Earlier quoted context omitted.
Advertising is not a product
gestures broadly at advertising everywhere OK, I’ll bite, then what is it?
They Live with the glasses on.
The EU's war on behavioral advertising
221–230 of 420 posts
Re: The EU's war on behavioral advertising
#222Earlier quoted context omitted.
Canada is saying FB has to pay if they want news on their platform. FB doesn't make any money off of promoting news articles for free, so they take news off their platform. What's the controversy? Was FB just supposed to pay for news out of their own goodwill? I'm no Meta defender but I'm also very confused about what the legislators thought the law was supposed to do.
> what the legislators thought the law was supposed to do. I suppose it was to protect the (online) newspapers? In a more general way, not let the internet become facebooknet?
How does it protect online news websites to prevent people from sharing links to their articles on social media? That's a major discovery mechanism for their content.
Re: The EU's war on behavioral advertising
#223As a lawyer working on these topics, this is a poor phrasing. EU regulators don't need to "war" with advertisers - they have complete control over them. There's no other side of this war, just regulators issuing commands that industry tries to follow. It's confusing as a war is because the regulators decided not to make the law say, 'behavioral advertising is illegal,' and instead have spent years slowly awakening to…
This doesn't make sense to me. You make it sound like a rosy cooperative relationship where advertisers want to follow the rules and regulators just haven't made them. Even so, regulation isn't "complete control" in any way. It seems more like the advertisers are always going to try to make the advertisements as effective as possible while toeing the letter of the law as closely as possible and ignoring the spirit of…
I'm saying the laws EU has released are too complex and indirect and cost too much money, and that if they wanted to ban behavioral advertising outright they should have and could have done that instead of what they have done.
Re: The EU's war on behavioral advertising
#224Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're right, it's just that the word "abuse" is doing a lot of work in that statement. I've still never seen any example of any person being actually damaged by the "tracking", so calling it "abuse" feels pretty harsh.
I think "abuse" is a fair term, but I acknowledge that it's emotionally loaded. If a company is spying on me (collecting data about me, my machines, or my use of my machines without my informed consent), then I think it's not out of line to call that abusive.
Every web server logs request information. Is that spying on you too? If you go to a website, they aren't "spying" on you, you are volunteering your information to them. Stop hitting yourself.
Re: The EU's war on behavioral advertising
#225The EU's war is on US companies. They wouldn't be playing fast and loose with these regulations if their home born companies were the ones getting disadvantaged. They push draconian surveillance laws then claim sainthood when they go after Facebook. I guess you can hate Facebook et al and welcome this stuff but it's hard to deny how these laws are basically trade barriers aimed at the US tech industry.
I violently agree with you and am stunned at the amount of pro EU/anti US rhetoric on this forum.
You make an excellent point about the EU surveillance laws. They clearly don’t give a shit about privacy. None of the folks disagreeing ITT seem to be willing to discuss that point.
The EU spends more resources regulating US corporations than they do building their own. If they want to reverse course on their economic trajectory they’re gonna have to start competing in a genuine way.
Re: The EU's war on behavioral advertising
#226Earlier quoted context omitted.
Twitter and youtube had chronological feeds for years.
5 min on yt shorts and I'm fed a diet of Andrew-Tate, Joe Rogan, or if I disagree with this genre and rage-click it away, I get left-wing US hate on why aren't you outraged about Dave Chapelle - because you should be? Youtube feed for content discovery of intelligent men has died long time ago. It is US propaganda at it's finest but for a global audience.
Don't watch YouTube Shorts then.
Re: The EU's war on behavioral advertising
#227Uh... hmmm. I work in the industry and this article is very even handed but still a bit off. We don't really have have a term for "behavioral" advertising. So a lot of things are being lumped together that don't necessarily fit. For example, Facebook USED to be highly valued because of the amount of "targeting" (again, we don't use the term "behavioral") data they had. When you went to tell FB what you liked and didn…
Great post. Adding that the article misreads the legal events too. The Norwegian decision for FB isn't a watershed moment. The Irish enforcement against them is not.
Re: The EU's war on behavioral advertising
#228Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you read how vague the laws are. It's all designed to extract fines from US companies.
The TL:DR of GDPR is "just don't drack your users without their consent". Why is that difficult for US corporations to follow? Even '90s web was by default GDPR complaint.
I've implemented gdpr. It's much more than that.
Re: The EU's war on behavioral advertising
#229Earlier quoted context omitted.
gestures broadly at advertising everywhere OK, I’ll bite, then what is it?
Infinite money glitch for big tech, with dramatic externalities pushed to non-consenting general population. These externalities include death of traditional media, extreme levels of political polarization, and climbing suicide rate of teenagers, girls in particular. These things are caused in very large part by the big tech companies maximizing consumption of ads, and efficiency of ads targeting.
> death of traditional media
Well if adverting is so bad, and old media relied on advertising, Tech was doing the world a favor by starving them out.
We should be thanking Google for exposing the corruption that was the old media advertising empire
Re: The EU's war on behavioral advertising
#230Earlier quoted context omitted.
This doesn't make sense to me. You make it sound like a rosy cooperative relationship where advertisers want to follow the rules and regulators just haven't made them. Even so, regulation isn't "complete control" in any way. It seems more like the advertisers are always going to try to make the advertisements as effective as possible while toeing the letter of the law as closely as possible and ignoring the spirit of…
I'm saying the laws EU has released are too complex and indirect and cost too much money, and that if they wanted to ban behavioral advertising outright they should have and could have done that instead of what they have done.
Could you give some details about which provisions of those laws are too complex/cost too much money to comply with, and why?