Just to make it clearer, the removal of Facebook in the accounts was not about Facebook alone (though it may have been the cause for the decision). Integrations with Twitter, Vimeo, etc., were also removed together.
Facebook’s enterprise certificate was revoked because it violated Apple’s policy by using it to distribute applications to users who’re not “internal” and not employees/contractors. That the app in question was also sleazy (as Facebook usually seems to be) was a coincidence in this case. But it’s also true that that app wouldn’t have passed the App Store review process had it been submitted there.
The rules were written to block sleazy apps. That the rules were the instrument by which the certificates were revoked doesn’t decouple the app’s sleaziness from its removal. (Similarly, saying “he went to jail for stealing” is accurate. Despite the reason for the jailing being the statute banning stealing.)
No, they weren't; they were written to block distribution of applications without formal App Store review to the general public.
That one has more to do with Apple releasing frameworks that allowed any of the internet services to tie into iOS themselves.
For instance, share extensions:
>Share extensions give users a convenient way to share content with other entities, such as social sharing websites or upload services.
https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/Ge...
Apple no longer needed to pick winners and add integration for them into the OS by hand.
>Facebook’s enterprise certificate was revoked because it violated Apple’s policy by using it to distribute applications to users who’re not “internal” and not employees/contractors. That the app in question was also sleazy (as Facebook usually seems to be) was a coincidence in this case. But it’s also true that that app wouldn’t have passed the App Store review process had it been submitted there.
Facebook's spyware in a VPN's clothing had already been kicked off of the App Store last year.
>Onavo, which Facebook bought back in 2013, does two things. As far as regular consumers are concerned, Onavo comports itself like a VPN, offering to “keep you and your data safe” and “blocking potentially harmful websites and securing your personal information.”
But Onavo’s real utility is pumping a ton of app usage data to its parent company
Only after the media takes notice and it makes Apple look bad. In both this case and the "FacePalm" FaceTime spying incident, Apple knew for months. You shouldn't get brownie points for getting coerced into good behavior.
That's a tall order, but it seems like the thing that could be mostly crowd-sourced to good effect (with a few moderators to ensure accuracy).
https://www.eff.org/who-has-your-back-2018 https://www.eff.org/who-has-your-back-2017
Although it does seem a little odd that Youtube has full marks when there's quite a lot of info about their broken take down system and appeals process...
Other than that, I hope you're not using cracked versions of any Adobe software or commercial filters, or key generators for either on systems that have any personal information...
1: https://www.theverge.com/2013/11/7/5078560/over-150-million-...
Most companies seem to violate their own privacy policies, and it's impossible for us to know that they're doing it without either whistleblowers or regulators.
It's not like any of these indicators can be taken entirely on face value anyway, since their all indicators of past performance and a change in policy at a company could happen any time. Something is better than nothing though.
There is still a lot to be done, but it would be much worse. Some bigger culprits, due to being bigger, still get away with their bullshit.
For example, Google apps uses/used an embedded web view for sign-in, which also signs you into their web search in Safari.
They share the sign-in in a way that even newly-installed apps can use; e.g. sign into YouTube, install Google Maps, and you will find yourself already signed into Google Maps when you open the app (in my case, for the first time on this device just now.)
This may be convenient, but feels creepy and intrusive as hell.
Facebook, Instagram etc. also continue to be major offenders for things like iPad UX guidelines.
Apple protects you from asshole developers, but it also restricts you from just installing what you want in the first place and they take a 30% cut of all revenue while doing so. I hardly think they do it out of the charity of their hearts.
How is this not intrusive?
It's only shared between apps that are signed with the same certificate.
A DNT-style browser feature with legal weight behind it would have been miles better. Your browser could present a consistent interface for every website that requests consent, and allow you to set global defaults, etc.
Maybe it's a harder issue to solve with a UI (third party cookies, subdomain cookies etc.) Maybe they just haven't gotten around to it (I used to set the global "site im visiting" cookie pref but since they added the "intelligent" cross site tracking protection that option seems to be gone..
What are you referring to? The play/pause button has never been an "Apple Music" button, and in fact the recent behavioral change is to make it even more aggressively go to the current app (e.g. if you start playing a video in YouTube, the play/pause button controls that video instead of iTunes).
iOS 12.1.2
All of this is speculation.
I have had it default to Apple Music when doing the same thing as above but with the YouTube app. I think it has something to do with YT not allowing background audio playback unless you sub to Premium. Which reminds me how much I miss Jasmine and ProTube.
"Do-Not-Track Signals and Similar Mechanisms. Some web browsers may transmit "do-not-track" signals to websites with which the browser communicates. Because of differences in how web browsers incorporate and activate this feature, it is not always clear whether users intend for these signals to be transmitted, or whether they even are aware of them. Participants in the leading Internet standards-setting organization that is addressing this issue are in the process of determining what, if anything, websites should do when they receive such signals. We currently do not take action in response to these signals. If and when a final standard is established and accepted, we will reassess how to respond to these signals."
"Some letterboxes have 'no junk mail' signs attached, but it's often unclear whether these were even placed by the current occupant. The current resident may be completely unaware that they're missing out on our great deals. Therefore we have chosen to deliver to all addresses regardless of signage."
What an incredible way of thinking. You could rationalize anything this way.
I’m not sure what you are referring to since Safari on desktop still has a DNT option in settings and while mobile safari doesn’t have a setting specifically labeled DNT it has a setting that appears to be the same thing with a more friendly name.
Reportedly, duck duck go are now serving over 1 billion searches per month. If they're earning, say, $0.01 per search from ads, well... you do the math. Not bad for a small startup company with 55 employees.
Say tracking is perceived to add some value over content-based ad selection (doesn't matter if it actually does). Say it also provides a bunch of important looking metrics for middle managers and execs to play with, whether or not any of it means anything (that it certainly does). Say the price premium charged by Google and FaceBook and friends is under what companies value this stuff at, in dollar terms. There's a small premium to it, say 10%, some of which goes to the sites displaying the ads.
Boom, practically all advertising is now of the spyware variety. That's all it takes. Competing without spying (and without a huge trove of data or a way to get it fast) is now nigh-impossible.
Now outlaw all the tracking crap. "Oh no the Web is doomed no one will be able to pay for anything!" you will hear/read from a disturbingly large number of people. They are dumb. It'll be fine. That 10% premium goes away, yeah. Content advertising is back. Having a huge trove of user data is no longer a moat, or indeed much advantage at all, in the ad space, so Google'd need to scale back and/or learn how to launch a product that can stand on its own without the backing of their spyware empire. IOW yeah they'll probably actually be in serious trouble, but there's no good reason for them to be. FaceBook might die or have to pivot hard. But that does not mean the end of the web, or anything like it! It just means the ad money goes somewhere else. Probably to a bunch of much smaller (though still maybe quite large) companies.
Anyway TL;DR it's difficult to succeed with non-spying ads in a spying-is-allowed world, but it's 100% for sure a viable business model that can support more or less the same junk we have now if you outlaw that sort of bad behavior. To the extent DDG's succeeding I assume it's their dark patterns and maybe (I am just guessing on this second one) they also do that extorting-companies-into-buying-ads-for-themselves thing like Google does.
I wish to be wrong but e.g. facebook has demonstrated that users don't really care. Not sure that anything can change that, although I would love to see it happen.
Facebook's user demographic _is_ shifting, though, and the conversation around the company and product in the media has changed significantly. That might not immediately show large effects, but network effects driving sign-up also work in reverse and could trigger an avalanche of users leaving in the future.
Google ads still work (command a good price) without the creepy stuff. "in Lisbon, searching for dentists." is enough for good as targeting. Facebook ads are near worthless without the creepy targeting and such.
Apple is in quite a unique position to distinguish themselves, if they choose.
I think Facebook will kill itself separate to everything else going on in the industry with regards to privacy. I think Facebook's value proposition is wearing thin.
Point being, there is some movement against this.