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

EU data regulator bans personalised advertising on Facebook and Instagram

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

611–620 of 765 posts

Re: EU data regulator bans personalised advertising on Facebook and Instagram

#611

Post by 2devnull »

sokoloff wrote: post #561
SonicScrub wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Big data aggregation makes this process much much easier. We are living in unprecedented times of mass surveillance, and we have yet to have a real reckoning of what that means in the hands of extreme ideologies. Also things don't have to be as extreme as literally killing all members of a minority group for this to be deemed "bad". It can be as simple as targetted influence campaigns to push certain policies/agenda.…

I agree it's cheaper and somewhat easier now, but there's always been the ability to differentiate messages to different audiences. (Not an audience of 1, but not hard to reach targeted demographics.) Advertising in Inc vs Wall St Journal vs People magazine vs Wired vs TV Guide vs Car & Driver vs Cosmo vs Ebony all gave you easy ways to target different audiences. It's more targeted now, but I don't think it's multip…

If I buy a magazine, I’m opting in. I don’t opt-in to digital stalking. I’ve made every effort to express my non-consent. “They say no, but really they mean yes.” No. No means no.

Re: EU data regulator bans personalised advertising on Facebook and Instagram

#612

Post by I_Am_Nous »

Brystephor wrote: post #324
xlii wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A scenario from today, context: I don't have Meta/Facebook/Instagram account, my spouse has. We were discussing haircuts in the morning and I showed her some photos online. 15 minutes later she opened Facebook and saw hairdresser commercial with THOSE EXACT haircuts we were discussing. I was using iOS with no-track and adblocker on top of that. My guess is that link was made using IP address. Meta/Facebook was proces…

> We were discussing haircuts in the morning and I showed her some photos online. 15 minutes later she opened Facebook and saw hairdresser commercial with THOSE EXACT haircuts we were discussing. Genuine question but what's the harm here? Or what's the negative consequence? I understand that this is creepy, people find it uncomfortable or odd, but what about it is harmful or so negative?

>Genuine question but what's the harm here?

It incentivizes companies to gobble up any and all data they can about people. It incentivizes companies to increase the silent intrusion into our lives. It incentivizes companies to forget their "markets" are actually people -- extracting value from markets is taking resources from people.

Hypothetical scenario - with 23andMe and other DNA profiling places being targets for lots of different kinds of data thieves, what are the chances that "leaked" datum ends up in some kind of ad profiling system? Ad companies might know you have cancer before you do because your genetics hint at it, your purchase history hints at it, your online behavior changes might hint at it. Yet instead of alerting you that you might have cancer, they use those hints to sell you "life extending supplements" or homeopathic remedies promising to fix one of the symptoms you have. They squeeze you for money while you are still alive to be squeezed because you aren't a person, you are an ad profile. A cash cow.

Ad companies are not out for our benefit, they are out for their own. Just like every other company whose goal is to make money, they will throw people/consumers under the bus to save profit. So why would we give them any more leverage over us?

Re: EU data regulator bans personalised advertising on Facebook and Instagram

#613

Post by staunton »

timeon wrote: post #604
estel wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the Independent (and presumably elsewhere): > Meta said it has cooperated with regulators and pointed to its announced plans to give Europeans the opportunity to consent to data collection and, later this month, to offer an ad-free subscription service in Europe that will cost 9.99 euros ($10.59) a month for access to all its products > Tobias Judin, head of the international section at the Norwegian Data Protec…

> For instance, he said, consent would have to be freely given, which wouldn't be the case if existing users had to choose between giving up their privacy rights or paying a financial penalty in the form of a subscription. This is already present in EU. Spiegel.de and others are like that. Pay or be tracked.

The problem in that case is how it's possible "not to track" somebody who pays for the service and accesses content via a paid account, and how it's possible to demonstrate to users how their data is handled. I guess only big companies that subject themselves to public oversight can really achieve it.

An alternative might be homomorphic encryption, which would already be doable with current technology for something like a newspaper.

Re: EU data regulator bans personalised advertising on Facebook and Instagram

#614

Post by adrr »

latexr wrote: post #64
startages wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, and I personally don't see anything wrong with this approach. You can't offer a free service if you can't make money from it somehow.

They could still show ads without all the invasiveness. For example: advertisers could pay to place ads in specific Facebook groups and they would show to people visiting those pages. Like it has been done for decades in magazines and other physical media. The internet did not invent advertising.

They don't work effectively if they aren't targeted on who you are. It would be like TV ads.

Biggest example is the IOS privacy which has hit whole industry in terms of marketing effectiveness and cost.

Re: EU data regulator bans personalised advertising on Facebook and Instagram

#615

Post by sharemywin »

timeon wrote: post #604
estel wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the Independent (and presumably elsewhere): > Meta said it has cooperated with regulators and pointed to its announced plans to give Europeans the opportunity to consent to data collection and, later this month, to offer an ad-free subscription service in Europe that will cost 9.99 euros ($10.59) a month for access to all its products > Tobias Judin, head of the international section at the Norwegian Data Protec…

> For instance, he said, consent would have to be freely given, which wouldn't be the case if existing users had to choose between giving up their privacy rights or paying a financial penalty in the form of a subscription. This is already present in EU. Spiegel.de and others are like that. Pay or be tracked.

exactly facebook(US company) illegal, EU companies legal. let's not kid ourselves on how these dog and pony shows work.

Re: EU data regulator bans personalised advertising on Facebook and Instagram

#616

Post by justapassenger »

latexr wrote: post #64
startages wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, and I personally don't see anything wrong with this approach. You can't offer a free service if you can't make money from it somehow.

They could still show ads without all the invasiveness. For example: advertisers could pay to place ads in specific Facebook groups and they would show to people visiting those pages. Like it has been done for decades in magazines and other physical media. The internet did not invent advertising.

There’s a reason why magazines ads are dying and being replaced by personalized ads. Advertising like that is widely inefficient.

It’s easy to show ads. Not that easy to make money from doing so. It’s as valid alternative as telling people to use horses instead of cars to reduce CO2 emissions. They both get from point A to B, right?

Re: EU data regulator bans personalised advertising on Facebook and Instagram

#618

Post by hirako2000 »

aesh2Xa1 wrote: post #155
spacebanana7 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not necessarily, cost reductions can increase, decrease or have no effect the total expenditure on goods. The total effect is quite ambiguous depending on the income and substitution effects.

I agree. I've always heard "charge what the market will bear." Why would a reduction in advertising costs equate to lower consumer pricing — if there's a better margin to be had instead?

Because for most products brand fidelity isn't keeping competition away. Higher than necessary margin does not last long in a competitive market.

Re: EU data regulator bans personalised advertising on Facebook and Instagram

#619

Post by adrr »

thorncorona wrote: post #4

Hot take, it’s hard to have a free internet without ads. Lots of websites have marginal utility, but can be paid for with ads. And those websites will disappear when CPM rates go down the drain.

Another hot take, its hard to do a consumer based startup without effective and cheap advertising. Its going to hit their startups like fintech, direct to consumer, etc.
Post reply on HN