Facebook pivoting toward 'privacy-enhancing' technology for targeted ads

AppleInsider

Facebook plans on revamping how its advertising system works to place more value on user privacy and reduce the emphasis on data collection.

Credit: WikiMedia Commons

More specifically, the social media giant is working to create a system that delivers personalized ads without needing data about individual users. Facebook is calling this effort "privacy-enhancing technologies," and it includes systems that use cryptographic and statistical techniques to offer ad measurement and personalization while minimizing data collection.

"We are optimistic that new privacy-enhancing technologies will prove that personalization remains possible and effective as our industry evolves to become less reliant on individual third-party data," Facebook's Graham Mudd wrote. "These technologies will help us minimize the amount of personal information we process, while still allowing us to show people relevant ads and measure ad effectiveness for advertisers."

For example, Facebook in 2020 began testing a system called Private Lift Measurement that allows advertisers to see how campaigns are performing while limiting what user data is available to advertisers -- or Facebook itself. Facebook has also open-sourced a platform that allows third parties to develop more private ad measurement products.

Additionally, Facebook says it is also exploring using on-device learning. Already widely used by Apple on iPhones and other devices, on-device learning could allow for highly targeted ads without sending any user data to an external server or cloud.

In an interview with The Verge on Wednesday, Mudd said that "we definitely see that personalization will evolve very meaningfully over the course of the next five years. And that investing well ahead of that will benefit all of our customers and enable us to help shape that future state of the ads ecosystem."

The Facebook privacy pivot comes amid major changes to the advertising industry, including government scrutiny and the proliferation of privacy features like Apple's App Tracking Transparency. In addition to Facebook, Google is also exploring advertising systems that rely less on individual user data.

Facebook's pivot also, in a way, signals defeat. The company launched a full-scale campaign against Apple's ATT feature in 2020. That campaign ultimately fizzled out when Facebook realized it had "no choice" but to comply with Apple's new privacy technologies.

The company disagrees with that characterization, however. In a statement to The Verge, a Facebook spokesperson contended that the switch in directions is only a move toward a "different and better" advertising approach.

"We are advocating for a different and better approach to advancing privacy in advertising. One that is based on industry collaboration and a focus on supporting small businesses and an open internet economy. Apple's approach is exactly the opposite: exerting its control over the App Store to benefit its own bottom line," the spokesperson said.

Read on AppleInsider

RonnyDaddy

“ Apple's approach is exactly the opposite: exerting its control over the App Store to benefit its own bottom line," the spokesperson said. “

I wanna laugh.

chadbag

Never click on any ad in FB (or IG or any website for that matter).  No matter how interesting the product.  Just see who the advertiser is and look them up directly in a browser if the product interests you.  The fewer positive results that FB can show their advertisers, the less advertisers are going to see FB as effective and the less they will spend with FB.  

ArchStanton

Apple's approach is exactly the opposite: exerting its control over the App Store to benefit its own bottom line," the spokesperson said."

I almost thought to myself "hmmm, could Facebook actually be getting the message?'. Then this above sentence proves this is window dressing, looking to canalize on the Apple CSAM story in the news by speaking of how much better they are than Apple, and how Gee Maybe One Day We Won't Assault Your Privacy.

Don't bet on it...

Rayz2016

ArchStanton said:

Apple's approach is exactly the opposite: exerting its control over the App Store to benefit its own bottom line," the spokesperson said."

I almost thought to myself "hmmm, could Facebook actually be getting the message?'. Then this above sentence proves this is window dressing, looking to canalize on the Apple CSAM story in the news by speaking of how much better they are than Apple, and how Gee Maybe One Day We Won't Assault Your Privacy.

Don't bet on it...

I’m now of the opinion that, for different reasons, they’re all as good and as bad as each other. 

AppleZulu

Rayz2016 said:

ArchStanton said:

Apple's approach is exactly the opposite: exerting its control over the App Store to benefit its own bottom line," the spokesperson said."

I almost thought to myself "hmmm, could Facebook actually be getting the message?'. Then this above sentence proves this is window dressing, looking to canalize on the Apple CSAM story in the news by speaking of how much better they are than Apple, and how Gee Maybe One Day We Won't Assault Your Privacy.

Don't bet on it...

I’m now of the opinion that, for different reasons, they’re all as good and as bad as each other. 

I would advise against this particular form of nihilism. It's too easy, and it ultimately serves as a shield for the absolute worst actors by creating a false equivalency with others who, while flawed, may actually try to be better. We see this in politics, too, and it always serves as a deflection that absolves those who make little pretense at doing much of anything good or decent.

ArchStanton

Rayz2016 said:

ArchStanton said:

Apple's approach is exactly the opposite: exerting its control over the App Store to benefit its own bottom line," the spokesperson said."

I almost thought to myself "hmmm, could Facebook actually be getting the message?'. Then this above sentence proves this is window dressing, looking to canalize on the Apple CSAM story in the news by speaking of how much better they are than Apple, and how Gee Maybe One Day We Won't Assault Your Privacy.

Don't bet on it...

I’m now of the opinion that, for different reasons, they’re all as good and as bad as each other. 

They are all the same on one item, they are in it for profit. What drives their revenue making is the salient point.
Facebook makes the majority of their money by gathering as much information as they can on you, then monetize that information.
Apple makes the majority of their money by the sale of electronic hardware

You want to equivocate that as being the same, that's your choice. However, it is demonstrably false on the issue of data privacy. One is a steep purveyor of its collection while the other is steeply not a purveyor of it. That is a fact.

baconstang

The only advertising research Apple should be involved with is finding the right Apple product for you.

NOTHING ELSE.

geekmee

Why do we expect a proven liar, to start telling the truth? “…Yea huh, That’s the ticket!” - SNL 1970s

Rayz2016

ArchStanton said:

Rayz2016 said:

ArchStanton said:

Apple's approach is exactly the opposite: exerting its control over the App Store to benefit its own bottom line," the spokesperson said."

I almost thought to myself "hmmm, could Facebook actually be getting the message?'. Then this above sentence proves this is window dressing, looking to canalize on the Apple CSAM story in the news by speaking of how much better they are than Apple, and how Gee Maybe One Day We Won't Assault Your Privacy.

Don't bet on it...

I’m now of the opinion that, for different reasons, they’re all as good and as bad as each other. 

They are all the same on one item, they are in it for profit. What drives their revenue making is the salient point.
Facebook makes the majority of their money by gathering as much information as they can on you, then monetize that information.
Apple makes the majority of their money by the sale of electronic hardware

You want to equivocate that as being the same, that's your choice. However, it is demonstrably false on the issue of data privacy. One is a steep purveyor of its collection while the other is steeply not a purveyor of it. That is a fact.

That's a fair comment, but there are other issues aside surrounding data privacy that I haven't really paid that much attention to, but have become pretty stark over the past few days. 

Apple's still the same Apple, but while looking at the whole spyware saga, I've looked a little more deeply into what the other lot are up to, as I wanted to understand why they believed their solution was better. Facebook donated their  server side scanner as an open source project, Google went down a bad road with their DragonFly project, but listened to the their employees and turned it around (Google has also been encrypting their photo cloud backups for quite some time, with no key, which I didn't know at al), Microsoft came up with the CSAM idea in the first place, but I'm not going to buy their HoloLens thing … so they've been doing a lot of stuff I approve of, while doing a lot of stuff I disapprove of. The difference is that I've been focussed too much on the crap I don't like, and haven't given them a fair shake.

WIll I go back to Facebook? Hell no, That place is a dumpster fire that kills people. But will I learn Reactjs? Yes, I will because it looks alike a pretty good way to write decent web app front ends. (I've been saying this for years though. Just need to actually get around to it).


Will I use Office? Hell, no; that's a shockingly poor UI on every platform it runs on; will I use Azure? Yes that's a really good cloud service.

Will I update to iOS15 and Monterey? Hell no, reasons already tediously given; will I dump the phone? Nope. It has served me well for years, and I don't see why it won't continue. Will I continue to pay for Apple Fitness+? Hell yes; that's some seriously good yoga!

I don't think my "they're all as good and as bad as each other for various reasons" is a bad attitude to have. Thinking about it, I've always had it, but now I realise it may have been weighted unfairly against other companies, especially Microsoft and Google (Facebook, not so much).

Rather than thinking Apple is suddenly completely shit, all I've realised is that the competition are perhaps not as completely shit as I thought.

bestkeptsecret

AppleZulu said:

Rayz2016 said:

ArchStanton said:

Apple's approach is exactly the opposite: exerting its control over the App Store to benefit its own bottom line," the spokesperson said."

I almost thought to myself "hmmm, could Facebook actually be getting the message?'. Then this above sentence proves this is window dressing, looking to canalize on the Apple CSAM story in the news by speaking of how much better they are than Apple, and how Gee Maybe One Day We Won't Assault Your Privacy.

Don't bet on it...

I’m now of the opinion that, for different reasons, they’re all as good and as bad as each other. 

I would advise against this particular form of nihilism. It's too easy, and it ultimately serves as a shield for the absolute worst actors by creating a false equivalency with others who, while flawed, may actually try to be better. We see this in politics, too, and it always serves as a deflection that absolves those who make little pretense at doing much of anything good or decent.

Very well put.

@Rayz2016 has been a real Apple supporter. He must be feeling really let down by all this.

Rayz2016

bestkeptsecret said:

AppleZulu said:

Rayz2016 said:

ArchStanton said:

Apple's approach is exactly the opposite: exerting its control over the App Store to benefit its own bottom line," the spokesperson said."

I almost thought to myself "hmmm, could Facebook actually be getting the message?'. Then this above sentence proves this is window dressing, looking to canalize on the Apple CSAM story in the news by speaking of how much better they are than Apple, and how Gee Maybe One Day We Won't Assault Your Privacy.

Don't bet on it...

I’m now of the opinion that, for different reasons, they’re all as good and as bad as each other. 

I would advise against this particular form of nihilism. It's too easy, and it ultimately serves as a shield for the absolute worst actors by creating a false equivalency with others who, while flawed, may actually try to be better. We see this in politics, too, and it always serves as a deflection that absolves those who make little pretense at doing much of anything good or decent.

Very well put.

@Rayz2016 has been a real Apple supporter. He must be feeling really let down by all this.

Mmmm. Not so sure; it's pretty much the same when they changed their servers over to China. Everyone had plenty of warning, and we've had plenty of warning here. It's not as if they've suddenly switched off the whole service. As I said, Apple is still the same; I've just got a different perspective on everyone else,  and that's because I've spent a bit more time looking into what they're doing. I didn't assume that Apple did everything right, but as I said, I might've been assuming that Google and MS and Oracle and everyone else were doing everything wrong. That doesn't appear to be the case. 

Let down?  It's kind of hard to feel let down by what is, essentially, a gadget. To be honest, I was more annoyed when they canned the HomePod because I'd just bought a second one. But then you think, well, that's disappointing, but the HomePod ain't stopped working.

But this is a different thread . . .

Rayz2016

AppleZulu said:

Rayz2016 said:

ArchStanton said:

Apple's approach is exactly the opposite: exerting its control over the App Store to benefit its own bottom line," the spokesperson said."

I almost thought to myself "hmmm, could Facebook actually be getting the message?'. Then this above sentence proves this is window dressing, looking to canalize on the Apple CSAM story in the news by speaking of how much better they are than Apple, and how Gee Maybe One Day We Won't Assault Your Privacy.

Don't bet on it...

I’m now of the opinion that, for different reasons, they’re all as good and as bad as each other. 

I would advise against this particular form of nihilism. It's too easy, and it ultimately serves as a shield for the absolute worst actors by creating a false equivalency with others who, while flawed, may actually try to be better. We see this in politics, too, and it always serves as a deflection that absolves those who make little pretense at doing much of anything good or decent.

Except I'm not absolving them of anything. Google has always been what Google has been. They have raided your personal info for profit … but while I've said that's no way to make a living, they've never been dishonest about it. I've read the T&Cs, so I know precisely what I'm letting myself in for. Apple however, banged the privacy drum, then kind of switched. Now I have to admit, that was surprise. 

You bring up an interesting point about politicians though.  I dunno where you live, but in the UK we've had the Conservatives in charge for longer than I'd like to remember.  Our weird election system aside, there is a simple reason they win: because as crap as they are, you know what they stand for (raking in as much as they can for themselves and their friends at the public expense), and people prefer that to parties that switch ideals on them, or worse, don't seem to stand for anything at all. Why? Because when you  know what you're dealing with, you can plan for it. 

As a friend of mine pointed out the other day (and he's just got rid of his Windows Mobile phone actually): 'Yeah, I know about Google's data raiding; I'm not okay with it, but I just turn the stuff off I don't want them to know about.'

To which I replied. 'Great, and you trust them to stick to that?'

He said, 'Dunno. Do you trust a company that said that backdoors would eventually be open to good and bad, and then a few years later, installs a backdoor?'

You said:

and it always serves as a deflection that absolves those who make little pretense at doing much of anything good or decent.

Fair enough, but that's as bad as those draw folk in with promises of their core values, then make a complete about-face. (Incidentally, our government does that too).

Google makes no pretence of making assaults on your privacy.
Apple says it cares for your privacy, and then installs a back door you didn't ask for, that hasn't been reviewed outside the company, and hasn't said how they'll prevent other countries from abusing it, aside from "we'll vigorously resist". 

From where I'm standing, the gap between them isn't as great as I thought.

muthuk_vanalingam

bestkeptsecret said:

AppleZulu said:

Rayz2016 said:

ArchStanton said:

Apple's approach is exactly the opposite: exerting its control over the App Store to benefit its own bottom line," the spokesperson said."

I almost thought to myself "hmmm, could Facebook actually be getting the message?'. Then this above sentence proves this is window dressing, looking to canalize on the Apple CSAM story in the news by speaking of how much better they are than Apple, and how Gee Maybe One Day We Won't Assault Your Privacy.

Don't bet on it...

I’m now of the opinion that, for different reasons, they’re all as good and as bad as each other. 

I would advise against this particular form of nihilism. It's too easy, and it ultimately serves as a shield for the absolute worst actors by creating a false equivalency with others who, while flawed, may actually try to be better. We see this in politics, too, and it always serves as a deflection that absolves those who make little pretense at doing much of anything good or decent.

Very well put.

@Rayz2016 has been a real Apple supporter. He must be feeling really let down by all this.

And he is banned now by AI. Unbelievable.