golondon

Hi, what's the infra behind this? What do you use to store events or only the count of them to generate the numbers?

Other question I have is, you seem to have returning visitors feature and as far as I understood, you store info in localStorage to be able to do that. I guess you're generating a uniq identifier to be able to that and store in the localStorage. Although it's not a cookie, semantically isn't kinda same thing? If you were to store those in cookies you would have needed to show cookie banner, but since it's in localStorage you don't have to?

Blind might give some idea, people share their offers there. I remember seeing some people asking about their FB London offers.

if FB stops using IDFA completely and just create the profile out of the logged in user ID, wouldn't that be enough? At the end of the day, mobile Facebook app gets most of its data from FB servers? So, If someone has liked /YellowBirds page and spent 2 hours on /BirdsBirdsBirds page, you kinda get they are into the birds? Wouldn't that already provide looots of information?

If they don't use IDFA, I guess they would loose capability of linking the events from different apps. I don't know targeted advertising world that much, but is that a big deal? I think even without cross app tracking, FB has capability to provide quite detailed targeting. I'm not sure why they reacted this aggressive, feels to me like there is egos involved, possibly Zuck struggling to accept Tim can force him to do something.

Other thing I wonder is how this notification going to look like in the apps using FB SDKs.

I wonder if Facebook will be able to find a way to collect not exactly same amount of data but most of the data it captures atm. Ok, if you like to access to uniq identifier that's going to trigger a confirmation modal but as we all know Facebook doesn't necessarily need to capture all the data from the mobile phone directly with their SDK.

Especially, if the user is logged in app owner can send data to their backend and send it to Facebook from there. Like many of those marketing / analytics companies ask you to do.

For the long term tracking, the app owners can still generate uniq identifier and store on device storage, can't they? I guess the only functionality Facebook or any ad network would lose will be cross-app tracking. But I'm not sure how important is that.

The initial reaction Facebook gave to this was too aggressive and Apple will push back for sure with their own way. We all have bloody cookie confirmation on all websites and people mostly just click ok. Isn't that gonna be the same for the apps? In iOS14 modal asking you for confirmation, is it gonna say "Facebook wants to access idfa?" or "X application wants to access idfa?"

I didn't say machines banned trump, I said evaluation of his tweets was in a context, not just what's written.

So, all social media companies must have representative in all countries that allow local govs to remove any content? Or get all of their info such as IP address?

Where is the line here? If I live in US and Tweet in Turkish, if Turkish gov ask for removal of that content should it be removed? Or should companies be required to share information about this user?

If I write that in another language, that local gov don't like, does it give Turkish gov right to get that removed?

Most of the time it might not be not just what you write but what that means in the context and which actions it triggers.

I would agree with this. Various world leaders did 10x of what Trump did on Twitter, but since it wasn’t in the US no actions were taken.

Yes, it can change any time and you can follow what's changed. It's also open to appeal to the company and I have seen mistakes corrected.

My point is there is no secret agenda to bring up a content that supports one view. What Turkish gov wants to achieve is that, taking down the content they don't like. They have taken over all mainstream TV channels and you wouldn't see a line of critic on any channel, if you do it's quite likely you will not be invited to debate next time.

I would also agree if the government had basic level of fairness to all of its citizens.

You assume Turkey has fair, not corrupted justice system, I can assure you that that's not the case. At the moment, it's quite political and almost impossible to rule anything against AKP or someone they have working relationship. So, a business man who has good relationship with the government can do something terrible and can easily get content that exposes this removed. This is not OK.

It's not the same thing. As long as you don't cause violence or you're not violating the terms of service which you accepted while joining to the service, they wouldn't remove your content or block you. Of course, you can come up with one off examples of ML models screwing things up but it's not the intention while developing those models.

Turkish government's intention here is getting content that criticise them removed, by asking to representative in Turkey who by the way must be a Turkish citizen, not just a person from any nationality who can speak Turkish. So that, they can apply Turkish law to this person if they would like to. If Youtube doesn't remove the content, possibly as they did with TV they are going to fine them.

I don't see this model working for long time and expecting most of the companies to pull their representatives soon, if they open the door of every country getting content removed however they like, I'm sure there will be other countries who would want that and it would be terrible for freedom of speech.

Seriously, what's the point of this post?

I wonder if there is a decision that can make everyone happy. If social media companies didn't do anything, they would get blamed for not doing anything to prevent what's happened in the Capitol building. If they do something, then the freedom of speech argument comes in.

Not an expert on freedom of online speech by any means, but how come private companies saying what the US president does is violation of their policy is a freedom of speech issue? When this happens to an ordinary user of the platform, is it freedom of speech issue as well? You accept terms and conditions when you signup, it's as simple as that. Why being the US president should give you right to be exempt from that policy?

If US president wants to talk, it has its official channels, he can organize meeting every day that they can host 100s of journalists. If US president wants he can write whatever he wants at his website. I really don't understand why political leaders continuously picture things like social media websites are the only medium the president can talk at?

I have criticism for the social media sites tho, if the president of where I'm from was doing what Trump has been doing I'm pretty sure they wouldn't give a damn and wouldn't take any actions. If social media companies want people to believe to their policies, they must apply them to everyone.