Facebook's Sheryl Sandberg enters the ring in data privacy bout with Tim Cook
Facebook's COO Sheryl Sandberg has defended the social network against comments made by Apple CEO Tim Cook about the Cambridge Analytica scandal.
Asked about Cook's comments during an on-stage interview at Recode's Code Conference, Sandberg suggests the statements were made because Cook and Apple believe they are important to say, adding "They have a product they feel strongly about."
"It won't shock you to know that Mark (Zuckerberg) and I strongly disagree with their characterization of our product," Sandberg insisted. "We're proud of the business model we've built. We have an ad-supported business that allows people all around the world to the product for free, and if you're trying to connect the whole world, that's pretty important. So we respectfully disagree."
Sandberg was interviewed with Facebook CTO Mike Schroepfer, who wanted more time to be spent discussing the substance of the issues. "There's times when you can get nice quippy soundbites and kick someone when it's popular and they're down." the CTO admits. "That's us right now, I get it, and we in many ways deserve it."
Schroepfer moved to highlight the problem with trade-offs between business models in building a service, one that is intended to be used by the whole world, in justifying the ad-based approach. "Can every consumer afford a $10 a month subscription, or a $700 device? For billions of people around the world, no. Not yet."
In March's China Development Forum, shortly after the Cambridge Analytica revelations that Facebook user data was being acquired and misused in political analysis, Tim Cook suggested the situation had become dire and large enough to warrant some "well-crafted regulation."
"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.
The suggestion of regulatory intervention resurfaced a few days later in a televised interview, with Cook musing that, while he thinks "the best regulation is no regulation, is self-regulation," it is possibly beyond that point now. Cook also said it would have been better for the tech industry as a whole if Facebook controlled the use of data "patched together from several sources."
Cook also highlighted Apple's avoidance of ad-based models, such as the one employed by Facebook. "The truth is, we could make a ton of money if we monetized our customer - if the customer was our product. We've elected not to do that."
Sandberg's defense of Facebook echoes comments made by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg in April, but in a softer form.
In the interview, Zuckerberg attacked Cook's sentiment by declaring "I find that argument, that if you're not paying that somehow we can't care about you, to be extremely glib, and not at all aligned with the truth." Zuckerberg went on to defend the ad-based model to help connect the world's citizens, and that it was the "only rational model" to reach those who couldn't afford to pay.
Asked about Cook's comments during an on-stage interview at Recode's Code Conference, Sandberg suggests the statements were made because Cook and Apple believe they are important to say, adding "They have a product they feel strongly about."
"It won't shock you to know that Mark (Zuckerberg) and I strongly disagree with their characterization of our product," Sandberg insisted. "We're proud of the business model we've built. We have an ad-supported business that allows people all around the world to the product for free, and if you're trying to connect the whole world, that's pretty important. So we respectfully disagree."
Sandberg was interviewed with Facebook CTO Mike Schroepfer, who wanted more time to be spent discussing the substance of the issues. "There's times when you can get nice quippy soundbites and kick someone when it's popular and they're down." the CTO admits. "That's us right now, I get it, and we in many ways deserve it."
Schroepfer moved to highlight the problem with trade-offs between business models in building a service, one that is intended to be used by the whole world, in justifying the ad-based approach. "Can every consumer afford a $10 a month subscription, or a $700 device? For billions of people around the world, no. Not yet."
In March's China Development Forum, shortly after the Cambridge Analytica revelations that Facebook user data was being acquired and misused in political analysis, Tim Cook suggested the situation had become dire and large enough to warrant some "well-crafted regulation."
"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.
The suggestion of regulatory intervention resurfaced a few days later in a televised interview, with Cook musing that, while he thinks "the best regulation is no regulation, is self-regulation," it is possibly beyond that point now. Cook also said it would have been better for the tech industry as a whole if Facebook controlled the use of data "patched together from several sources."
Cook also highlighted Apple's avoidance of ad-based models, such as the one employed by Facebook. "The truth is, we could make a ton of money if we monetized our customer - if the customer was our product. We've elected not to do that."
Sandberg's defense of Facebook echoes comments made by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg in April, but in a softer form.
In the interview, Zuckerberg attacked Cook's sentiment by declaring "I find that argument, that if you're not paying that somehow we can't care about you, to be extremely glib, and not at all aligned with the truth." Zuckerberg went on to defend the ad-based model to help connect the world's citizens, and that it was the "only rational model" to reach those who couldn't afford to pay.
Comments
"It's called "free basing"....wait, it costs you your house, it should be called "home basing."
I'm not on FB, Google or any other anti-social media platform. I never saw the need but I'm not a Millenial or a hipster and would go as far as saying that I'm pretty uncool. I avoid fashion trends like the plague.
They (FB etc) aren't for me but I've seen the damage that abuse of people on those platforms can do.
IMHO, the world would be a better place if they ceased to exist tomorrow.
YMMV.
PLEASE, facebook. PLEASE go to a subscription model. PLEASE kill yourselves overnight.
The reality is that FB is not a benefit to the poor in that their cheap business model often sparks internicine conflict. The reality is that the information they peddle is not adequately monitored.
Tell that to the poor victims of mob violence in Sri Lanka.
In Sri Lanka, Facebook Contends With Shutdown After Mob Violence:
https://nyti.ms/2G9E800?smid=nytcore-ios-share
Maybe your services shouldn’t be free FaceBook. Maybe they should spend some effort patrolling the sewage they channel.
Oh wait that would cut into their profits.
Give me a break. Mind your own business Ms. Sandberg.
Facebook caring about privacy of user information is due to the fact the data is the product and without data they do not have a product to sell to Facebook customers. If Facebook loses users over the perception they do not care about privacy it is going to cost them lots of money.
Apple not protecting personal information means they too could loose money but to their competitors
Your literal business model is built on exploiting your user’s data.
but they can do that without all the snooping they do. In the beginning of the internet, it was almost impossible to get ads, because there weren’t enough people on the internet then. So first they tried those very annoying ads, and people became furious over them, so they cut back. They found that people didn’t mind being tracked as long as they didn’t notice it.
their snooping got worse, to the point where people do mind it, and it’s becoming a security risk as well.
now though, where internet ads are well established as the majority of ad income, they could, if they wanted to, drop most of the snooping. No company is going to stop advertising on the internet these days.
whats stopping that is simply greed, which is why Google, Facebook and others not only continue the practice, but are coming up with ways to gather even more of our life into their hands.
I keep hoping this never becomes a Trojan Horse...
Why does Photos tagging have no user configurable off setting ?