[dhnajsjdnd]

You said:

> by tracking user behavior without consent so that they. can sell targeted ads, and by keeping users engaged with the ad delivery platform by presenting content algorithmically selected to provoke emotional reactions.

Some things in here are the core business model, others are implementation choices that don’t have to be true (like the sweatshops). I don’t think it’s reasonable to say that the lawsuit should fail because they didn’t lead it with a list of complaints people have about the company (not would I expect Apple to include the same in their response).

[zepto]

“others are implementation choices that don’t have to be true”

Are you able to identify one of these implementation choices that don’t have to be true?

[dhnajsjdnd]

Sure, “tracking without consent” is an easy one.

[zepto]

It seems like Zuckerberg disagrees with you on that. He seems to think it is a very important part of their business.

I’d like to believe you are right and it’s just an implementation choice, but Facebook seems very determined to be able to continue the practice.

[dhnajsjdnd]

I expect the lawsuit will be about how Apple is requiring users to opt-in for companies to be able to track ad conversions in some places but not others.

Will require opt-in to track:

Facebook ad conversion to buy an item in Wish’s store

Facebook ad conversion to buy an app from App Store

Won’t require opt-in to track:

Amazon ad conversion to buy an item from a store on Amazon

Apple App Store ad conversion to buy an app from the App Store

Facebook’s proposed remedy might be removing the opt-in requirement, or adding the same requirement uniformly to create a level playing field.

[zepto]

Why would this be relevant if tracking without consent is just an implementation choice?

Why even bother with a lawsuit over it if it’s not an important part of their business?

Wouldn’t they just let users opt-out if the wanted to?

In any case, I think we have established that my characterization of facebook’s business was accurate. They wouldn’t be seeking remedies for something that wasn’t important to them.

[dhnajsjdnd]

Because enough money is at stake to make it worthwhile to pay the lawyers, I’d imagine.

> Wouldn’t they just let users opt-out of the wanted to?

Users already could opt-out. I imagine the lawsuit will be about Apple’s recent changes, which unevenly apply an opt-in requirement that arguably picks winners and losers (see above).

> In any case, I think we have established that my characterization of facebook’s business was accurate. They wouldn’t be seeking remedies for something that wasn’t important to them.

Your claim is that Facebook is trying to mislead people about the lawsuit, and I don’t think you’ve established that at all.