Twitter Begins Asking Users to Enable Ad Tracking

[Kabeyun]

Apple is not blocking any ads, only tracking between apps.

Ads do basically fund the majority of the internet and media content, nothing is free. The fact you are here is because of ads.

I’m okay with ads (well, I’m not, but thats a separate discussion) but I’m not okay with personal data mining. Somehow these two things became inseparable. Back in the day advertisements came on TV based, at their most precise, on the best estimate of the age and gender of the person likely to be watching. Now there’s this idea that advertisers – and the companies that host them – are screwed unless they’ve stolen your personal details. They’ll still sell ads.

 

[SpringKid]

Tapping "Continue" on the popup will bring users to the actual App Tracking Transparency setting where they can "Ask App Not to Track" or allow tracking.

That was not the case for me at least, clicking Continue just continued starting the app. Can apps even deep link to that setting?

 

[GumaRodak]

Soon all AD dependant apps will require you to have tracking turned on, otherwise they will use some tricks like, every 30s popup to ask you turning on, or they will completly not work, etc ...

 

[SWAON]

How about NAH!

 

[alchemistmuffin]

Soon all AD dependant apps will require you to have tracking turned on, otherwise they will use some tricks like, every 30s popup to ask you turning on, or they will completly not work, etc ...

those apps won’t appear on App Store then because Apple would likely start rejecting them and potentially suspend their developer account.

 

[omarmagdi]

FREAKING THANKS APPLE!

 

[slplss]

It's crazy how much power Apple has over their businesses. At least Apple treats us as their customers, not products.
Just make it paid like FB, game over

 

[matyst]

Just say NO

 

[a.jfred]

Echofon Pro was one of the first apps I happily paid money for - no ads, feed in chronological order ... it has it's issues, but I haven't had to use mobile Twitter for years, and have been so much happier for it.

 

[kyykesko]

I've yet to see a single relevant ad on any of these social media platforms. Even if I allowed that I doubt they'd start now. I've no need for any of the garbage they advertise.

 

[nathansz]

well you said you have to pay with money or data so it was implied.

yes i said that you have to either pay with data or with money. that neither states nor implies that facebook will become a paid service without targeted ads.

 

[dumastudetto]

It’s a no from me.

 

[bn-7bc]

I assume the rationale is this: non-targeted adverts are less likely to get clicks, therefore they’re worth less money. That means for the company to keep the same amount of money coming in they’d need to show you a higher number of adverts.

Seems to me there are three equally legitimate options:

1. Lots of random adverts
2. A smaller number of targeted adverts (and the tracking that comes with it)
3. Pay for the service directly

I don’t see any reason a company like Twitter can’t offer all three options to their customers.

Myself, I’ll pay for services I use a lot, and put up with adverts on ones I don’t. In fact, if services I use rarely (like newspapers I get to by following links) made it super easy to make one off payments (for individual articles, say), using Apple Pay without having to set up an account, I’d pay directly for a lot more.

Reason: most people are cheap ( as in don't wanr to pay money if they can avoid it ), and the tracking is somthing thay don't consider a cost ( well no money dissapeers directlyfrom their account

 

[rpmurray]

How much is twitter and Facebook willing to pay me to track me? The supposed services they claim to offer me for "free" mean that I have to have them stuck like a leech to me for the rest of my life where they know everything about me and what I'm doing. If I want to be surveilled 24/7 I'll move to China.

 

[hot-gril]

Yeah no thanks, I’m already feeling the pinch, I can’t watch YouTube without ads popping up every 5 seconds. I’m not even kidding, all these companies will turn into the buzzfeeds galore with ads popping up every swipe

In YouTube's case, it's because they want to push you to buy YT Premium. One of their execs publicly let this slip by describing their own plan as "frustrat[ing] and seduc[ing]" the users by increasing the number of ads (frustrating) and badgering them with promos for the paid YT (seducing).

Goes to show that even if you give them all the tracking data they want, they'll still want more money.

 

[H2SO4]

I wonder how much money Facebook would have to charge users to be ad free? I know it would be a 180 for them, but curious to see how much they make off each user. I bet its far more than anyone would be willing to pay

People love free stuff and a lot of people are not willing to pay their way. Will be interesting to see where things go with all this.
We all want to say Oh we don't like Google/Facebook/Twitter et al but we still benefit from them quite significantly indirectly.

 

[bb9]

Can they ask what type of ads I would like to see? like I can tell you what I like / no need to track me

Yes, I wish they would do that instead, just ask us what ads we prefer to see instead of tracking us.

 

[LeadingHeat]

A company doesn’t need to track users in order to present ads. Television ads do it, radio ads do it, newspaper ads do it… and they’ve done it way before internet was a thing. Instead of serving ads that they think are relevant to you (in my experience, they aren’t: they’re just the product I looked at last night), they can just ask “what ad would be relevant to the people looking at this website”.

Then, instead of showing me ads for Canon RF lenses wherever I am online (= showing me products I already know exist while I’m not thinking or concerned with photography), they can show me ads for photography products I may not know exist, solely when I am on my photography forum, and therefore more likely thinking about photography gear/software. If ads agencies weren’t so lazy – letting data do their jobs – I actually think ads would be more effective.

Somebody gets it.

 

[kriebe]

When I visit Twitter, Safari is the best and safest way.

Safari is great, but Brave is even better.

 

[hooptyuber]

There's never been a company that hated more of its users/customers more intensely than Twitter.

 

[hot-gril]

There's never been a company that hated more of its users/customers more intensely than Twitter.

Google during the whole Google Plus forced integration of YouTube.

 

[7149041]

Soon all AD dependant apps will require you to have tracking turned on, otherwise they will use some tricks like, every 30s popup to ask you turning on, or they will completly not work, etc ...

Then they will be booted from the App Store, as such practices are illegal in the light of HIG and other App Store standards.

 

[robertcoogan]

No.

 

[dwaite]

can i ask how come that I was never asked for this? If by default its set not to track then why would people switch it on? And if by default its set to not be tracked then how come that people are getting these pop ups? I'm little confused as these articles show up way too often and yet since the change I haven't not been asked. Not even on single occassion.

By default it is set to ask.

 

[obamtl]

From their 2020 earning reports, they had $84 billion in ad revenue. At the same time it was estimated FB had 2.7 billion active users in 2020 (this data point is more dubious, but let's go with it). That means FB's revenue from users is approximately $30/year. Would you pay $2.50 per month for FB without ads and tracking? I would seriously consider it.

EDIT: actually from their own earnings report they also estimated active monthly users for 2020 at 2.8 billion, so the math above stands.

The problem they’d have is that customers worth the same. Some maybe worth $300, while others are worth less than $3. If the high value users are most likely to go for an ad-free version, they’d have to charge much more than $30 a year.