Connect with us

FACEBOOK

Can Apple & Facebook’s Privacy Dispute Be Resolved? If So, How?

Published

on

Can Apple & <b>Facebook's</b> Privacy Dispute Be Resolved? If So, How? thumbnail

Apple and Facebook’s disagreement of privacy and data tracking practices is well documented, but the two do also benefit from a symbiosis.

Facebook and Apple logos over boxing gloves

The escalating feud between Facebook and Apple may seem counterintuitive. In the smartphone era, the two companies have enjoyed a natural symbiosis. The iPhone’s camera and interface encouraged more on-the-go status updates. Meanwhile, Facebook’s emphasis on media sharing pushed consumers pining for high-res pics and chin-lift filters to buy more expensive phones (and to buy them more often). However, over the past few years, a major philosophical difference has surfaced, testing the mutually beneficial relationship of these two Silicon Valley neighbors.

This tension between the two, which has grown starker due to recent events, becomes clear when comparing Apple and Facebook’s business models. Where does the money come from? For Apple, most of the revenue comes from a single stream of consumers buying the latest laptops, phones, and accompanying accessories, all of which it notoriously outdates and updates ad nauseum. For Facebook, the primary source of revenue is ad sales, with advertisers able to use Facebook’s vast amount of data to precisely target different types of users. Unfortunately, this means that the needs of Facebook’s clientele sometimes run against those of Apple.

As a luxury brand, Apple realizes that consumers will pay a premium for privacy, especially when it’s getting rarer by the day. This has steered the company toward developing tools for protecting users from external data-catchers like Facebook. For instance, in 2019 when Apple discovered that a Facebook component was flouting its rules, it promptly banned several Facebook internal developer apps. Apple’s CEO Tim Cook, meanwhile, has been railing against the data collection practices of Facebook for the last few years, reinforcing this growing rift. According to The Wall Street Journal, when Cook and Mark Zuckerberg had a face-to-face discussion at a tech conference in 2017, the atmosphere was tense, with both citing ways in which their companies were growing apart.

Facebook Vs. Apple: Meeting Of Minds Or Clash Of Titans?

Facebook data permissions context screen example

Comparing Apple and Facebook’s business models is like comparing a luxury Caribbean cruise with a free weekend getaway to Miami for a timeshare presentation. In one, you get all the privacy and perks you paid for, but you’re limited to what’s on the boat. In the other, everything’s free, but only so long as you don’t mind filling out reams of forms with all your personal information and, of course, sitting through a few slideshows brought to you by the folks who really pay the bills.

But are these missions hopelessly incompatible? As mentioned, the two titans do benefit from the other’s existence in major ways. Given Facebook’s popularity, even if Apple does embrace a business model that values user privacy above partnerships with external apps, it’s hard to imagine the company not finding a way to accommodate the blue-and-white wall. Alternatively, Cook’s opposition to data-tracking may force Facebook to make a few concessions in the way it profits off of user data.

A compromise seems possible when considering the fact that the divide isn’t so clear-cut. As Zuckerberg and others have noted, Apple’s white knight act when it comes to privacy may be a bit disingenuous, given the company’s partnerships with Google and the Chinese government, two of the world’s biggest data harvesters. However, Cook’s anti-data-tracking rhetoric could be winning the public debate, as the maxim ‘If you’re not paying for the product, you are the product’ seeps into common knowledge and as events like the riots at the Capitol cast social media’s outrage and disinformation algorithms into high relief.

Next: Facebook & Other Big Tech CEOs Survive Antitrust Grilling: Highlights

Source: The Wall Street Journal



Email

Angela Deem Michael Surgery: TLC: 90 Day Fiancé

90 Day Fiancé: Skinny Angela Deem Looks Half Her Age In New Stunning Pic

About The Author


P.K. French
(3 Articles Published)

P.K. French writes about the intersection of tech, politics, and culture. His work can also be found in Wired and Innovation & Tech Today.

More From P.K. French

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

FACEBOOK

Hopes Google, Facebook deals will underpin a rise in journalism jobs

Published

on

“We have seen no guarantees from the big media companies that money raised from the digital platforms will be spent on journalism,” said MEAA Media federal president Marcus Strom said last week.

“If some of this the Facebook and Google’s massive Australian revenue is now to be returned to media companies, there must be a corresponding commitment that the money is spent on news content, not dividends or corporate bonuses. The media companies must provide transparency about how they intend to allocate these funds.“

There are signs at least some companies are already progressing with plans to do just that despite challenging market conditions.

Guardian Australia is expected to take another floor in its Surry Hills office for new employees while industry sources have indicated News Corp Australia, owner of The Australian, The Daily Telegraph and The Herald Sun, is considering hiring almost 100 journalists with the money. News Corp declined to comment.

National broadcaster the ABC has not yet signed any deals with Google or Facebook but has pledged it will use the money to invest in regional journalism.

But Nine, which owns television, radio and newspaper assets (including this masthead) has been less explicit. A spokesperson for Nine referred back to comments made publicly by chief executive Hugh Marks.

Mr Marks said at a Senate inquiry more than one week ago that if funding from tech giants wasn’t secured, job losses at Nine’s publications would continue.

Following the company’s half-year financial results last week, Mr Marks indicated the company would consider hiring new journalists. “You won’t be able to say a dollar here goes to $1 there but you can look at that business and say it’s a strong viable sustainable publishing business that will be able to support journalism going forward,” he said.

Loading

“If there are opportunities for us to employ more journalists to get a positive result then we will do that. But it certainly underpins the future of journalism in this market.”

Seven West Media chief executive James Warburton said most of the money the company expects to gain from its deals with Google and Facebook will be used for Perth based newspaper The West Australian and its regional titles. He initially said the cash would be dropped to the bottom line and be used for repayment of debt but now says it will be focused on improving the newspapers’ digital strategy.

Seven’s deal also has a YouTube component, which means some of the money will be spent on television content.

“It will support quality journalism in metropolitan, regional and community markets and underpin the digital strength and sustainability of our news businesses going forward,” Mr Warburton said.

Industry sources who are familiar with the various agreements have said that some publishers have an audio component – which requires them to invest a large amount of money in areas such as podcasting. Other companies will use the money for distribution strategies to build their digital audiences.

For smaller outlets like Junkee, the money will provide an important backbone for the business to continue its work.

“We haven’t made any definitive decisions yet about how we’ll spend the money, but this moment presents a unique opportunity for us to invest in public interest journalism,” Junkee’s editorial director Rob Stott says. “We’ll be looking at a mix of original reporting and background infrastructure that will make Junkee a more sustainable operation into the future. I’m extremely excited about the potential for this funding to make a real difference to the breadth and depth of content we produce.”

Most Viewed in Business

Loading

Read More

Continue Reading

FACEBOOK

Facebook banned my perfectly harmless article – and I think I know why

Published

on

By

<b>Facebook</b> banned my perfectly harmless article – and I think I know why thumbnail

You start by excluding fascists, anti-vaxxers and conspiracists. You end by banning pretty much anyone you disagree with. In recent months, Facebook has taken to labelling as fake, or removing altogether, a number of stunningly inoffensive pieces: a study by the American researcher Dr Indur Goklany claiming (quite correctly) that the number of people dying globally as a result of natural disasters was falling; a column by the investigative journalist Ian Birrell questioning whether the WHO had been too hasty in ruling out the possibility of a Wuhan leak; a report by the leading Oxford epidemiologist, Dr Carl Heneghan, of a Danish study arguing that facemasks made little difference to the spread of Covid-19.

And, now, an article of mine. Last week, I wrote a piece for the John Locke Institute (JLI), a high-minded organisation that runs summer schools and seminars, mainly for sixth-formers, offering in-depth tuition in the humanities subjects. I advanced the view that the epidemic had made us more collectivist, and that the post-lockdown world would be relatively authoritarian. The JLI bought advertising on Facebook to promote the piece. Facebook first authorised the advertisements, then pulled them without explanation.

In my case, as in all the others, it is impossible to know what the offence was. None of the pieces was making tendentious claims, let alone promoting conspiracy theories. Since Facebook offers neither explanations nor an open appeals process, we can only guess.

Are algorithms set in such a way as to screen out Right-of-centre opinions? Are they overseen by people with an explicit agenda? Is Facebook responding to pile-ons by woke activists? Is the real objection not so much to the content as to the authors?

I suspect the last. A few weeks ago, Think Scotland, a Unionist website, tried to advertise two articles critical of Nicola Sturgeon. Facebook said no on the bizarre grounds that they violated its “Vaccine Discourager” guidelines. The editor, Brian Monteith, suspecting that Facebook was being pressurised by Cybernats, experimentally tried to advertise a wholly unpolitical article about a young mother potty-training her daughter. It, too, was rejected. Eventually, after a campaign mounted by Toby Young’s Free Speech Union, Facebook backed down.

For what it’s worth, I take the view that Facebook, as a private company, can run whatever adverts it likes. But let’s be absolutely clear that it is now a publisher – a publisher with an agenda. Any notion that Facebook (or Twitter, or YouTube) is simply a platform has gone. It is one more opinionated channel, alongside Fox News, Russia Today, the BBC and the Morning Star.

What is most interesting is not the fact that Facebook has its biases – we all have biases – but what those biases are. Bizarrely for a company that was originally meant to facilitate the free flow of ideas, it has become intolerant of dissent – or, at least, of certain forms dissent. You generally won’t get into trouble for denying Stalin’s crimes, boycotting Israel or celebrating Margaret Thatcher’s death. But question whether there is excessive use of state power in enforcing lockdowns or reducing carbon emissions and you may be excluded.

Indeed, we seem to be reaching the point where simply to call for free speech is becoming dangerous. To the extent that the JLI can be said to have a collective view on anything, it believes in heterodoxy. Its founder, a former Oxford academic called Martin Cox, ensures that his summer schools and seminars hear a range of views from top lecturers, and encourages his students to engage with ideas that might initially repel them. That is, if you think about it, the essence of liberalism.

The article of mine which JLI ran, the one Facebook found intolerable, was not about Covid-19 or public health. It was about the fragility of an open society, the way a shared threat can throw people back on their tribal instincts, and the consequent likelihood that powers seized by governments on a supposedly contingent basis in 2020 won’t be relinquished when the epidemic passes.

Any organisation that sees such opinions as unacceptable is – there is no other way to put this – hostile to liberty.

Read More

Continue Reading

FACEBOOK

Tragic reason why man tried to live stream death on Facebook

Published

on

By

A man who threatened to live stream his own death on Facebook after he was denied euthanasia despite a viral campaign now plans to travel to Switzerland to end his life.

Alain Cocq, 57, who suffers from a disease that is so rare that it does not even have a name, says he is in a permanent state of suffering.

His case went viral in September 2020 when he threatened to live stream his death on Facebook if French President Emmanuel Macron did not change the country’s laws to allow for assisted dying.

He had to give up on his project after Facebook cut the feed, but he is still advocating for changes in law and has now decided to go to Switzerland to be able to benefit from euthanasia there.

He is applying to the authorities in the Swiss capital Berne and he hopes to receive a positive response in the coming months, if not weeks.

Alain Cocq is now travelling to Switzerland after he was denied euthanasia. Source: Newsflash/Australscope

Alain Cocq is now travelling to Switzerland after he was denied euthanasia. Source: Newsflash/Australscope

Cocq suffers from a rare form of disease that has been described as being similar to ischaemia, which is when a restriction in blood being supplied to live tissue causes an oxygen shortage that damages the tissue and can cause dysfunctions.

There is no cure for his condition, which will, very slowly, prove fatal.

“I want end of life to become the primary theme of the presidential elections in 2022,” he told local French newspaper 20 Minutes.

Despite his appeal to the French president in September, President Macron said he was “unable to accede to his request” despite the “profound respect” he had for him.

The retired plumber, who has been ill for 34 years, is hoping the Swiss will help him end his life after a failed attempt with the European Court of human rights in 1993 and a first petition to the French government in 1994.

At the time, he was still in a wheelchair, but after that numerous cardiovascular and cerebral accidents rendered him permanently bedridden.

Australscope

Do you have a story tip? Email: newsroomau@yahoonews.com.

You can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter and download the Yahoo News app from the App Store or Google Play.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending