Switching to the mobile web version of Instagram on a UBO-enabled browser has been a gift of sorts.
Because the website can't run in the background like an app, it can't preload anything. Launching takes a few moments to show posts, and videos don't autoplay.
Any time the mobile website shows you a prompt to use the app for "an improved experience", they really just mean "for better tracking and personalized ads".
I've been working on native mobile apps in the last couple of years, and I realized the only reason companies want to push native apps is because they can do whatever they want with the tracking and 3rd party stuff in general.
Seriously this native apps world is so backwards compared to the web...
I'll take youtube as an example, on the mobile web app you can block most ads and you don't get the latest stupid features youtube is trying to push for some reason.
Sometimes I'm brought back to the native app through a link and I'm shocked.
The only reason I keep it is Chromecast support.
Depending on your feeling towards the ethics of it:
YouTube Vanced (3rd party YouTube app) with its integrated sponsorblock actually makes the app pleasant to use, it also unlocks some of the premium only features like background play.
No root required, although you're buggered if you run iOS presumably
Nice app, but I had to uninstall it after a week due to frankly ludicrous battery usage. My phone (pixel 3) battery typically lasts for 2-3 days between full charges, but with YouTube Vanced installed I was running out of battery by 8pm. I want to like this app, but the battery drain was insane.
How long have you been doing this and has it caused you to get locked out your account at all? I used to use instagram on desktop only but the account kept getting suspended, which stopped happening once I reverted back to using the mobile app. Anecdotally heard this was happening with other people too. Would be useful if mobile web was a work around?
Not parent, but I've been using the mobile web variant for a while and have had no issues with my account being locked. In the past I have used the desktop browser on rare occasions, but a majority of the account activities are done through the WebKit Firefox (iOS).
It's never happened, and I have 2 IG accounts, both running on FF Android.
Best part of using it in a browser is that I can open links in new tabs. So I dont have that issue where going back to the homepage causes the feed to refresh.
How did you go about getting it unlocked? Mine has been locked and now I suspect this is why, but I can’t get any sort of response from Instagram in any way.
I was trapped by a 'bug' that meant the verification code system was broke. After a couple weeks of no luck I coincidentally set up pi-hole on my laptop and it seemed to de-bug the page or do something to otherwise break the loop that had me stuck, which resulted in me getting my account back. At the moment I'm using insta on mobile again as I'm not convinced I can repeat the fix a second time but am keen to move my business off there and somewhere else
I've found switching to the web version of social apps to be better anyway. Stops me visiting them as frequently if nothing else. I'm actively deciding to visit now rather than mindlessly opening the apps in order
It's been surprising how much I stopped thinking about social media entirely since doing this. Not to mention that the mobile web experience is often purposely crippled to try and funnel you back into native.
Add in the need to get my timeboxed 2FA code to login and I'll begin to realize how little there is to gain relative to the trouble of actually logging in.
They also don't update the features a lot which has some perks.
The calendar on events on facebook mobile website is a simple calendar that shows your events that you are invited to. The desktop and mobile app make it a pain to see just your friend events since they're pushing event discovery too.
This! For this reason, Facebook Marketplace for mobile web is better than the app version, because it doesn't have the useless "ship to me" option that no one wants and no one will ever use (yet Facebook makes the default and resets after every search).
I've done a mild version of this with some success, putting the apps in a separate homescreen, or deleting them from the homescreen altogether so I'm forced to go into the app drawer. Unfortunately my mind still finds itself swiping down the iOS search bar to hunt for them. It really is a compulsive addiction of sorts.
China. Lots to take issue with, but when they want policy followed, they back it with force (Jack Ma, delisting Didi, forcing Evergrandes’ founder to liquidate his wealth to make at risk stakeholders on shore whole).
Enron. I guess the SEC takes things more seriously than, well, I'm not totally sure what government agency is responsible for protecting their constituency's private data...
It's a prisoner's dilemma. Regulators have been made scared of the concept of having a part in making a different monopoly if they cripple the existing near monopolistic companies.
Who cares? They can just topple them again, every time one company grows too powerful. Just like mowing my lawn: I don’t complain that if I mow the grass, it’ll come back. I just mow it every time it grows too high.
It’s all part of the churn, and the government has abdicated their role of monopoly lawnmower.
Users indicated they didn't want to be tracked. Wiretapping, and other stalking laws can be used for this, it isn't Facebook's first brush with the law so the fines should reflect that.
The title seems inaccurate, and the outrage seems based on the title rather than the actual content. The article text explicitly says that the data is "anonymized and aggregated". How is that tracking?
What the FT article claims is that Apple has shifted towards a much more lenient interpretation of App Store rules when it comes to user tracking. The original title is "Apple reaches quiet truce over iPhone privacy changes".
What Apple means by tracking is linking data from individual app users to third party data [1].
So in my view, it would indeed be a shift in Apple's position if they now accept that apps can link an individual's data to third party data as long as they somehow aggregate the result (e.g by creating cohorts) before actually targeting ads. But it's unclear to me whether they do in fact accept that.
I think merely mentioning aggregation is not enough to determine whether or not Apple has changed its position on this.
How could a request from my phone to facebook servers, containing my IP Address and location possibly be "anonymized and aggregated."
It aggregates data from _all_ the people using my phone, in my home, on my wifi? Or does the anonymization happen after the request is sent to fb servers? Can I audit their machines to verify this?
The anonymization and aggregation is left up to the third party with no way to enforce it. Apple basically gave up and it seems now just says “please be nice ok? Thanks!” While still advertising to consumers that their devices are privacy friendly. This is something to be upset about.
> Lockdown Privacy, an app that blocks ad trackers, has called Apple’s policy “functionally useless in stopping third-party tracking.” It performed a variety of tests on top apps and observed that personal data and device information is still “being sent to trackers in almost all cases.”
The "if you don't like it, don't user their product" crowd seems to be unaware of tracking pixels, shadows profiles, "like" widgets, reCaptcha, etc. Basically the last 20 years of adware "innovation". I'd love to be able to tell Facebook to DIAF and never run their code again, but for some reason they're not keen on respecting my wishes.
Apple fighting it on a technical level or playing tough in private negotiations is one thing, but do you truly expect Apple's customers would be pleased if Tim decides in their stead that Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat are off-limits? They have their own profit motives and you can be damn sure they will not hurt them in the name of a privacy crusade. Walling out small time apps with marginal use from your garden is a safe play, doing so with apps used by a crushing majority of your users is a whole different story.
They could just disable new device installs and allow existing users to continue using it. That would be enough to motivate them to correct behavior without causing an uproar. Existing users wouldn't even notice.
Equally likely to be enough motivation for potential iPhone buyers to instead get a Pixel or whatever other top-end phones are made for Android. That seems like a more likely compass for Apple's decision making. Besides, when has there even been uproar that translated into material change of users behavior like an exodus? We're a bunch of self-selected nerds/geeks on this forum which makes us forget how much people do not give a shit about privacy issues and other wrong-doings of the FAAMGs. If they do care, the threshold is either really hard to cross or the addiction/network effect too strong to move the needle. These controversies come and go - The Social Network, Cambridge Analytica, addiction/dopamine, Social Dilemma, Chinese interference (TikTok), censorship, election manipulation, terrorism funnels and countless other issues - but users, as an aggregate, they just come. Same way they never stopped buying iPhones despite suicide nets at Foxconn's factories or coffee made with child labor.
What users would care about is if you'd tell them "No, you can't use these apps with billions of users on our phones". I'm ready to be proven wrong, but I'd take a bet Apple will not act on delisting or banning updates for Facebook & Instagram, that's wishful thinking in my book. Their morale high ground PR is clearly effective however.
It could be like Flash: everyone agrees it’s awful, nobody wants to lose it on their device… but if Apple cuts off a large enough share of the market, it could be enough to cut down Facebook forever.
The article says that Apple is allowing this behavior from developers - so I think the unhappiness should be addressed at Apple. Users clicked do not track but apps can still log your ip, and fingerprint you by your groups.
> an unacknowledged shift that lets companies follow a much looser interpretation of its controversial privacy policy." Apple has instructed developers that they "may not derive data from a device for the purpose of uniquely identifying it," an unacknowledged shift that lets companies follow a much looser interpretation of its controversial privacy policy." Apple has instructed developers that they "may not derive data from a device for the purpose of uniquely identifying it," which developers have interpreted to mean that they can still observe "signals" and behaviors from groups of users instead, enabling these groups to be shown tailored ads anyway.
>Apple has not explicitly endorsed these techniques, but they allow third parties to track and analyze groups of users regardless of whether or not they have given consent to user-level tracking. In addition, Apple reportedly continues to trust apps to collect user-level data such as IP address, location, language, device, and screen size, even though some of this information is passed onto advertisers.
So this makes the do not track almost worthless. Few advertisers will say show this ad to John Doe who lives at 341 maple avenue, but they will say things like show this ad to people living in Cincinnati between the ages of 20 and 30. And once you belong to enough ad groups, 6 or 7, you can be uniquely fingerprinted anyway.
Right, if Apple is serious about privacy they should give Facebook and Snapchat two weeks to comply and then just yank the apps. No extention, no exception, comply or your app is killed.
Clearly they're only serious about privacy until it could impact the bottom line. Despite the removals only helping users in the long run, removing two of their most popular apps (Snapchat is routinely #1 overall) would result in blowback towards Apple.
Yep, but let us also remind our self how stupid that line of argumentation is. Apple needs to let at least Facebook track us, if they don’t Apple will lose millions of customers. Even if Apple truly want to be serious regarding privacy, the majority of their user base won’t let them.
The vast majority of users don't really understand what's going on. All they'll know is that Apple pulled two apps that they use all the time, and they'll blame Apple for it. Yes, it's stupid, but it's the unfortunate reality.
I do use Snapchat, but I would 100% support Apple pulling the app until they fall in line with proper privacy controls. Unfortunately I'm in the minority, and both Apple and Snapchat know this.
yeah, it's pretty frustrating, regular people on the street and even semi-technical people I talk to say "Oh, Apple is just as bad as all the others"
They legitimately don't understand the difference between Facebook tracking every detail about your life and Apple having an account with your name on it
They seem serious about privacy but also their user experience. While that would be a win for privacy it would be a huge loss for most users. Apple also has a duty to prioritize user preferences.
I’m saying this as a non user of any of the apps listed (I only use HN, LinkedIn and Reddit personally)
So does this mainly come down to fingerprinting, as a replacement for traditional ad IDs (which should be blocked at a system level when you opt out)?
If so, it seems solvable by Apple (through a combination of introducing noise/imprecision, and gating more things behind user-controllable app permissions)
Is people still using Facebook? I’ve been using it less and less for the last year, and save one or two hyper engaged friends, most of my friends seem to have moved on from FB
The elephant in the room here is the GDPR. None of this is compliant (has never been) and yet is allowed to continue out in the open despite the regulation going into effect almost 4 years ago now.
In fact, an argument could be made that Apple is complicit. Apple has a history of removing/rejecting apps that are used for illegal activities such as copyright infringement or even just breaking some company's ToS. Yet, they do nothing for apps that brazenly breach the GDPR.
Facebook is incorporated in Ireland for tax purposes, as are many other US tech companies. This means that Facebook's GDPR violations are enforced by the Irish DPA. This is a conflict of interest for the Irish government: if they are not hospitable to US tech giants, they may lose their status as a favored tax haven. The Irish DPA has given all indications that it is compromised, and this is a sore point for the regulators in other major EU countries, notably France and Germany.
Just FYI, these are not compliant either, but the same problem above is the reason they're still around.
A compliant cookie banner (or rather consent flow, as the GDPR covers more than just cookies) should not be annoying - it should be as easy to decline as it is to accept and dark patterns aren't allowed.
Well, I've found and read the source for the DSP part. The small OS on the modem processor on my current phone actually is open source, and hardly use the modem anyway since I've switched to VOIP for voice and SMS/MMS.
Because the website can't run in the background like an app, it can't preload anything. Launching takes a few moments to show posts, and videos don't autoplay.
Any time the mobile website shows you a prompt to use the app for "an improved experience", they really just mean "for better tracking and personalized ads".