[pvg]

pretty naive argument and distinction as well.

when did the argument move from "advertising bad, tracking data always bad, targeted advertising terrible" to "if Apple does it then I'm good with it"?

It'd be a lot cooler if you could respond to my actual argument without namecalling and putting words in my mouth. For one thing, it's rude; for another, it doesn't contain much of a counter-argument.

You said the distinction between what Apple does and Google does is 'thin'. The distinction is Apple does this in two specific services of their own, one of which is completely optional and in both cases, the cohort bucketing and tracking can be turned off. Google is putting it in the browser people use to do just about everything on the internet. A roughly similar thing would be Apple adding cohort bucketing to Safari. They haven't. These seem, to me at least, some significant distinctions. Why do you think they aren't?

[dialtone]

I replied. You are considering Apple's system better despite the fact that Apple's goal is to re create the web environment in their own apps so they can monetize it in their platform.

So your argument is maybe valid (I don't think so, tracking is tracking and this isn't just contextual targeting) only now, as time goes by and Apple accumulates more power your argument is back to being invalid again.