so forth. They can do this wether they know my actual full name, a unique random number assigned to me or as a group bucket that I would be put in as a match for said advertisement packet.

The advertisement industry, I used to think as a kid, was to make it aware that some product exists, briefly described and explained how it works. But it’s much more alike to drug dealing than not. And Facebook and social media in general enhances it who knows how many orders of magnitude more.

Solutions are obvious: swim like a natural (celebrities), self control until stamina runs out, teeth grind through it or get out.


I did get out 99%, clicking almost never IG, TikTok, etc links sent by friends, but I have to pay the price of seeing from the outside what looks like all of the world activities happening there. That also being part of the design, “if you aren’t in it, then you are definitely out of the fun”.

And MacRumors? Heck yes, guilty ?
Those handcrafted titles are definitely written with a goal behind it.
 
...
Facebook won’t die or fade out. They’re far too entrenched and too big to fail.
...
Well, just of the top of my head:

Blockbuster​
Enron​
Blackberry​
Kodak​
Pan-Am​
MySpace​
Polaroid​
Sears​
Lehman Brothers​
Compaq​
Businesses disappear all the time. In fact, the expected half life of publicly traded companies is about 10 years, albeit most firms get gobbled up rather than ceasing work altogether (see https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2015.0120).
 
  • Like
Reactions: TraderScooter
That won’t matter much if for some unknown reason his smartphone reports a ton of CSAM on it.
He’ll still own stocks controlling >50% of the vote. Being in jail wouldn’t take that away from him.
 
These businesses existed in other forms before social media and often took the time to set up their own websites, learning a valuable skill in the process. If your business 100% relies on Facebook interactions you need a plan B.

As for subscribing to MacRumors forums? The gaming forum I have been a member of since 1999 broke away from its corporate holder in 2006 after they folded the forums. We set up our own and it is ran ad-free based on donations from the community. It does not rely on social media or otherwise to drive traffic.

I imagine if MacRumors folded then no doubt the core community might just set up their own Apple discussion forum which is still entirely possible. Despite the empty promises and vast societal disruption web 2.0 brought to society, the much better web 1.0 is still out there if you know where to look.

The internet was ran by nerds and hobbyists before Facebook and if the company folded tomorrow then they would still be there and arguably the internet would go back to being a more peaceful place.

Yes, businesses existed before FB just as businesses existed before television, before radio, and before other means of reaching customers. My point was that FB provides a cost effective way to reach and communicate to a significant audience. For some small businesses, FB is their only online presence. Taking away FB would make it more difficult and more expensive to promote their business. There's a good reason why tens of millions of small businesses use and rely on FB.

As far as MacRumors theoretically eliminating targeted advertising and going to a paid-only subscription model, that would take away a significant portion of their active membership and for many, would make participating on the site a lot less interesting, less informative, etc. Sure, if MR went away, other smaller, less active forums may pop up but it wouldn't be quite the same for a lot of participants. Proprietary online services like CompuServe and Prodigy existed before the WWW but were phased out in favor of the much larger, more active web.
 
I will say - you reap what you sow. I don’t owe you anything, and while I may appreciate being shown ads that advertise products relevant to me, I do not appreciate the data collection that goes on behind the scenes to make this possible.

Advertising isn’t inherently bad, but for far too long, Facebook has been way too cavalier with our user data, and it’s clear that if legislation isn’t going to do anything about it, then Apple will.

As it stands, Apple users continue to have the choice to be tracked by a company like Facebook and nothing is stopping them from consuming as many personalized ads as they want. The onus now falls on Facebook to convince users of the value found with being tracked and receiving personalized ads, which they have categorically failed to do.

This is also why we are seeing so many companies attack Apple and their App Store model, because they see Apple as coming between them and us. And this is why I continue to argue in favour of a closed App Store model fully under Apple’s control. Because the likes of epic and Facebook clearly do not have our best interests in mind. Something like ATT is not going to work if there are alternative app stores where Apple cannot enforce the inclusion of such a feature.

So if you want to blame someone, blame Facebook, not Apple.

Blame Apple? I wasn't blaming Apple here. I was genuinely asking what good, cost effective alternatives there would to FB (et al.) for small businesses and others who use that platform. I was also pointing out how "free" (supported by targeted advertising) drives much of the internet including news and information sites, search, entertainment, social media, forums, etc.

One area I do think Apple loses some of its "privacy advocate" credibility is by them essentially endorsing (for money) Google by making it the default search engine. It's kind of like an animal rights group having a meat processing company sponsor their conventions.
 
Well, just of the top of my head:

Blockbuster​
Enron​
Blackberry​
Kodak​
Pan-Am​
MySpace​
Polaroid​
Sears​
Lehman Brothers​
Compaq​
Businesses disappear all the time. In fact, the expected half life of publicly traded companies is about 10 years, albeit most firms get gobbled up rather than ceasing work altogether (see https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2015.0120).
Either got run over by technology or in the case of enron, was a scam.

I’m convinced that the public is stupid enough to fall for whatever marketing ploy Facebook comes up with, and they’ve firmly entrenched themselves into the “no other realistic alternative” market.

EDIT: and should I be wrong and Facebook goes under, then I’ll gladly and happily eat crow.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: VulchR
Yes, businesses existed before FB just as businesses existed before television, before radio, and before other means of reaching customers. My point was that FB provides a cost effective way to reach and communicate to a significant audience. For some small businesses, FB is their only online presence. Taking away FB would make it more difficult and more expensive to promote their business. There's a good reason why tens of millions of small businesses use and rely on FB.

As far as MacRumors theoretically eliminating targeted advertising and going to a paid-only subscription model, that would take away a significant portion of their active membership and for many, would make participating on the site a lot less interesting, less informative, etc. Sure, if MR went away, other smaller, less active forums may pop up but it wouldn't be quite the same for a lot of participants. Proprietary online services like CompuServe and Prodigy existed before the WWW but were phased out in favor of the much larger, more active web.
Something would replace Facebook as an avenue for sole traders. If you deal with the devil expect to get burned.

Really if we want the internet to properly evolve we need to see it less of a 'place' and more of a network that powers useful things eg Uber or Xbox Live.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VulchR
It's free. That's the only reason. YouTube works better for the company I work for than Facebook/Meta anyway.

Free is a reason but not the only reason. A lot of sites/platforms/tools are free but most don’t have the potential marketing power and reach that attracts businesses to FB/Meta. Sure, there are other high usage sites like Google's YouTube but they all use the same sort of business model.
 
It's not "harassment and theft" when FB users agree to the terms of service, data policy, etc. If a user doesn't read or understand the terms or policies, it's on them. If they don't like the terms or policies, they don't have to use the product.
Yep, the terms are laid out so clear to see aswell /s Perhaps if it was made law to put it in big bold letters and straight to the point. They won’t do that as they know they couldn’t con people into thinking “this app is great”
 
I can't bring myself to switch to Firefox as my primary browser due to all benefits of Safari... How much work did it take for you? Passwords, etc.
Hard to say because it took me a year to finally ditch Chrome completely and I slowly transitioned, but it's relatively easy. Imho, managing bookmarks and passwords is much easier on FF. I still use Safari as my backup quite often.
 
I am not a fan of Chrome or Microsoft Edge.
Firefox is my go to browser for Windows.
All the browsers for my iPad are awful.
Opera for Android is my favorite.
I use Safari for iPad as I can increase the text and text will wrap the screen, which I almost always use in portrait mode.
Opera (Android) will word wrap automatically when I zoom.
I want to go Chromebase only if I can use Linux desktop browsers.
I am too easily addicted to stuff to be a part of Facebook.
I frequent this site more than enough, but like being a part of the forum.
In my opinion, superior to AppleInsider.
 
Apple doesn't seem to have a problem with Google as they have been using them as the default search engine for years.

I guess if FB paid Apple billions yearly they will get the same kind treatment Google is getting from Apple
 
I guess if FB paid Apple billions yearly they will get the same kind treatment Google is getting from Apple

Yes. Apple would probably provide access to its users' privacy and data for the right price to just about anybody. They are really no better than Google, FB, etc. in that sense. The difference is Apple opens the gate for the cows to be "slaughtered" instead of doing the "slaughtering" themselves but they all gain financially from user data one way or another.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MacBH928
I guess if FB paid Apple billions yearly they will get the same kind treatment Google is getting from Apple
Browsers are a different animal and far more difficult to curtail, but Apple relay kills Google’s tracking abilities as well. So their comments are a deflection away from their previous comments that they weren’t really being affected.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.