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.
Tim Cook Implies That Facebook's Business Model of Maximizing Engagement Leads to Polarization and Violence
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Facebook is free to introduce their own line of phones, tablets and computers if they don't agree with Apple's Privacy Policy.
Exactly right. When an “entertainer” uses their platform, which facilitates a huge following, to advocate for violence, even in “jest,” that entertainer should suffer the same fate as Trump, and be banned for life.
I deleted my FB app months ago because I knew it had no redeeming qualities. I have to agree with Tim on this one.
I don’t like where this is going. I never said Apple would be censoring or obstructing your right to freedom of speech. I actually believe in “your property, your rules”...
I said Facebook allows people to talk freely (for the most part). People most likely wouldn’t have this privilege in a social network owned by Apple, and I’m glad we have options.
Zuckerberg says:
Apple has every incentive to use their dominant platform position to interfere with how our apps and other apps work, which they regularly do to preference their own. And this impacts the growth of millions of businesses around the world.
Including -- with the upcoming iOS 14 changes, many small businesses will no longer be able to reach their customers with targeted ads. Now, Apple may say that they're doing this to help people, but the moves clearly track their competitive interests.
I am not "their" customer...unless I want to be. These are my devices and my information, You are as a marketer should be REQUIRED as ask me if you can share my information. I should be required to "opt in" not "opt out" Almost like the annoying marketing calls on the phone. On my iPhone, if there is a call and the number is not in my contacts list, I will not answer it. They can leave a message, if they don't I will block that number. I love tech, I work in TV tech, but there needs to be a line drawn. People/companies should not be allowed to take advantage, inconvenience, or endanger any of us the end user.
Apple has every incentive to use their dominant platform position to interfere with how our apps and other apps work, which they regularly do to preference their own. And this impacts the growth of millions of businesses around the world.
Including -- with the upcoming iOS 14 changes, many small businesses will no longer be able to reach their customers with targeted ads. Now, Apple may say that they're doing this to help people, but the moves clearly track their competitive interests.
I am not "their" customer...unless I want to be. These are my devices and my information, You are as a marketer should be REQUIRED as ask me if you can share my information. I should be required to "opt in" not "opt out" Almost like the annoying marketing calls on the phone. On my iPhone, if there is a call and the number is not in my contacts list, I will not answer it. They can leave a message, if they don't I will block that number. I love tech, I work in TV tech, but there needs to be a line drawn. People/companies should not be allowed to take advantage, inconvenience, or endanger any of us the end user.
Respectfully that can’t be true. There’s a huge overlap because of the ubiquity of Facebook.
personally I use FB very sparingly and have no news feeds on it. Social media is what you make of it. Twitter is great for giving customer feedback and getting redress. But once you start bringing politics into it, it soon becomes mentally exhausting.
I believe the larger point is that FB’s customer is large companies seeking personal data. Apple’s customers are the end user themselves.
True but it's a bit of an ouroboros. Without social media (be it FB, IG, Twitter etc.) people wouldn't buy so many phones each and every year. The idea of "sharing" is a primary driver for phone sales, that's why there's also so much push for better cameras each and every time.
Well I'm pretty sure the reason iAd failed was because it focused so heavily on privacy. Advertisers want user data Apple wasn't willing to give. I do wish they had stuck with it a big more and used on-machine AI to target ads so they could still get results and not give away user data.
Except there is no unfiltered news. There never has been. it’s either biased or uninformed.
MacRumors articles are biased, even if only slightly so, based on what they choose to quote, and what they choose to report.
Your local news station reporting on the Mac is usually uniformed.
Most reporters are assigned to a topic because that’s what the editor told them to write about. Then they consult experts who became experts due to their bias. And reporters who are the “tech editor,” for example, will have inherent biases that impact their choices.
So how about reading memes instead of news? Well, just like the news, your first exposure will irreparable shape your POV about the underlying topic, and the next memes will possibly expand your understanding. But it obviously won’t give you the details.
But for at least a generation, the details of politics have been hidden from the public as much as possible. I remember in 2008 during the Presidential primaries, news reports wouldn’t report on WHAT the candidates said or did on the campaign trail, just WHERE they were that day and how many people showed up. It was before FB really took off, but it was a contest of follows and likes without context. And that is easily manipulated by news coverage.
Last edited:
Parled was blocked because it allowed totally unmoderated discussions that degenerated in hate speech, death threats and so on. Where “most of the planning” was done is irrelevant to Parler ban, and with literally everyone on earth on Facebook it will always be the place where “most of”, good or bad, is done.
It didn't really matter though, did it? Parler is already back up and they're working to get everyone's logins enabled. Sean Hannity is already posting. Rand Paul is already posting. Mark Levin is already posting. I don't know if the CEO is posting on their behalf until their accounts are enabled, but their information is getting out there.
No one shut them down. It just moved them to a platform where they're now untouchable. Parler is hosted on the same infrastructure as Gab. Self-sufficient servers powered by a far-right extremist. It's not going anywhere.
So all those social justice warriors who worked so hard to shut them down: If this causes a relapse in their outrage addiciton, I don't give a ****. And if they want to know whose fault it is, they can look in the mirror. The rest of us now have to live with their stupidity.
Yeah, I also point at the 2008 elections as the first elections of the new "social media" era, although by 2008 Facebook was already positioned quite strongly. Then it degenerated into changing how politicians themselves behave in their decision making process.
If I had to guess, I would say that most FB users don’t even realize that FB has been tracking their online movements outside of the FB app. It’s one thing to allow FB to track your FB app movements, which I think most people expect, similar to how Google tracks your Google search history, as what you’re willing to give in exchange for use of the app. But the fact that they’re tracking users across apps, just baffles me why anyone accepts that. People wonder why their FB app is such a battery hog - maybe because it’s working in the background stealing your info from a bunch of other apps???
From a book written between 2010-2012 and published in 2013 and that describes a problem we're getting aware of now:
“For all the great and indispensable achievements the Internet has brought to our era, its emphasis is on the actual more than the contingent, on the factual rather than the conceptual, on values shaped by consensus rather than by introspection. Knowledge of history and geography is not essential for those who can evoke their data with the touch of a button. The mindset for walking lonely political paths may not be self-evident to those who seek confirmation by hundreds, sometimes thousands of friends on Facebook.”
[...]
"
“Facts are rarely self-explanatory; their significance, analysis, and interpretation depend on context and relevance. As ever more issues are treated as if of a factual nature, the premise becomes established that for every question there must be a researchable answer, that problems and solutions are not so much to be thought through as to be “looked up."
[...]
"
“The acquisition of knowledge from books provides an experience different from the Internet. Reading is relatively time-consuming; to ease the process, style is important. Because it is not possible to read all books on a given subject, much less the totality of all books, or to organize easily everything one has read, learning from books places a premium on conceptual thinking—the ability to recognize comparable data and events and project patterns into the future. And style propels the reader into a relationship with the author, or with the subject matter, by fusing substance and aesthetics.”
[...]
“Presidential campaigns are on the verge of turning into media contests between master operators of the Internet. What once had been substantive debates about the content of governance will reduce candidates to being spokesmen for a marketing effort pursued by methods whose intrusiveness would have been considered only a generation ago the stuff of science fiction. The candidates’ main role may become fund-raising rather than the elaboration of issues. Is the marketing effort designed to convey the candidate’s convictions, or are the convictions expressed by the candidate the reflections of a “big data” research effort into individuals’ likely preferences and prejudices? Can democracy avoid an evolution toward a demagogic outcome based on emotional mass appeal rather than the reasoned process the Founding Fathers imagined?”
[...]
"
“The advent of Internet news and commentary and data-driven election strategies has not noticeably softened the partisan aspect of American politics; if anything, it has provided a larger audience to the extremes”
[...]
“In such an environment, the participants in the public debate risk being driven less by reasoned arguments than by what catches the mood of the moment. The immediate focus is pounded daily into the public consciousness by advocates whose status is generated by the ability to drammatize. Participants at public demonstrations are rarely assembled around a specific program.”
[...]
"
“What will be the attitudes of those who aspire to be great statesmen in the Internet age? A combination of chronic insecurity and insistent self-assertion threatens both leaders and the public in the Internet age."
("World Order", H. Kissinger).
“For all the great and indispensable achievements the Internet has brought to our era, its emphasis is on the actual more than the contingent, on the factual rather than the conceptual, on values shaped by consensus rather than by introspection. Knowledge of history and geography is not essential for those who can evoke their data with the touch of a button. The mindset for walking lonely political paths may not be self-evident to those who seek confirmation by hundreds, sometimes thousands of friends on Facebook.”
[...]
"
“Facts are rarely self-explanatory; their significance, analysis, and interpretation depend on context and relevance. As ever more issues are treated as if of a factual nature, the premise becomes established that for every question there must be a researchable answer, that problems and solutions are not so much to be thought through as to be “looked up."
[...]
"
“The acquisition of knowledge from books provides an experience different from the Internet. Reading is relatively time-consuming; to ease the process, style is important. Because it is not possible to read all books on a given subject, much less the totality of all books, or to organize easily everything one has read, learning from books places a premium on conceptual thinking—the ability to recognize comparable data and events and project patterns into the future. And style propels the reader into a relationship with the author, or with the subject matter, by fusing substance and aesthetics.”
[...]
“Presidential campaigns are on the verge of turning into media contests between master operators of the Internet. What once had been substantive debates about the content of governance will reduce candidates to being spokesmen for a marketing effort pursued by methods whose intrusiveness would have been considered only a generation ago the stuff of science fiction. The candidates’ main role may become fund-raising rather than the elaboration of issues. Is the marketing effort designed to convey the candidate’s convictions, or are the convictions expressed by the candidate the reflections of a “big data” research effort into individuals’ likely preferences and prejudices? Can democracy avoid an evolution toward a demagogic outcome based on emotional mass appeal rather than the reasoned process the Founding Fathers imagined?”
[...]
"
“The advent of Internet news and commentary and data-driven election strategies has not noticeably softened the partisan aspect of American politics; if anything, it has provided a larger audience to the extremes”
[...]
“In such an environment, the participants in the public debate risk being driven less by reasoned arguments than by what catches the mood of the moment. The immediate focus is pounded daily into the public consciousness by advocates whose status is generated by the ability to drammatize. Participants at public demonstrations are rarely assembled around a specific program.”
[...]
"
“What will be the attitudes of those who aspire to be great statesmen in the Internet age? A combination of chronic insecurity and insistent self-assertion threatens both leaders and the public in the Internet age."
("World Order", H. Kissinger).