The Internet did fine before tracking. Heck, it did fine before advertising.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Facebook Runs Second Full-Page Ad Criticizing Apple, Says Opt-In Tracking Will Make the Internet Worse
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Spreading lies and propaganda like this is disgusting. Sites can continue to run ads without tracking everything their customers do on the internet. Facebook pixel is one of the most vile creations on the internet.
Facebook disappearing tomorrow would be a wonderful thing for humanity. And they can take that festering dump Twitter with them.
The internet was infinitely better 10 years ago than it is today, apart from technological improvements that will continue to happen regardless.
Every day we get closer to a Chinese-style system of strict censorship and social credit scores. Burn it all down and start again.
I love how they take out a generic ad in a non-trackable format to argue how we need tracking and personalised ads.
They have unbelievable gall to write this kind of ****. An illegal and incredibly intrusive practice that started when the web wasn’t regulated is being « unfairly » halted and it’s gonna KILL the web as we know it.
I hope so, it’s honestly better if their forced to find another way to get revenue even if that’s making us pay a little. It’ll GET RID of the vast majority of clickbait sites and finally SOME quality will reign on the internet.
I hope so, it’s honestly better if their forced to find another way to get revenue even if that’s making us pay a little. It’ll GET RID of the vast majority of clickbait sites and finally SOME quality will reign on the internet.
I am torn on this one. As someone who has benefited from running targeted ads, this could be a game-changer in a lot of ways. Ads do allow for smaller businesses to compete with the big guys.
I am conflicted.
I am conflicted.
Was this ad run opposite the obituary section?
That would maximize views by old folks who don't give a rip about The Facebook.
That would maximize views by old folks who don't give a rip about The Facebook.
Yep, it will make the internet worse for you (Facebook), but better for all the rest of us!
Facebook is not happy because they can not track and collect as much data as they have been, Facebook should just shut up and create something of value then for the users,
So basically Facebook is worried about losing revenue from ad sales because their ads will no longer be as useful as they can’t track everything a user does. Nice pitch Facebook. But it stinks of irony.
Facebook has expressed additional criticism towards Apple over an upcoming iOS 14 privacy measure that will require users to grant permission for their activity to be tracked for personalized advertising purposes.
For the second consecutive day, Facebook is running a full-page ad in The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, and The Washington Post that claims Apple's tracking change will harm not only small businesses, but the internet as a whole. Facebook says that due to Apple's new policy, many apps and websites will have to start charging subscription fees or add more in-app purchase options to make ends meet, making the internet "much more expensive."
The full text from the ad:Facebook's ad concludes with a link to its new "Speak Up For Small Business" page where small business owners express concerns about Apple's change.
In an email, a Facebook spokesperson said Apple's move "isn't about privacy, it's about profit," echoing comments the company shared yesterday. "Paying for content may be fine for some, but most people, especially during these challenging times, don't have room in their budget for these fees," the spokesperson added.
"We disagree with Apple's approach and solution, yet we have no choice but to show Apple's prompt," Facebook said yesterday. "If we don't, they will block Facebook from the App Store, which would only further harm the people and businesses that rely on our services. We cannot take this risk on behalf of the millions of businesses who use our platform to grow."
In a statement responding to Facebook, Apple said "we believe that this is a simple matter of standing up for our users," adding that "users should know when their data is being collected and shared across other apps and websites — and they should have the choice to allow that or not." Specifically, users will be prompted to allow or deny ad tracking as necessary when opening apps on iOS 14 starting early next year.
Apple said it welcomes in-app advertising and is not prohibiting tracking, but simply requiring apps to obtain explicit user consent in order to track users for personalized advertising purposes, providing users with more control and transparency.
Article Link: Facebook Runs Second Full-Page Ad Criticizing Apple, Says Opt-In Tracking Will Make the Internet Worse
I've had to run Facebook stuff
- You report a user who's clearly a pro spammer: they decide after a too long period not to act
- A few more days later: the spammer does their thing and get's flagged again
- Facebook deletes the account after everybody and their dog has seen the crap they posted
Only becasue they don't police their users, not even if you point out they're missing obvious to catch ones.
A small business facebook page: you can only get exposure if you pay facebook for advertising. Nothing else works.
I've deleted my facebook account a while back, never been happier since.
But I did download my data before I did that. Pretty disturbing stuff in there. E.g. suppliers of mine have reported to facebook that they were doing business with me (even as I do not use Facebook for interacting with them in any way!)
I believe this is against the GDPR rules (I live inside the EU) but INAL.
As to the "personalized" ads:
- I've been chased by ads for stuff I wanted and had bought a few minutes into the search for who could supply it. But the chase then continuing for months in a row is just too much and creepy. I had bought it already, it's the ads I'm least interested in, not most interested in.
- I've been running ads on websites we operated in the past before the personalized ads were the rage. It paid MUCH better back then as the ads linked to my content, the topic of interest of my visitors. Ever since I could not turn off that visitors would bring in their so-called interest and get ads for that: a dramatic drop in income from ads occured.
The remaining ads that are not targeted are indeed crap both in content, where they send the visitor and in payout on a click. Making some falsely assume the personalized ads are better: they only are if you have no content to target to.
Removing these "personalized" ads would revert that situation: target again on the website where the ads are shown. Visitors of such websites will again get ads that are within their current, actual interest. Not their past interest.
As the advertisers can then no longer target it to visitors, they'll be forced to target again on your content and you get the high paying ads back as well as get the topic of the ad to match the current interest of the visitor increasing both the CTR (Click Through Rate) and the CPC (Cost Per Click) ... perfect to get back a higher RPM (Revenue per 1000 impression) than you ever had in the last decade or so.
Surely ads in a content-free environment would be much less targeted- so yes a "free" game would have a bit harder a time - so be it these apps focus too much on ads and too little on game anyway.
- You report a user who's clearly a pro spammer: they decide after a too long period not to act
- A few more days later: the spammer does their thing and get's flagged again
- Facebook deletes the account after everybody and their dog has seen the crap they posted
Only becasue they don't police their users, not even if you point out they're missing obvious to catch ones.
A small business facebook page: you can only get exposure if you pay facebook for advertising. Nothing else works.
I've deleted my facebook account a while back, never been happier since.
But I did download my data before I did that. Pretty disturbing stuff in there. E.g. suppliers of mine have reported to facebook that they were doing business with me (even as I do not use Facebook for interacting with them in any way!)
I believe this is against the GDPR rules (I live inside the EU) but INAL.
As to the "personalized" ads:
- I've been chased by ads for stuff I wanted and had bought a few minutes into the search for who could supply it. But the chase then continuing for months in a row is just too much and creepy. I had bought it already, it's the ads I'm least interested in, not most interested in.
- I've been running ads on websites we operated in the past before the personalized ads were the rage. It paid MUCH better back then as the ads linked to my content, the topic of interest of my visitors. Ever since I could not turn off that visitors would bring in their so-called interest and get ads for that: a dramatic drop in income from ads occured.
The remaining ads that are not targeted are indeed crap both in content, where they send the visitor and in payout on a click. Making some falsely assume the personalized ads are better: they only are if you have no content to target to.
Removing these "personalized" ads would revert that situation: target again on the website where the ads are shown. Visitors of such websites will again get ads that are within their current, actual interest. Not their past interest.
As the advertisers can then no longer target it to visitors, they'll be forced to target again on your content and you get the high paying ads back as well as get the topic of the ad to match the current interest of the visitor increasing both the CTR (Click Through Rate) and the CPC (Cost Per Click) ... perfect to get back a higher RPM (Revenue per 1000 impression) than you ever had in the last decade or so.
Surely ads in a content-free environment would be much less targeted- so yes a "free" game would have a bit harder a time - so be it these apps focus too much on ads and too little on game anyway.
Last edited:
No freaking way. Ads generate too much money to give up. For example, Even though ad-free Hulu costs $12 a month, they get far more money off their subscribers who pay $6 with ads.
There was a failed Facebook phone that ran on Android (Google), so there was that. They have tried twice, and failed. LMAO
And people will still be able to continue doing just that - serve and receive targeted ads. All Apple is doing is giving users a choice as to whether they want to be tracked or not, and ask that ad networks actually *gasp* respect this decision.
Facebook aside, I really don’t see how any user in the Apple ecosystem could conceivably oppose to this move.
I like your perspective👍
Yet I think Facebook has a point about free websites. But maybe we could go back to actually paying for something’s worth and rather opt in for ads if we want sites discounted or free. I guess we have to get used to more paywalled sites anyway if more and more people block ads.
And your reasoning should definitely be used for tracking and data harvesting. And I think that the next logical step is to regulate the whole tracking industry and let individuals own their data themselves.With royalties. So that those who want to harvest our “resource” of data would pay us and even give us a share every time it is resold.