Facebook finally finds something it thinks is truly objectionable and needs to be taken offline: Apple

Facebook has allowed misinformation to circulate, pandered to bigots, and generally turned a blind eye to all manner of horrible behaviour that has spilled out into real-world consequences including attempted genocide. But now The Social Network™ has found something so scary it has decided the world needs to know that Bad Things …

[Shadow Systems]

Dear Zuck. Fuck off.

For you to complain that Apple is preventing you from making even bigger piles of money because they have the audacity to try & protect our privacy is enough to make me want to see you beaten the shit out of by monkies armed with cattle prods.

I don't have a FaceBook account, I didn't agree to you tracking me around the web, I didn't agree to have you create a shadow profile on me with all the stuff posted about me by others & coalated with every little tidbit of PII you could scrape up about me. I did not agree to be your source of income. So you can just delete all my info, never even try to do it again, & fuck right off if you think I'd ever agree to any of it at any point in the past, present, or future.

Take your "oh woe is me" bullshit & ram it where the sun doesn't shine.

[Jamie Jones]

Re: Dear Zuck. Fuck off.

So, you're on the fence then? :-)

[Steve Kerr]

Re: Dear Zuck. Fuck off.

In this world of shortened URL's etc, I think this could be shortened to just

Zuck Off

That encompasses everything about him and them.

[Danny 5]

Amazing

Rarely do I find myself siding with Apple, but I am firmly behind them on this one. I have recently deleted the facebook and messenger apps from my phone and will not be reinstalling them anytime soon, I am fed up with that cesspool of hate and misinformation.

It's about time that they face consequences for their despicable behavior and be forced to moderate their nuthouse of a social network.

[RachelG]

Re: Amazing

ironically I might actually install the Facebook app on my iPad *after* this comes into effect, no chance of it before. (At the moment strictly only use it in Firefox's Facebook Container.)

[jason_derp]

Re: Amazing

"It's about time that they face consequences for their despicable behavior..."

We're already as rich as we can manage to be! What more could we do to pay for our sins!? *Sob*

[chivo243]

Yeah Zuck, what's your point?

CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s section of the remarks repeats the claim that Apple’s iOS 14 will rob small business of the chance to use Facebook’s targeted advertising.

Not every small business wants to have their good name dragged through Facebook... And isn't this Google's side of the street? Ads?

I wonder who would win if you put Zuck and Cook in the Arena (think Kirk and Spock) who would win?

[Steve K]

Re: Yeah Zuck, what's your point?

I'm curious as to what type of small business actually really wants/needs to use targeted advertising?

[chivo243]

Re: Yeah Zuck, what's your point?

one of my wife's businesses uses it, only because the previous owner\operator started the biz and used FB because he didn't know any better. She is slowly moving away from it. She has already dropped Gooble Enterprise (ha funny typo!) Google Enterprise.

So I can say that small business that didn't know better 5-8 years ago signed up... and regret it.

[DS999]

Re: Yeah Zuck, what's your point?

That's just the thing, you really don't benefit from it. You might want to target certain demographics - male or female, certain age ranges. Maybe certain areas i.e. if you are a restaurant you'd rather advertise to those who live or work within a few miles of your location.

If you want to "target" more precisely by something like "is a golfer" or "collects beanie babies" there are far better places to advertise that target EXACTLY those people than relying on Facebook to target for you.

[tel2016]

Re: Yeah Zuck, what's your point?

Small businesses that want to buy advertising from Facebook?

[Anonymous Coward]

Weasel words

How many weasel words can one company come out with on one occasion?

Quite a few it would seem.

Way, way into the distance is where Zuck should fuck off.

[viscount]

What no "Cupertino idiot-tax"? What is going on at the Reg?

[A. Coatsworth]

Finding that Apple is the moral superior in anything is so egregiously shocking that the whole world fell into disarray. Not even El Reg's stylesheet survived unscathed.

[bombastic bob]

see, THIS time, Apple is getting it right and providing an ADDED VALUE to their products with the new iOS.

Apparently trying to make it worth paying the "Cupertino Tax".

[Doctor Syntax]

It's very generous of FB and, in another thread, Google to give Apple so much free advertising. Ironic, really. I I were in the market for a phone and willing to pay anywhere near Apple's prices this could tip the decision in their favour. And it's not even targeted advertising.

[jmch]

My thoughts exactly. Good on Apple to tighten up privacy. Then again, they can afford it because their customer, i.e. the ones paying, are the end users of their iGadgets. Stands to reason that Apple will want to protect their customers from external data-vacuumers (and putting aside for a moment the fact that Apple wants it's customers inside it's walled garden so it alone can suck in the juicy juicy revenues)

With FB and Google, their customers i.e. the ones paying, are the advertisers. Their users are their product, which they sell to advertisers, who in turn are willing to pay more to target their ads. And for G and FB to be able to sell that product, they need to hoover up as much data as possible. The users are paying for their 'free' FB and G services with their data and implicit or explicit agreement to be data-harvested and ad-targeted..

[Wellyboot]

Indeed, It's a +1 for Apple that they pull their revenue directly from the user who then has the simple choice of paying it or not.

If Apple produced a competitive phone in the sub £250 bracket they'd clean up.

[naive]

There is no free lunch

Billions of people enjoy facebook, lots of interest groups, possibility to sell things using free advertisements.

The fact that it also contains dirt, doesn't devalue the platform, dirt is everywhere for those willing to look for it.

Ads are the lifeblood of "free" services like facebook, it is easy to rant about it how bad that all is.

Let the one knowing a way to fund the billions to offer free services on a global level without deploying targeted ads, step forward.

Apple fencing off ads from other platforms is just another example of the private garden they created for them selves, business wise they are right to do so, since their mostly higher income customers are pure gold for targeted adds creating more revenue for Apple.

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple are not stopping anything

They are requiring data harvesting to be declared (in advance) so that people can decide if they are happy to allow it. Facebook doesn't like this, as most users install apps and accept all the default settings (so lots of data) - they will now get asked things like "Is it ok for Facebook to grab your contact list"?

[DS999]

Re: Apple are not stopping anything

They've always had to ask for permission to access your contacts. The silent contact harvesting has always been (or hopefully was previously, since Google has tightened up their permissions) an Android thing.

[DJV]

@naive

Your post would suggest that your user name is highly appropriate - well done for choosing so, erm, wisely!

[Archivist]

naïve

Your username seems to be a self fulfilling prophesy with this post.

[Ben Tasker]

Re: There is no free lunch

> Apple fencing off ads from other platforms is just another example of the private garden they created for them selves,

But that's not what they're doing, is it?

Those ads can still be used, it just that apps have to ask before collecting data that the user might not actually want to be shared.

Yes, it hits Facebook's business model more than Apple's.

[Jamie Jones]

Re: There is no free lunch

No. This isn't about ads per-se, it's about so called "targetted ads", which is the supposed reason these companies gather so much information on people.

Some how, they've duped the advertisers into thinking this is something valuable.

However, the *proper* targetted ad targets the medium. Advertisers don't need to know a crap about you - if they sell motorcycles, pop the advert on a motorcycle forum.

It's not rocket science. But of course, there's the rub: It's easy to do effictive targetting this way. The big boys at facebook and google won't have the perceivied advantage if advertisers realised this.

"Let the one knowing a way to fund the billions to offer free services on a global level without deploying targeted ads, step forward"

TV

[DarkwavePunk]

Re: There is no free lunch

I still don't get targeted Ads at all. If I'm on a science or tech related site I expect to see some Ads for science/tech books or online courses of that ilk not for something unrelated that I've already sodding well bought.

Case in point - I some time ago drunkenly bought a cherry red flying-V ukulele and in a fit of alcohol infused stupidity sent the Amazon link for the product to my father.

For the next few months we were both bombarded with Ads for the same bloody product. I may be weird but I wasn't planning of making an orchestra of the fucking things.

[Jamie Jones]

Re: There is no free lunch

Yeah, a few people here have experienced the same thing.

However, that *is* what the industry calls targetted ads - they are targetted agains your personal history. The ads you expected are known as contextual ads.

To anyone sane, they would indeed target based on the site context, but the ad brokers have convinced advertisers they should advertise washing machines etc. to people that have just bought one!

I think they're scared that if advertisers went back to contextual ads, they'd realise how much more effective they are, and suddenly how useless these companies touting loads of personal data are.

P.S. I had to google "cherry red flying-V Ukulele"!

[DS999]

Re: There is no free lunch

Exactly. Targeted ads are only a thing on a general purpose thing like Facebook or Google Search. If I ran a golf shop, why would I put ads on Facebook? I'd talk to the local golf courses and see if I could put up a flyer in their grill where people will see it while having a post round beer, or buy ad impressions on golf boards that are geolocated to within 30 miles of me, or ads that pop up in local Craigslist posts that have the word "golf" in their description somewhere.

Relying on Facebook's AI to determine if someone plays golf is stupid, if they are browsing cat videos and an ad for my golf shop comes up they will ignore it because they aren't thinking about golf. If they see it while they are looking at a Craigslist post for used golf clubs, it will be 100x more valuable to me!

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: There is no free lunch

That's a great point - it's pointless knowing what someone likes, if you then bombard them with an ad for it whilst they're concentrating about something else they like! They are in a different frame of mind!

Another +1 for contextual ads!

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: There is no free lunch

But think of all the porn adverts you wouldn't then see people complaining about getting on family friendly sites because they don't realise what that says about them.

[jmch]

Re: There is no free lunch

"Ads are the lifeblood of "free" services like facebook, it is easy to rant about it how bad that all is."

Agreed. The thing is that random ad-slinging can be done which is not that much less efficient in targeting (by targeting at channel rather than user granularity). That can still generate tons of revenue without requiring any data-harvesting. It's just that there are no ad platforms working with that business model because there is nowhere for them to operate. Online advertising has basically become a global duopoly.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: There is no free lunch

I use Facebook because it's the easiest way to stay in touch with people around the world, and as noted by naïve, it's a good way to connect with people with similar interests. That said, I use it through a web browser on a tablet that only gets used for social media and internet games so there's nothing on there worth worrying about.

Is there any real difference between religious zealots who say "you are evil and deserve to die for worshipping a different deity" and the frothing anti-facebook crowd who decry anything suckerborg does while happily carrying mobile phones and using the internet? Suckerborg is a bottom-feeder of the very worst variety, but he does provide a useful service. You don't have to use it, but not using it doesn't give you any more right to talk down to those who do than one group of people with an allegedly omnipotent imaginary friend have the right to trash-talk another group of people with a different allegedly omnipotent imaginary friend.

[doublelayer]

Re: There is no free lunch

Yes, there is a difference. Facebook doesn't limit its tracking to things I do on their platform. They will track me and everyone else who doesn't have an account as we use other sites. They will buy up companies we may have used (who here used WhatsApp pre-facebook and doesn't anymore?) to get more data. They'll excavate others' data and collate it about me. They will use that data to mess with my friends who have accounts. And they will try to weaken a technical privacy measure that could help me from them and others for their own bottom line. I don't have to have an account for all of that to be done to me, and Facebook is the culprit. That's what gives me the right to complain about Facebook. I never agreed to any of their activities and they came after me anyway.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: There is no free lunch

Completely different. And if you really can't see that, you're in for a shock when you find out...

[Stuart Castle]

Re: There is no free lunch

Apple aren't fencing off ads from anyone. If they had any desire to do that, they could block Google and facebook totally.

What they are requiring is that the likes of Facebook declare exactly what info they require and how much. They are also requiring that the likes of Facebook allow people to decide if they want to be tracked.

I don't see what is unfair about that. I'd argue it's better than the alternative, which is these companies being allowed to trade all this data they have on you without you knowing.

Personally, I have no objections to Ads, and don't use an ad blocker I understand that the "free" services I used have costs. Where I do get a bit uneasy is their need to track the user. You don't need to know my fitness info, finance info or location (precise or otherwise) to advertise to me. Facebook asks for that and a *lot* more.

Do I trust Apple? Not entirely, but I trust them a lot more than I do facebook. Why? Because they have staked their reputation on Privacy, and there are enough Apple hating hackers in the work that if Apple were to do anything that would violate their stated position, it'd be all over the web within hours.

[PhilipN]

100b a quarter

1 billion a day. Not bad.

Hats off to Tim Cook.

The Almighty Steve J was one of the hardest acts in history to follow but Tim Cook - and his team - have handled it with aplomb.

[slimshady76]

I see a phone platform driven by Fachobus is on the horizon.

The only way for Zuckershit to be able to monetize clicks/taps more efficently (and fence off any competition from Google or Apple) if the competitor's walled gardens start to lift up their walls would be to develop their own mobile gadget line. At a subsidized price, as Amazon has tried to do. The way I see it, the hardest thing to overcome would be convincing their target audience to be continually attached to their phones via several orifice-poking probes. Because as we know, if Tah Zuck™ invests so heavily into a physical device, he won't settle for any less than knowing your bowel movements, favourite snacks/beverages/medicine flavour, snot consistency and amount, etc.

[Synonymous Howard]

Re: I see a phone platform driven by Fachobus is on the horizon.

They tried before, admittedly nearly 10 years ago so maybe corporate memory might fail long enough for them to waste more money ...

https://www.cnet.com/news/heres-why-the-facebook-phone-flopped/

Would probably be cheaper for FB to buy Samsung.

[T. F. M. Reader]

Re: I see a phone platform driven by Fachobus is on the horizon.

to be continually attached to their phones via several orifice-poking probes

This sounds suspiciously similar to a combination of Test'n'Trace with the new Chinese virus-testing methodology... Oh, wait: is that what it is all about?

[Anonymous Coward]

A rock or a hard place?

I have an extreme dislike for Facebook's data grab and corrosive impact on society (promoting "engagement" at any cost). And while I applaud Apple's privacy stance in principle, I find it difficult to support a company that appears to be dead-set on implementing extreme platform lock-in while skimming 30% of most transactions.

[yetanotheraoc]

Re: A rock or a hard place?

At least when not using an iDevice they don't still have the fangs in. Can't say the same about Facebook.

[Justin Clements]

Hmmm

Think Facebook needs to sit down and stfu frankly. Everyone has had just about enough of them meddling with the newsfeed so we see what they want us to see, warnings on just about everything because we can't be trusted etc. And Apple is probably one of the few companies who could build a FB clone, get the critical mass it needs to work and gut Facebook once and for all.

[Daniel M]

Re: Hmmm

"meddling with the newsfeed so we see what they want us to see, warnings on just about everything because we can't be trusted"

I deleted the app from my mobile when they started inserting very frequent mini-lectures to me in my feed on how to think about current events. I had already seen that they would show certain posts of mine -- generally photos -- to "friends" while effectively deleting others -- generally Web links -- by not showing them to anybody. Then there was my comment about Facebook censorship that got ... censored as fake news. I could excuse some of their behavior if it were only about the money, but the clown-nose-on, clown-nose-off approach to content manipulation is wearisome at best and enraging at worst.

[DS999]

Re: Hmmm

Apple has no desire to get involved with social media. Especially now when it is so politicized. They are successful because they have a pretty narrow focus, and don't act like other tech companies and look over the fence, see what the neighbor is doing, and try to copy their business model. That's Microsoft's shtick.

[Pascal Monett]

" interfere with how our apps and other apps work"

Oh, because you never interfere with apps that use your platform, eh ZucK ?

[Sleep deprived]

Facebook's revenues rose 21% at 84B$

Not bad for a company that produces nothing. But I guess there's never enough.

[iron]

If I had my way Facebook would be dismantled and Zuck strung up as a warning to other wannabe data leeches.

[TheMeerkat]

“Facebook has allowed misinformation to circulate, pandered to bigots”

Why stupid person who’s job is to write about what happens in the world of computers, has to bring his partisan politics in it?

It is annoying.