Software developers want to know whether their existing marketing methods are effective. The FB SDK helps with this. You always have the choice to not install the app (if you don't want to).
This also helps developers make sure their marketing is effective and reaching the right people, which seems like a win-win to me.
As you mention, this is something the software developer want, not necessarily the user.
>You always have the choice to not install the app (if you don't want to).
This argument may have some teeth if directed toward a user in our industry. Depending on the scope of the particular software in question, the majority of users is likely to be those outside the software industry; the layman. The argument falls flat when the other person doesn't have the necessary understanding to be able to perform thoughtful analysis.
>This also helps developers make sure their marketing is effective and reaching the right people, which seems like a win-win to me.
That may be one reason this practice is in-use. I don't see how it makes the difference: the software developer continues these practices with no consideration of their user, much less the user's consent or indication anything is going on at all. It's all about what the software developer wants, not the user and that's not OK.
I work in Software Development. Most of the time, the user doesn't know what he or she wants. They might feel that something is just not right, but don't know why, or cannot express why, because they don't know. Or don't care: I used to send out surveys, and the response rate was usually around 300 out of 50.000 confirmed users. That's... not much. At least for me, if I need to make major decisions.
My main takeaway with metrics is that I'm fine to give metrics to the vendor, as long as it's only me and the vendor, and as long as I know what it's used for. Also, it depends a lot on what is tracked.
Starting and closing the app, ways the user took to get to a certain point - I'm fine with that. But dare you transmitting my file names over to your server. Or any data I enter. That's none of your business.
It’s extremely unethical, and should be illegal.
There are much better argument for it being spyware, e.g., that it spies. It's not a very strong argument that a thing is bad simply because it helps the provider of the thing.
[1] although people might have issues with unethical or illegal uses.
I'm not sure I follow. If you're paying the same amount in either scenario, how are you adversely affected when a portion of your bill is allocated to a healthcare account?
>There are much better argument for it being spyware, e.g., that it spies. It's not a very strong argument that a thing is bad simply because it helps the provider of the thing.
I'm lost here, as well. Your argument is that I haven't made any arguments stronger than "that it spies"? I agree that stating only "that it spies" would be lacking critical thought and analysis, but my arguments have been more specific. The whole "it spies" assertion, generally speaking, is the basis for the more detailed responses I've submitted to this discussion.
That the user was “sold” to is not inherently positive. Not all products are good. Not all users can afford products they’re buying. Not all users necessarily understand they’re paying in ways they’re unaware of.
Straying away from social media in this example, cigarettes and alcohol feel like good candidates here.
Before this article came out was this information available to the users to help them in making this decision.
No, it was not! Hence the problem.
If the app is paid-for, it's less forgivable to be using this kind of spyware.
up until now I wasn't even aware of the facebook sdk or that say, spotify is sharing my data with facebook even if I don't use their login option so it's pretty hard to make a informed decision.
Is this even legal under GDPR?
I guess you could always complain about it to your country's data protection watchdog and then we'll all find out?
- Upton Sinclair (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upton_Sinclair)
That’s user-hostile.
The problem with saying “just don’t install the app” is that you have to be informed first, and that even then you have no real choice. If you want to take part in digital social networks you must surrender control and privacy. If your data is a valuable commodity you should be able to decide who gets what, just like you decide with your money. But you can’t, not really.
You also have the choice to consider the practice questionable, unethical, a systemic problem once it becomes widespread; to highlight it in public posts and forums, to protest how widespread it has become, to believe that it should be illegal in the context of consumer and privacy protections, to lobby for making it illegal, etc.
If I were to project this pattern 10 steps further, a software developer may want to know the gender and emotional state of the user installing their software using the front camera. That would also be a spyware, but it's on the higher end of the spyware spectrum.
so what?
It’s win-win for facebook and the app developer. It’s only lose for the actual user.
