Live data from Hacker News

The EU's war on behavioral advertising

thisisunpacked.substack.com

311–320 of 420 posts

Re: The EU's war on behavioral advertising

#311

"Legitimate interest" is the universal GDPR loophole. This one needs to be closed asap.

I still don't understand what legitimate interest even means.

Hmmm.

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-re...

Until I read that, I held the belief that GDPR was really pretty clear and easy to implement. But reading that, it seems to me that the ICO doesn't really have a clue how you're supposed to distinguish a legitimate interest from an illegitimate one.

Perhaps the "legitimate interest" base needs to be deleted. It looks like a deliberate loophole.

Re: The EU's war on behavioral advertising

#312
post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is EU really trying to slow it down? TikTok ban in US seems to be a common talking point. Meanwhile here very few people talk about it and those are seen as lunatics in most cases. Most people seem to happily approve all the GDPR dialogs too. While doomscrolling TikTok/Instagram/FB.

When you have a truly compliant gdpr dialog, aka simple yes/no, I found lots of non tech people around me click no. I'd say about 50%

We serve a web application for logistics so our users are planners, administrative people, drivers, etc and we see the same behaviour. A lot of users ignore the dialog (so no analytics can be used, default to answering no) and learn to live with the cookie pop-up in the corner of the screen.. :-D

Re: The EU's war on behavioral advertising

#313

I think the author has the terms "opt-in" and "opt-out" reversed, which was a bit confusing. If something is "opt-in", then you have to explicitly decide to opt-in, which means that by default you won't be included. A good example of this is organ donation. Some countries have it opt-in (i.e., you have to decide to donate), whereas in other countries it is opt-out (so you are a donor by default).

"opt-in by default" kinda makes sense as a combination of words, but you're right that people just usually call it "opt-out" (and vice versa)

Re: The EU's war on behavioral advertising

#314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was an interesting comparison of behavioral vs non-behavioral ads, thanks. But my question was geared towards the value of advertising itself, in general (if there is any). I am aware of the unknown unknown problem you mentioned (I think), but in my experience as a layman, very very rarely (if ever) was I introduced to a great product or service through advertising that I wouldn't be aware of in other ways. Conv…

Thanks, this does mirror my experience in many ways so I'll try to reply to each of your points. In my comment, I did talk about the value of advertising itself (not just contextual/behavioural). Regarding your experience, a lot of advertising is retargeting or keeping the brand alive in the minds of buyers or remind them constantly (since humans are forgetful). This statistically increases the probability of purchas…

Wow, thanks for the really long and thoughtful answer!

I think your answer made me realize something which might explain some of the different viewpoints we have.

You seem to have the general idea that, with some exceptions, ads are useful. This reminds me of my experience of doing a coast-to-coast road trip in the US and being amazed at how many more signs with ads I would see by the road and inside towns, compared to Europe. I was also fascinated by the radio ads, as everything was so different than what I was used to. The amount, creativity and sheer diversity of ads was astounding and something to behold.

As a tourist, I associate these ads positively in my mind because in many cases, I would have no idea of all the different things that there were around me if I didn't see those ads, like restaurants, museums, supermarkets, local attractions, etc. A few of these ads were extremely useful, but many were also interesting because it made me experience a part of American culture that I wouldn't experience otherwise, including its great capitalistic nature (I love capitalism itself) and all the variety of businesses that there were. Perhaps with the occasional exception, I don't recall these ads being obnoxious.

My experience with ads as a European citizen is the polar opposite. Here, I don't find them useful at all. I always see all the same ads, all the time. They're repetitive, loud, obnoxious, with no creativity, no diversity and transmit no useful information.

It's mostly large, multinational companies, with the occasional local or national company whose ad you see or hear over and over again, thousands of times, to the point of exhaustion. This is especially true in TV, radio (including online radio) and also the same outdoor signs which you always encounter when driving to the same spots.

If you've seen one Coca Cola ad, you've seen all the other thousand of them, basically. Especially when they are exactly the same ad. But I can't turn them off. It can get quite maddening when your favorite local radio only has 3 ad spots and they're always the exact same obnoxious ads, for months on end. Or when you're watching TV and it goes to commercials and you always see exactly the same $huge_company ads, in the same exact order, over and over again.

Online ads, such as in Youtube or social platforms, can in most cases be a similar experience. In my subjective experience, it seems like I've been exposed to 1000x more Coca Cola, Burger King, and $giant_car_brand type ads than things which could actually be useful to me.

Really, the only memorable experiences which begin to approach your arguments in favor of useful ads is if, say, I'm watching some video or podcast about some really niche topic and most or all the ads are related to that topic. The vast majority of these are still completely useless to me, but at least I don't find these as obnoxious as the generic ones as long as they're not too repetitive or in-your-face (which unfortunately is also common).

I also have the anecdotal experience of buying many different types of ads for a local business of an acquaintance, for extended periods of time, to see what worked and what didn't. This includes times when it was just physical ads (geographically constrained), or just online ads, in different ad platforms, at first somewhat generic but later increasingly targeted ads, to the point where in the end we were only showing ads to people we thought would definitely be interested in the service. We also tried a company that specializes in online ads. Perhaps our experience was not representative, but I can tell you without a doubt that it was a complete waste of time and money, as the acquired customers were very few and very low quality. What really worked, by far, was simply stopping the ads and relying on word-of-mouth recommendations. That's how the business really got going. This is not a niche business, it is something that is occasionally needed by most people, either by going to the business physically or online. The competition was only small, mostly local businesses, there are exactly zero large national or multinational businesses in this market.

So I don't know, maybe the ad market here where I live is crap or maybe it's simply that it's completely dominated by all the giant companies, but all I can tell you is that I would praise the Gods if all ads magically disappeared tomorrow.

Re: The EU's war on behavioral advertising

#315
post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The actually ridiculous part is not that. It’s the fact that our browsers don’t solve this issue in a standardized way. Everyone who serves HTTP in the Eu and includes third party tracking, shows you an idiosyncratic consent banner. Often these things download a large amount of JS as well. That’s completely and utterly idiotic. - It’s confusing for users. - It interrupts the user’s flow everytime they visit a site. -…

There's already DNT(Do not track) in the browsers, but nobody respects it.

So would a law that makes illegal to respect it + actual enforcement of said law be the missing approach here?

Re: The EU's war on behavioral advertising

#316
post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t set cookies. Don’t capture Personal data. You’re 90% there.

Spoken like a person who never even touched it even on a small project. No cookies... so no language preferences. That is a profile cookie. Right to erasure. What about invoices and orders? When can it be anonymous and when is it old enough to anonymize. Do I get away with replacing personal data random data? Do I replace references to real people with 'anonymous person'? Will my sql constraints still work? When I re…

> Spoken like a person who never even touched it even on a small project.

You can find guidance or good advice online for all of your questions.

> No cookies... so no language preferences. That is a profile cookie.

This is one of the examples of “strictly necessary” cookies, which do not require consent. See section 3.6 here: https://ec.europa.eu/justice/article-29/documentation/opinio...

> Right to erasure. What about invoices and orders? When can it be anonymous and when is it old enough to anonymize.

Invoices should typically fall under the “legal obligation” legal basis (article 6(1)c). See for how long the law requires you to keep them. In my country, it's 10 years.

>Do I get away with replacing personal data random data?

Yes, see WP216.

>Do I replace references to real people with 'anonymous person'? Will my sql constraints still work?

How do you do when someone deletes their account?

>When I restore data from backup and someone has been anonymized in the meantime, what mechanism will be used to anonymize the user after restore?

It's up to you to decide.

>Right to data portability. How much of the database and in what format?

The same as for a DSAR. As for the format, it's up to you to decide, provided it is a commonly used format.

Re: The EU's war on behavioral advertising

#317
post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I work in the industry > I don't work in advertising ??

Not the same person

No, it is the same person.

Both are quotes from 'legitster':

> I don't work in advertising

from

> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37266627

and

> I work in the industry

from

> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37264230

>

Re: The EU's war on behavioral advertising

#318
post #246

The 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.

How do you come to that conclusion? These laws apply to all EU based companies while non-EU companies have the clear option to opt out of them, which many do. If you want to do business within the EU, then you need to respect citizen privacy. Though I do agree that they should eat their own medicine, but here in the EU, we do tend to view private corporations as less worthy of our data than our own governments. That…

1. The magnitute of effect these laws have on EU companies is miniscule compared to the effect on the US tech giants

2. The EU has no honest respect over the people's privacy as they fully surveil their citizens

Thus it ia very safe to conclude that the EU pretends to care about people's privacy as an excuse to protect it's industry against the ultra-high yields of US tech companies

Re: The EU's war on behavioral advertising

#319
post #279
post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The actually ridiculous part is not that. It’s the fact that our browsers don’t solve this issue in a standardized way. Everyone who serves HTTP in the Eu and includes third party tracking, shows you an idiosyncratic consent banner. Often these things download a large amount of JS as well. That’s completely and utterly idiotic. - It’s confusing for users. - It interrupts the user’s flow everytime they visit a site. -…

> Everyone who serves HTTP in the Eu and includes third party tracking, shows you an idiosyncratic consent banner. Often these things download a large amount of JS as well. > That’s completely and utterly idiotic. Yes. And that's not the fault of the law, but the fault of the companies. 1. The law doesn't talk about browsers, or cookies, or banners. It's a General Data Protection Regulation. It applies in equal measu…

I’m not attacking the law. I’m attacking the implementation and the lack of Web standards to accommodate user privacy.

Re: The EU's war on behavioral advertising

#320
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Anything that chokes off the flow of money via advertising to these companies is a two-tier win in my book. So you want paywalls for every service?

You don’t need to track people to pay for things with ads. You can advertise based on the surrounding content pretty effectively. It’s what TV channels have done for years. Behavior ads or paywall is a false dichotomy.

And news papers. And a long time ago, that's how Google ads worked too.

Contextually relevant, non-intrusive, respectfully done untargeted advertising is acceptable. Quoting myself from earlier times: https://bostik.iki.fi/aivoituksia/random/no-stalking.html

Post reply on HN