Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The EU's war on behavioral advertising

thisisunpacked.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 420 posts

Re: The EU's war on behavioral advertising

#301

Post by developer93 »

LelouBil wrote: post #288
mantas wrote: 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%

Personally I nearly always take the time to scroll through and untick all the permissions, or find a different site because screw them, that's why. I realise I'm in the minority.

Re: The EU's war on behavioral advertising

#302

Post by orwin »

seydor wrote: post #108
orwin wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The pirate party, not the green party, had a bit of support in Scandinavia, a lot less in Germany, and in France, in 2011, they could barely present 200 candidates in 50k areas, and i'm pretty sure their only access to 'powerful' people was the condescending sympathy of a single billionaire and maybe some secret service. And a single member in the French parliament (900+) ever listened to pro-liberty lobbies like lqd…

the gdpr was initiated by german greens

Legislatively, yes. Politically, it's from ex-members of the 2011 pirate party (many of its members ended up in the greens).

And I'm arguing against 'it's not grassroot'. My argument is that it's as grassroot as support for Snowden, wikilealks, whistle-blower protection. Because all of the was in the 2011 pirate party manifesto. It happened that only this legislation caught interest of other parties, but it's origin is grassroot. Have you heard of framasoft?

Re: The EU's war on behavioral advertising

#303

Post by developer93 »

troupo wrote: post #279
dgb23 wrote: 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…

As a very much devils advocate, one could argue that some companies make a revenue steam or of serving ads, so taking steps to do that is their legitimate business. I personally think that's a screwed up business model but there you are. I've always found legitimate business to be annoyingly vague.

Re: The EU's war on behavioral advertising

#304

Post by tick_tock_tick »

martin8412 wrote: post #300
mantas wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cookie banner 2.0. Where you either approve all the „recommended“ tracking. Or have to go to advanced dialog, uncheck all trackers and then click non-primary submit button.

Which is illegal.

Except it's not. Which is why people aren't being punished for it and more sites adopt it daily.

Re: The EU's war on behavioral advertising

#305

Post by tick_tock_tick »

dgb23 wrote: post #273
johndhi wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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. -…

> Why is this not the case?

It's an EU law what did you expect?

Re: The EU's war on behavioral advertising

#306

Post by tick_tock_tick »

yabatopia wrote: post #277
legitster wrote: post #70

Uh... 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…

> it doesn't hurt that economically, consumer wealth in Europe is falling like a rock Falling like a rock? Where is this comming from? What Europe are you talking about? The EU, the continent, the eurozone, the UK, Russia? Granted, high inflation, primarily caused by higher energy prices after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, has slowed down consumer spending in the EU, but generally speaking the outlook isn't that b…

Damn I knew the EU wasn't in a great place from the last few years but I didn't realize it's post covid recovery was so horrible compared to the USA. Hopefully they can turn it around!

Re: The EU's war on behavioral advertising

#307

Post by developer93 »

FridgeSeal wrote: post #272
xNeil wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only non-consenting advertising I can think of is public billboards - and I believe those should be banned, most definitely. Every single other type of advertising requires your explicit consent. YouTube? Google? Newspapers? All have your consent.

This is good in theory, but does not hold for day-to-day reality. News reports, announcements, updates, etc are often announced and hosted on social media and YouTube. The main news outlets hardly host their own video, and half the useful announcements got made on Twitter first (before Musk torched it lol), so unless “remain deliberately ignorant” is the alternative - which I don’t think it is, then the reality is th…

Or take some mildly grey area technical steps to get around it. I don't see too many ads these days between the pihole & newpipe & whatever adblockers I've got on Firefox. Traditional TV when we watch the news is basically it. That not open to everyone I know since you need some technical knowledge to set it up.

Re: The EU's war on behavioral advertising

#308

Post by dns_snek »

tick_tock_tick wrote: post #304
martin8412 wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is illegal.

Except it's not. Which is why people aren't being punished for it and more sites adopt it daily.

Opting out must be just as easy as opting in.

Companies aren't being punished for it often enough (yet), that is true, but it's absolutely illegal.

Re: The EU's war on behavioral advertising

#309

Post by BlackFly »

mrweasel wrote: post #252
PeterStuer wrote: post #245

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

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

I think the preamble to the legislation sort of goes over it. I remember a section talking about marketing and it seemed to imply that businesses have a legitimate interest to market their own products to their own customers. For example, a Dutch company might look at address data and see that they get a lot of orders online to ship to Germany and they can use that to open a store there. Obviously the business is interested in selling to its consumers effectively and obviously those consumers are interested in those products. When they start selling that information to other people, it isn't really legitimate anymore.

Re: The EU's war on behavioral advertising

#310

Post by Sayrus »

tick_tock_tick wrote: post #304
martin8412 wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is illegal.

Except it's not. Which is why people aren't being punished for it and more sites adopt it daily.

There may not be many fines but Facebook, Google, TikTok and Microsoft were all fined due to making it hard to refuse cookies.

Amazon was also fined for not properly asking consent. If I remember correctly, one of the company making those annoying cookies banners where you have a list of trackers to uncheck was also fined for this behavior.

It is illegal to not offer a clear and unambiguous opt out.

Post reply on HN