Facebook and Facebook historically:


Apple and Facebook, privacy or openness? Or status gadgets and hypocrisy? The battle of the tech giants, apparently, is beginning to turn into a war of worldviews. More precisely, the contradictions between the philosophy and the missions of the companies are becoming more acute.


In fact:


By and large, they do not differ in their fundamental essence. They have long been a political force focused solely on their own needs. Whatever they openly declare, what social projects they did not support – the whole truth is in the annual reports.




Apple and Facebook are very different, but they are Big Tech giants. Therefore, Apple was able to increase its sales to $ 274 billion due to the sale of equipment. And at the same time, Facebook made almost $ 86 billion by selling online advertising content.


Short circuit location:


The intersection of these parallel lines in the one-dimensional focus of increasing profits did not slow down to manifest itself. Namely: the release of Apple updates of iOS14 modifications.5. What is the matter? It turns out that the long-announced privacy feature requires explicit permissions. Yes, that is, now you need to choose with whom and what you want to share. Share is an inaccurate word, rather a diplomatic variant of “provide” or “report” about a page visit or interest in something.



After all, for someone, a “chair” is just a chair in the kitchen, for someone – a Viennese chair with a high carved back, and for someone – a three-legged low chair…


So it is here: the explicit reframing of the word “share” is offensive to the part of humanity that prefers honest product information. “Share” means “exchange on a voluntary basis”, without subtext, like charity.




In communities with a certain amount of humor, another logical question already arises. That now it’s probably time for Facebook itself to start “sharing” with users. Or determine the value of that information. That is, why is there no alternative? Or – “share”, or-provide access to personal information (preferences, routes, etc.) on a paid basis. The user has the information, the Factbook has the infrastructure to monetize it, why not cooperate? And when the flow of free data (that is, this information has now long since paid off the investment) is restricted by someone, it is bad for Facebook.




Restricting the flow of data to a category such as Apple product users is clearly detrimental to Facebook. So much so that Mark Zuckerberg started openly blaming Tim Cook. He blamed him for the fact that these restrictions reduce the opportunities for small businesses and make it more expensive to access the Internet.




To which Tim Cook replied that the right to privacy is a constitutional right.


That is, as expected, this battle is moving from the marketing and economic plane to the political one. The main difference between this approach is that the arguments are not essential – the main thing is to attract the masses of users – and in fact, the electorate. And here, as always in politics-any means are good.


In conclusion:


Of course, users must make an informed choice themselves. It doesn’t matter how much they want or don’t want to provide data about themselves for analysis. It’s just a matter of mutual social responsibility, both for companies and for people.

Leave a Reply

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

GPD Host Contacts
GPD Host Social
Pay with Confidence

Copyright © 2015 - 2020 GPD Host All right reserved.