Mark Zuckerberg Rebuts Tim Cook: Companies That Charge You More Don't Necessarily Care About You More

[satchmo]

Old versus new? They’re entirely different.

One is a manufactured good, one is intangible code. Both are *different*, but it’s not like algorithms are somehow the only business model going forward (as implied by “new”).

Obviously different.
But new implies that back in the 70's there was no selling of data for profit, but there were manufactured goods.

 

[Swift]

Zuckerberg is a shmuck. How about a social network that charged a small subscription. Let's see... a billion members, $2 a month. No ads unless you want them. Meanwhile, we have a law that says, no anonymous ads, including if you say "Vote for Bill," then you have to disclose if you work for the campaign, are a member of the family, or have given money to that campaign. We don't want to be ruled by an algorithm.
[doublepost=1522695130][/doublepost]

Apple: "How much can we sell to our customers"?
Facebook: "How much of our customer can we sell"?

The first is an ethical business decision. The second is what's making a dystopia out of the Internet.

 

[Analog Kid]

Haven't read the entire thread yet, so forgive me if this point has already been made. But imo, what's wrong with capitalism today is that this premise is accepted by so many. Companies exist to make money, yes. But the expectation should be to make a reasonable amount of money, not "as much money as possible." The "as much as possible" mentality leads to companies prioritizing maximum profits above anything else. They can minimize employee pay and benefits, destroy the environment, and run competitors out of business, and society accepts that behavior because "that's what companies do." We need to deny the premise that companies exist to maximize profit, and insist that companies have a responsibility to do good, or at the least, not cause harm, and their profit-seeking behavior must always be constrained by the common good.

The problem isn't the capitalism bit, it's the laissez faire bit.

Capitalism is meant to be a resource allocation optimizer. It seeks to distribute resources to the products and services most valued by society, and it can only tell what products are most valued by what people are willing to pay for them. People will pay more for what they value more and you can't tell how much they value it if you don't charge as much as possible for it.

Even in the early communist countries, such as the Soviet Union, there was currency and people paid for things, but the prices weren't allowed to fluctuate, and selling above or below the set price was regarded as black market "speculation" and severely punished, essentially destroying that price signal.

The decentralized approach of Capitalism is a remarkably powerful optimizer in this way and does quite well at accounting for the non-uniformity of society and how it changes over time.

The laissez faire bit, the idea that unregulated capitalism is best, is where the problem is. Capitalism is pure id. Its whole essence is tied to a single metric: profit. It's very good at what it does, but it needs to be harnessed and directed to serve society. Different societal goals should be approached differently-- some by affecting the money flows in the market (taxes, fines, etc), some through redistribution of profits, some through prohibitions on behavior and criminal law.

As it relates to this discussion, Facebook and their advertisers benefit from opaque privacy controls and a perverse incentive structure where I have the power to share your data. One solution to this is better education of users, but it may be unreasonable to expect people to understand all the details of all the systems they interact with. Perhaps a more reasonable solution is to prohibit certain behaviors.

I'd actually be keen to see a regulation that allows individuals to sell their own data and prohibits trafficking in other people's data. Charge me $100 to use a service, and allow advertisers to pay me for information I chose to share-- but prevent them from reselling that information. From a truly capitalistic point of view, I have no idea what the market value of my personal information is and this would allow me to learn that and make decisions accordingly.

 

[SusanK]

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has countered the argument that companies without an ad-supported business model are better off.

"You know, I find that argument, that if you're not paying that somehow we can't care about you, to be extremely glib," said Zuckerberg, in an interview with Vox's Ezra Klein. "And not at all aligned with the truth."

"The reality here is that if you want to build a service that helps connect everyone in the world, then there are a lot of people who can't afford to pay. And therefore, as with a lot of media, having an advertising-supported model is the only rational model that can support building this service to reach people."

Last week, Apple CEO Tim Cook told Recode's Kara Swisher and MSNBC's Chris Hayes that his company "could make a ton of money if we monetized our customer," but added "we've elected not to do that."

Apple's business model is primarily focused on selling products like iPhones and iPads to customers, rather than targeting users with advertisements based on their personal information. Facebook, on the other hand, is a free service that relies on ads for a significant portion of its revenue.

Cook, who said Apple views privacy as a "human right," believes that Facebook shouldn't have the ability to collect as much information as it does.

"The ability of anyone to know what you've been browsing about for years, who your contacts are, who their contacts are, things you like and dislike and every intimate detail of your life -- from my own point of view it shouldn't exist," said Cook, speaking at the annual China Development Forum last week.

Zuckerberg argued that while Facebook is "squarely in the camp of the companies that work hard to charge you less and provide a free service that everyone can use," it doesn't mean the company doesn't care about people.

"I don't think at all that that means that we don't care about people. To the contrary, I think it's important that we don't all get Stockholm Syndrome and let the companies that work hard to charge you more convince you that they actually care more about you. Because that sounds ridiculous to me."

Zuckerberg's comments follow last month's revelation that data firm Cambridge Analytica used personal information harvested from more than 50 million Facebook profiles without permission to build a system that could target U.S. voters with personalized political ads based on their psychological profile.

Cook said the situation "is so dire and has become so large that probably some well-crafted regulation is necessary." He also made the mic-drop comment that he "wouldn't be in this situation" if he were Zuckerberg.

The entire question and answer is embedded below.

Click here to read rest of article...

Article Link: Mark Zuckerberg Rebuts Tim Cook: Companies That Charge You More Don't Necessarily Care About You More

Nothing good is cheap. Nothing cheap is good.

DISCLAIMER: I do not now and never had a FB account. I have a personal policy regarding registering for any site that requires more info than the IRS.

 

[deanthedev]

Well I'm not arguing that. Neither are most. I think many are arguing that when it comes to data and privacy - how it's handled is essentially the same. Only Apple isn't as successful. Not from a lack of trying though.

No. Not the same at all. Not even close.

 

[25ghosts]

Not that Mark's point is invalid, but with what he and Facebook just did (or have been doing for years), he's the last person who should be commenting on caring for people right now.

Zuckerberg has a Serivice which anyone can opt in to. Unlike CIA, FBI, NSA etc... which are providing services which no one can opt out of and that without ever having opted in.... Google is worse or at least has the potential to be.

People act so surprised. Everyone owe it to themselves to actually read a bit and learn about tracking. Whenever a computer logs in to the web its operator becomes visible and he/she leaves a trace as big as a fat snail crawling thru' flour on a pizza table.

A lot of companies i.e. Apple can claim to not track you. But it is a claim. Becuase unless you can actually prove it they might have an invisble way of doing so without you ever knowing. Just becuase someone says they arent tracking does not mean they are telling the truth. (Not saying Apple is tracking anyone).

Anyway, if folks dont wonder about Facebook's friends suggetions and belive that to just be magic and after having searcehd Google for a Digital Camera and getting DSLR Ads everywhere they go without ever thinking of tracking then perhaps they should just come out of their winter-hibernation and wake up.

MacRumors is also a grand case and user of this. I am getting advertisements here on this site based upon what I searched for a week or month ago on Google. Everyone uses tracking to get YOU to buy their product.

Still, I'd rather have Advertisement on the web that actually gives me what I need than 15 min ad blocks on the TiVo of stupid dish washer tabs, interrupting my fav. show.

If you don't wanna be tracked. Move to the Northpole and live in a hole and ditch the Sat Phone.

In Germany, and this is not really a grand survailance state, every time someone commits a crime like stabbing etc, next day the News Paper has a photo of the perpetrator inside the news article... There are cameras everywhere and it will get worse and worse. And you dont get to opt in or out. You're in. And you did not even vote for it.

Not saying that what happened last month was nice. It was not. BUt opting out of Facebook wont stop Google, CIAs, public cams and an abundance of other "Services" i.e your Mobile Service Provider, from tracking you to get to know you and thus better finding the way in to your purse

 

[Lesser Evets]

Suckyerberg just needs to go away and take Farcebook with him. His expiration date went by years ago, and he stinks.

Right or wrong, he'll always be America's most-obnoxious techie-billionaire.

 

[MarkB786]

Sort of like all MR posters who hate Cook?

I'm guessing may MR posters who are "anti-Cook" are more so not because they hate Cook as a person, but rather because they love Jobs-era Apple and are fearful that his poor leadership will eventually take the company down.

 

[thadoggfather]

Settings > privacy > location services > system services at bottom of page > significant locations

Apple definitely tracks you (imo, but is that even opinion?)

And that’s just the user facing portion buried in settings. Imagine what’s going on that’s not user facing. Not that difficult to believe.

http://www.businessinsider.com/fbi-...san-bernardino-iphone-encryption-fight-2018-2

Fbi lovers and apple lovers alike how does this make you feel? Confused?

"And what makes me really angry about that Apple thing? The fact that Tim Cook plays such the privacy advocate," Peter Strzok, an FBI counterintelligence agent, wrote on February 9, 2016. "Yeah, jerky, your entire OS is designed to track me without me even knowing it."

"I know. Hypocrite," Lisa Page, a lawyer for the bureau, replied minutes later.

I think Timcookgate will happen at some point. And I’m not talking about batterygate that was merely an appetizer

Hubris before the fall!

 

[Night Spring]

John Podesta, Hillary’s close campaign advisor, being a pedo.

The only references I can find connecting Podesta to pedophilia is the debunked pizzagate theory.

 

[thadoggfather]

The only references I can find connecting Podesta to pedophilia is the debunked pizzagate theory.

ah yes no foul play or suspicion in any of these emails., just normal benign conversation


I can't imagine if this was a Trump associate, how liberals would (rightly) be all over this

Who exactly de-bunked it, too? Megan Kelly? Snopes? CNN? Hillary?

https://archive.fo/vddrO

Tony Podesta is into creepy abusive and pedo artwork too. A 2004 Washington post article that has been curiously removed...

I guess just weird art aficionados with an "eclectic" taste , huh?

And here's Hillary's BEST FRIEND (abediin)'s husband, Weiner, serving time for being a sicko:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...age-sexts-faces-prison-time-article-1.3178942

They're both married to Total sickos, so they share that in common.

 

[NT1440]

If you're so stupid as to click on a "which celebrity do you look like the most" link that asks for all of your Facebook data, you deserve to be taken advantage of. In fact, all of the money should be immediately sucked out of all your bank accounts. People are pathetic and stupid. Darwinism at work.

Why is that fai

Settings > privacy > location services > system services at bottom of page > significant locations

Apple definitely tracks you (imo, but is that even opinion?)

And that’s just the user facing portion buried in settings. Imagine what’s going on that’s not user facing. Not that difficult to believe.

http://www.businessinsider.com/fbi-...san-bernardino-iphone-encryption-fight-2018-2

Fbi lovers and apple lovers alike how does this make you feel? Confused?

"And what makes me really angry about that Apple thing? The fact that Tim Cook plays such the privacy advocate," Peter Strzok, an FBI counterintelligence agent, wrote on February 9, 2016. "Yeah, jerky, your entire OS is designed to track me without me even knowing it."

"I know. Hypocrite," Lisa Page, a lawyer for the bureau, replied minutes later.

I think Timcookgate will happen at some point. And I’m not talking about batterygate that was merely an appetizer

Hubris before the fall!

It’s up to you if you don’t want to go through the history of Significant Locations, but from day one that has always been handled ON DEVICE. It doesn’t leave the device. Just because the moron from the FBI isn’t informed enough to know that doesn’t mean he’s leaking some new info.

 

[nvmls]

Haha, yeah, everyone who uses Apple or Facebook is dumb.

OK, Neo, let me guess, you roll your own VPN and only use Linux PCs you build yourself from components you buy anonymously on the dark web. Am I close?

everyone? so far only 2 people quoted it... seems you felt touched, but there is a bright side, you can always remind yourself how smart you are by looking at your Apple gadgets.

 

[thadoggfather]

Why is that fai

It’s up to you if you don’t want to go through the history of Significant Locations, but from day one that has always been handled ON DEVICE. It doesn’t leave the device. Just because the moron from the FBI isn’t informed enough to know that doesn’t mean he’s leaking some new info.

That’s fair to believe that. But you have zero way to substantiate it stays on the device. Or that there aren’t other things, not visible to the user, that are actively tracking users (for example- one can track users without going to the google length of selling it to 3rd parties, they don’t have to be mutually exclusive I think was Zuckerberg’s point even tho he was punching down while caught in some heat himself of scandals he still hasn’t even remotely resolved). Nor do I have proof. to be transparent, but I certainly can speculate like we all are but from a differing perspective.

I was more curious of people who love Apple and the FBI have to think about Statements from someone in the FBI

You don’t seem to be an unequivocal FBI fanboy like a lot of liberals are. And one who thinks Comey did a fine job and all, etc. without even knowing what exactly it is they’re proud of him doing since they can’t even explain it beyond “serving his duty”?

 

[NT1440]

That’s fair to believe that. But you have zero way to substantiate it stays on the device. Or that there aren’t other things, not visible to the user, that are actively tracking users (for example- one can track users without going to the google length of selling it to 3rd parties, they don’t have to be mutually exclusive I think was Zuckerberg’s point even tho he was punching down while caught in some heat himself of scandals he still hasn’t even remotely resolved). Nor do I have proof. to be transparent, but I certainly can speculate like we all are but from a differing perspective.

I was more curious of people who love Apple and the FBI have to think about Statements from someone in the FBI

You don’t seem to be an unequivocal FBI fanboy like a lot of liberals are. And one who thinks Comey did a fine job and all, etc. without even knowing what exactly it is they’re proud of him doing since they can’t even explain it beyond “serving his duty”?

Apples Security Whitepaper, free for all to download and review, explains how things like this have been designed from day one to be on device only (in the same manner as your fingerprint hash). I’ll trust the documentation over a technologically illiterate FBI agent.

If Apple has been lying about how these work in these documents it would be a MASSIVE news story (given that even rumors of delays somehow top every tech site and regular media sources frequently), and a MASSIVE lawsuit (with teeth, as it would be an FTC/SEC complaint...the only kind that actually works against these massive companies. You only get away with defrauding the poor, not rich investors).

On top of that, I watch both the WWDC sessions which explain in technical detail how these services work as well as several hated-by-surveillance-agencies-for-revealing-their-lies hacker conferences every year. If this stuff was accessible from iOS we would have heard about it.

And yes, the FBI has always been filled with snakes and liars, Comey and Mueller being two prime examples.

 

[skinned66]

I wouldn't trust Tim as far as I could throw him but I probably couldn't throw Mark as far and I already trust him less.

 

[thadoggfather]

Apples Security Whitepaper, free for all to download and review, explains how things like this have been designed from day one to be on device only (in the same manner as your fingerprint hash). I’ll trust the documentation over a technologically illiterate FBI agent.

If Apple has been lying about how these work in these documents it would be a MASSIVE news story (given that even rumors of delays somehow top every tech site and regular media sources frequently), and a MASSIVE lawsuit (with teeth, as it would be an FTC/SEC complaint...the only kind that actually works against these massive companies. You only get away with defrauding the poor, not rich investors).

On top of that, I watch both the WWDC sessions which explain in technical detail how these services work as well as several hated-by-surveillance-agencies-for-revealing-their-lies hacker conferences every year. If this stuff was accessible from iOS we would have heard about it.

And yes, the FBI has always been filled with snakes and liars, Comey and Mueller being two prime examples.

“A white paper free for all to review”

Now why would a white paper reveal something they don’t want known to the public? What logic would that make?

To each his own.

 

[Lioness~]

That kind of insults that they both are doing are beneath anyone that I would trust.
Grow up boys.

 

[NT1440]

“A white paper free for all to review”

Now why would a white paper reveal something they don’t want known to the public? What logic would that make?

To each his own.

The whitepaper is a technical paper. The amount of work they’d have to do to develop frameworks that adhere to the paper AND work differently behind the scenes is massive. Obviously not impossible, but they’d have to do incredibly clean coding to have things work the way they are presented while actually doing something else entirely.

At the end of the day, privacy has obviously become a business differentiator for Apple because they’re the only ones with a business model that supports the custom hardware they’ve created. They even went so far as to encrypt the data moving from each component of FaceID to the other, specifically to cut off the attack vector of simply probing the traces coming from each component to collect the data. That’s an absurd and costly decision to make, yet they still did it because they’re the only ones who’s bank account let’s them.

 

[bunnicula]

If Hillary showed up even one time during her campaign to the state, maybe Wisconsin would feel differently. But she didnt so they dont. She thought they were dumb and obedient — she underestimated them.

The political climate flipped a switch for the first time in seriously, forever, in blue dominant WI.

Due to the ineptitude and arrogance of the liar liar pantsuit dumpster fire. Not some cooked up Russia conspiracies that still remain ineffective to the base, despite media trying so hard 24/7.

Stormy Daniels is pathetic too. Pussygrabbing shade was ineffective at not getting him elected despite all of Colber’ts crocodile tears and moaning.

What makes any sane person think a guy having sex with aN adult porn star, consensually no less, would make any difference whatsoever? Democratic run media is sick and obsessed with losing.

What would make a difference, but that media spends no time covering or caring about, is John Podesta, Hillary’s close campaign advisor, being a pedo. That, and Weiner, who is Abedin’s husband, and Abedin who is Hillary’s aide, is a pedo too. Hillary’s close friends are literally pedos. But she is such a virtuous character, despite that, right? Her husband literally has raped women, not just from some fringe accusations and unnamed people, but actually raped. Ever heard of Juanita Broderick? Bill is a serial rapist. How’s that for being a feminist and standing up for women’s rights and human rights in the case of the pedos?

Democrats dont care at all!

You say that like Republicans do.
[doublepost=1522701823][/doublepost]

I'm guessing may MR posters who are "anti-Cook" are more so not because they hate Cook as a person, but rather because they love Jobs-era Apple and are fearful that his poor leadership will eventually take the company down.

Most of them think that Steve Jobs walked on water.

Don't get me wrong, I miss Jobs, too. The reality-distortion field around him was really attractive.

Cook has made some missteps. But, so did Jobs. In fact, Jobs made more of them. Cook may outdo him at some point, but that remains to be seen.

 

[deanthedev]

I'm guessing may MR posters who are "anti-Cook" are more so not because they hate Cook as a person, but rather because they love Jobs-era Apple and are fearful that his poor leadership will eventually take the company down.

Poor leadership? Seriously?

 

[thadoggfather]

You say that like Republicans do.
[doublepost=1522701823][/doublepost]

Most of them think that Steve Jobs walked on water.

Don't get me wrong, I miss Jobs, too. The reality-distortion field around him was really attractive.

Cook has made some missteps. But, so did Jobs. In fact, Jobs made more of them. Cook may outdo him at some point, but that remains to be seen.

Jobs had his problems but at least he wasn’t a cuck

http://www.businessinsider.com/president-obamas-lack-of-resolve-frustrated-steve-jobs-2011-10

Jobs said he was infuriated by Obama’s saying things couldn’t be done. And that he was too PC (politically correct. Not personal computer)

...Sound familar?

Maybe like “manufacturing jobs aren’t coming back folks”

Well under Fascist Oppressor Cheetoh, magically and randomly, theyreee herrrreeeee.

That’s a good way for Steve to drive his company into the ground post Mortum too: hire the rabid virtue signaler whose role up until that point had been the bean counter.

 

[rafark]

Didn’t Zuck think his users that gave their data to him as dumb (expletive). I’ll go with Apple over FB in protecting user data.

Don't be silly; do you really think someone like Jobs didn't think something similar? He actually told his customers they were using his product wrong, now imagine what he didn't say.

 

[Soccertess]

Go Mark!

Tim you stuck! Take your 10k Apple watch with Siri and beat it!

If it wasn't for Steve Jobs, Tim would have NOTHING. That's the truth of it all. Apple has lost most world markets, and only holds north america and japan. Every other country, Android dominates.

Hopefully Tim leaves, and Craig can clean up his mess. Apple needs new leadership ASAP.

 

[thadoggfather]

I for one hope this overt penis measuring contest never ends

Zuckerberg vs Cook is a glorious battle where I’m not invested in either coming out ahead. Win win.