With Zuckerberg spending hundreds of millions to influence the presidential election, it’s obvious he’s seeing himself as someone with an opinion so important that it should be forced on others with all of his monetary might.
I really wish celebrities and wealthy people who made their money by some other means wouldn’t see themselves as more important than the average Joe. They made their money acting, building products, etc., not being all-wise gurus.
Give it a rest Zuckerberg. You’ve made enough money to support thousands of people for their entire lifetimes. That doesn’t make you smarter and you don’t need to claim intellectual superiority to try and keep Facebook alive. It’s run its course. Let it die.
Zuck may best be compared to the robber barons of the late 1880's who had more money and fewer ethics than Zuck ever dreamed of: to them it was all just a game of power and control and being at the top of the heap. For them, money was simply a way of keeping score.
While privacy and control of one’s data are concepts I support, and Facebook and Google are clearly abusing their ability to harvest and sell data, don’t go thinking Apple is being altruistic in their implementation of new features to enhance privacy.
Apple is using privacy as a marketing tool to sell more Apple products which offer users more privacy controls. Since Apple doesn’t have an ad revenue stream to protect they love privacy and the idea of making money off of privacy. Nothing wrong with that. Just don’t think they are being benevolent.
I see it a little differently. Apple has an ad network but they haven’t been able to scale it like the others and maintain the level of privacy and data protection we demand. They even stopped taking a share if their partners sold the ad directly. Some things they do for profit, others they do to maintain their brand image so they can profit off premium offerings.
So, you're suggesting its all about profits and marketing?
No, some people and some organizations actually have values and principles -- and stand on them and behind them. They form their core from which they grow.
I am sure this will help FB’s antitrust and privacy case.
What were they thinking? I thought Mark is a little smarter than this.
Mark's naïveté about politics and public opinion has always been goofily screwed up. He seems a perfect use case for the saying that you should never underestimate the willful ignorance of someone who's paycheck depends on his continued ignorance.
That Apple is simply listing how much data the Facebook app can share, and that Facebook is objecting to Apple simply pointing that out, is yet another example of this. Other examples are well scattered through Facebook's history.
Frankly, I have always been quite underwhelmed by pretty much every aspect of Facebook, including the design and features of its actual product. It is by far the most underwhelming of all the current well-known big tech companies. It is merely proof that in a sufficiently networked world, the network effect wins and entrenches those winners almost no matter how dumb they are.
I am sure this will help FB’s antitrust and privacy case.
What were they thinking? I thought Mark is a little smarter than this.
Mark's naïveté about politics and public opinion has always been goofily screwed up. He seems a perfect use case for the saying that you should never underestimate the willful ignorance of someone who's paycheck depends on his continued ignorance.
That Apple is simply listing how much data the Facebook app can share, and that Facebook is objecting to Apple simply pointing that out, is yet another example of this. Other examples are well scattered through Facebook's history.
Frankly, I have always been quite underwhelmed by pretty much every aspect of Facebook, including the design and features of its actual product. It is by far the most underwhelming of all the current well-known big tech companies. It is merely proof that in a sufficiently networked world, the network effect wins and entrenches those winners almost no matter how dumb they are.
Very True on Zuck's willful ignorance. But it goes further than that:
Facebook doesn't want people to know the details and specifics of what they collect and what they do with it. People know that something is collected and something is done with it -- but it all exists in that grey cloud that is easy to ignore.
The very apt analogy is the nutrition label on food sold in the U.S.: The food companies fight every time the USDA demands that an unhealthy additive (like added sugar or hydrogenated oils) is added to the nutrition label. It's not that the food companies don't know or it's hard to add. They just don't want people to know what they put in their food.
Users should have the right to know how their data is being used. Period. It’s called privacy and consent and Facebook/Google made the mistake of basing their businesses on the collection and capitalization of this data. Apple is just saying that is you put an app on their App Store that you announce your intentions and the user can decide if they want to use your service or not.
That's it in a nutshell. Users should have the option to opt in to these things and be given, clear, easy to understand explanations of what is involved if they agree to do so.
Users should have the right to know how their data is being used. Period. It’s called privacy and consent and Facebook/Google made the mistake of basing their businesses on the collection and capitalization of this data. Apple is just saying that is you put an app on their App Store that you announce your intentions and the user can decide if they want to use your service or not.
That's it in a nutshell. Users should have the option to opt in to these things and be given, clear, easy to understand explanations of what is involved if they agree to do so.
Isn't that a bit like being told what's in that hot dog you're eating?
Users should have the right to know how their data is being used. Period. It’s called privacy and consent and Facebook/Google made the mistake of basing their businesses on the colliection and capitalization of this data. Apple is just saying that is you put an app on their App Store that you announce your intentions and the user can decide if they want to use your service or not.
That's it in a nutshell. Users should have the option to opt in to these things and be given, clear, easy to understand explanations of what is involved if they agree to do so.
Isn't that a bit like being told what's in that hot dog you're eating?
I'm not sure what food labelling is like in the US but I get the impression it isn't as complete as in the EU. It also seems that there is a raft of processes and substances that are outright banned in the EU but permitted in the US.
Knowledge is a good thing but a hot dog is an occasional thing and the transaction is between the vendor and the customer. The vendor isn't doing anything else except selling me the hotdog. If he were doing something else beyond the transaction, I'd definitely want to be informed beforehand.
Users should have the right to know how their data is being used. Period. It’s called privacy and consent and Facebook/Google made the mistake of basing their businesses on the colliection and capitalization of this data. Apple is just saying that is you put an app on their App Store that you announce your intentions and the user can decide if they want to use your service or not.
That's it in a nutshell. Users should have the option to opt in to these things and be given, clear, easy to understand explanations of what is involved if they agree to do so.
Isn't that a bit like being told what's in that hot dog you're eating?
I'm not sure what food labelling is like in the US but I get the impression it isn't as complete as in the EU. It also seems that there is a raft of processes and substances that are outright banned in the EU but permitted in the US.
Knowledge is a good thing but a hot dog is an occasional thing and the transaction is between the vendor and the customer. The vendor isn't doing anything else except selling me the hotdog. If he were doing something else beyond the transaction, I'd definitely want to be informed beforehand.
Food labelling in the U.S. is controlled by the USDA which is controlled by the agricultural and food industries. Need I say more?
Comments
Zuck may best be compared to the robber barons of the late 1880's who had more money and fewer ethics than Zuck ever dreamed of: to them it was all just a game of power and control and being at the top of the heap. For them, money was simply a way of keeping score.
That Apple is simply listing how much data the Facebook app can share, and that Facebook is objecting to Apple simply pointing that out, is yet another example of this. Other examples are well scattered through Facebook's history.
Frankly, I have always been quite underwhelmed by pretty much every aspect of Facebook, including the design and features of its actual product. It is by far the most underwhelming of all the current well-known big tech companies. It is merely proof that in a sufficiently networked world, the network effect wins and entrenches those winners almost no matter how dumb they are.
“..When people have the freedom to choose, they choose wrong..” -The Giver
If your ad campaign can be adequately summarized by the villain in a dystopian novel, you should reconsider your life choices Zuck.
Isn't that a bit like being told what's in that hot dog you're eating?
Knowledge is a good thing but a hot dog is an occasional thing and the transaction is between the vendor and the customer. The vendor isn't doing anything else except selling me the hotdog. If he were doing something else beyond the transaction, I'd definitely want to be informed beforehand.
Food labelling in the U.S. is controlled by the USDA which is controlled by the agricultural and food industries. Need I say more?