[SergeAx]

Devil advocating attempt: they obviously did a measure how much of their userbase will allow the app to serve personalized ads and how it will impact their revenue. Even if it is in a ballpark of 10%, it is still a ton of money and, as a commercial enterprise acting in the interests of its shareholders, FB should do it's best to avoid or reduce potential damage.

[reaperducer]

should do it's best to avoid or reduce potential damage.

The way to reduce potential damage is to evolve, adapt, pivot, and diversify. Not to kick and scream.

Facebook has enough money and enough smart people to do and be anything it wants. It chooses to be the neighborhood creep in the bushes watching your daughter through your windows.

[edmundsauto]

Facebook is sufficiently loathed on HN that I would caution against using absurd emotion inducing analogies like “watching your daughter through your windows”. Not only is this needlessly gendered (would I not be upset by someone watching my son?), but it’s also a call to rally base and pure emotion. It almost feels as if you want to whip up a mob of digital citizens.

It is enough to highlight the policies and products of Facebook that you disapprove of.

[SergeAx]

Still devil advocating. Imagine you have a well developed silver mine, which produces a metric ton of silver every week. And you have an idea that there can be a gold vein somewhere on your land plot. But to find and develop it you should spend a lot of resources, including your well trained miner workforce. Rational decision would be to maybe do some research on a "last served" basis and continue to expand your silver mine, which is your primary source of income, until it depleted (if it will deplete at all, you don't know it for sure).

[ummonk]

I recall reading the percent of people refusing consent was something like 95%. No idea how much that will impact revenue though.

[SergeAx]

I've heard about 40%, which is still a lot. And it doesn't mean 40% revenue drop: non-personalized ads will still make money.