Google is illegally monopolizing online advertising tech, judge rules

> Well you're free to bring this up to the various data privacy national organisations in the EU.

> But I see that we're moving goalposts.

We are not moving goalposts. You literally claimed that users give consent to data collection. No, they do not. They are tricked into giving this consent because that's the only way ad industry can obtain consent to livelong invasive tracking.

> Have you provided sources for any of your claims?

> One of many available links on Google:

> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016781162...

Let's see what the paper says:

--- start quote ---

Our simulation study reveals that more than 50% of audience segments (i.e., 23,407 out of 45,440 audience segments on the right-hand side of the dashed vertical line in Figure D2 in Online Appendix D) require a minimum increase in performance larger than 700% to be at least as profitable as no-targeting. ...we find that more than half of the audience segments require an increase in CTR0, CR0, and m0 larger than 100% to be at least as profitable as no-targeting.

Approximately half of the audience segments on Spotify require a higher increase in CTR0 for the advertiser, suggesting they might be less profitable than no-targeting.

--

By highlighting the questionable profitability of many audience segments, this paper aims to help advertisers decide whom to target.

We suggest using our model to calculate the break-even performance for many segments and then order these segments by break-even performance from smallest to largest.

... our findings also reveal that untargeted campaigns may yield higher profits.

Our proposed model has limitations, as it relies on inputs that may not be readily available to all advertisers

--- end quote ---

So. Questionable profitability, untargeted yield higher profits unless you ignificantly increase performance of targeted ads, a suggestion of an unproven model relying on data that may not be available to advertisers.

Yes, this truly is a paper that proves the amazing great efficiency of targeted advertisement, especially when offset against lifelong invasive tracking and wholesale trading of user data.

> Data collected has an expiration date. This is also part of GDPR compliance.

1. GDPR isn't available worldwide

2. Ad industry claims "legitimate uses" for a bunch of data and end up with "oh, we'll maintain your precise geolocation for 12 years" https://x.com/dmitriid/status/1817122117093056541

> If your targeting isn't competitive, your inventory will not be bought or at a lower price.

So what?

> This already happens for Safari and Firefox impressions.

Good.

> Maybe there is a good reason for this?

Yes, the unethical path is easier and more importantly, faster to take. If it is not explicitly disallowed in the system, it will be taken.

> They are tricked into giving this consent because that's the only way ad industry can obtain consent to livelong invasive tracking.

No, they're not tricked. There are obvious cookie banners with the possibility to see the list of vendors and reasons for collecting the data and consent completely, partially or reject.

I'm sorry, if you don't know how advertisement works for news publishers there's not much to talk about.

> Our simulation study reveals that more than 50% of audience segments (i.e., 23,407 out of 45,440 audience segments on the right-hand side of the dashed vertical line in Figure D2 in Online Appendix D) require a minimum increase in performance larger than 700% to be at least as profitable as no-targeting. ...we find that more than half of the audience segments require an increase in CTR0, CR0, and m0 larger than 100% to be at least as profitable as no-targeting.

This might be correct for Spotify, however it isn't for news publishers. Data costs usually represent 10% to 25% of media cost, which means that the uplift of targeting should be at least these values which are nowhere near 100%.

> 1. GDPR isn't available worldwide

Sure, but since a lot of sites have European users they usually stay in line of the strictest guidelines for all users which is generally the GDPR.

> Ad industry claims "legitimate uses" for a bunch of data and end up with "oh, we'll maintain your precise geolocation for 12 years"

Not "ad industry", "one bad adtech actor", but we're already used to incorrect takes.

If the legitimate uses are invalid (which I believe that they probably are) they can and most likely will be fought in court.

> So what?

So journalists don't get paid.

I would say that it is the most popular path among readers that is the winning one in the end.

> If there was an option to have zero, zero, even minutely intrusive ads/tracking, then I will be willing to pay a price for it. If this is not an option, then I have zero remorse for your wasted efforts/loss of revenue.

This is already the case for most newspapers. Helas, most users prefer the free but ad-ridled version.

> Even the ones that _do_ have a half-decent, "ad-free", paid option, if you actually pay and visit their website, you will be sure to see ads related events in the network tab. Disqualified.

You should report this to the publishers. This is usually and genuinely not what they would like to happen if they provide a paid version.

> For the case of tracking, like I (again) stated above: if my library goes over to my travel agency telling them what travel guides I have been looking at, I have zero remorse for the library's revenue stream, even if they satisfy all of the requirements above (such as offering a completely intrusive-ad-free paid subscription).

Most of the time the data itself will never be sold. What happens is that a brand or ad agency will buy pre-filtered traffic or ask the publisher to operate a campaign on specific user segments. This means that the data never leaves the site that collected it.

There are of course external companies that become third-party data providers as a business model like credit card companies or telecoms. But even then, data providers try to protect their own data by operating campaigns themselves rather than selling the data.

> If there are alternatives that don't indulge in these completely unethical practices, I would love to, and I do, use them. However, there are exactly zero news websites like that, so it leaves me with no choice but to "steal" whenever I read an article.

Just as an added piece of context, due to publishers surviving (and I really mean it) thanks to advertisement income, they also have little in-house tech talent that can actually make sur that things like "absolutely 0-tracking if it's a paying user" is correctly implemented.

Do what you will with this information.

> Finally, if your company ever does something like using Wi-fi SSIDs as an alternative.

Only mobile apps might have the SSID (and only with granular user consent on app install). Websites do not have access to this information.