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

661–670 of 765 posts

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

#661

Post by shaftway »

kaftoy wrote: post #652
foota wrote: post #644

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you're debating the merits of the law in question, it doesn't seem like a valid defense to say "if they can't do business under the law then that's their fault". If I say "car dealers can't sell cars that go faster than 10mph and if they go out of business then they shouldn't exist", it's clearly fallacious, and I don't see how this is any different.

It is different. Rules and laws are supposed to make sense, but the one with 10 mph is not. There are limita to 250 kph in Europe and I dont see car dealers going down. Also, for years there are emissions regulators that make life hard for auto makers, but they obey and still sell cars.

A law limiting top speed to 10 mph would have a massive reduction in accidents and fatalities. That makes sense to me.

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

#662

Post by itronitron »

justapassenger wrote: post #616
latexr wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Magazine ads are dying because no one buys magazines anymore except when they are in an airport.

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

#663

Post by JAlexoid »

FirmwareBurner wrote: post #567
JAlexoid wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not your websites. If you wish, we should make it way more clear about it. But telling a small newspaper to stop using ads for revenue, when you aren't willing to financially support them is... hypocritical. In short - just like a lot of "this ids good for you" laws, this will definitely impact smaller companies way more than you think.

>But telling a small newspaper to stop using ads for revenue, when you aren't willing to financially support them is... hypocritical. How do you know I am not willing to pay? OK, I'll be the millionth commenter to repeat this viewpoint for the millionth time on HN: nobody has issues with online ads to support their favorite newspaper or creator, people have an issue with tracking and targeting ads. We've had ad suppo…

> How do you know I am not willing to pay?

Because we've been there, done that. How many local or small news outlet subscriptions do you have? I'm pretty sure it's not a lot.

> We've had ad supported websites, forums and blogs since the 90's, but those were generic and harmless, and wouldn't track and target YOU.

And as a result any website with reasonable traffic, would have to put up a million ads - to just break even. Attendance was rising, costs associated with maintenance as well. Advertisers don't want to pay just to show random individuals ads that have close to 0 chance of being useful.

Generic advertising effectively excludes smaller companies from advertising space. If your advertising budget is $50k today, with targeted ads, you can effectively spend it to show your product to people who would be interested in it. Without, you have to spend $1mil on ads to show it to everyone and get results equal to spending $1k with targeted ads.

> weaponized ad-tech

Yes, yes... The "mid 20ies, IT person, with interest in HN" is definitely a weapon to take "you" down. Quit with the hyperbole, no ad tech keeps anything remotely interesting about you.

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

#664

Post by justapassenger »

polygamous_bat wrote: post #635
justapassenger wrote: post #616

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> There’s a reason why magazines ads are dying and being replaced by personalized ads. Advertising like that is widely inefficient. Too bad, if your business model can’t make money without breaking laws and harming people’s rights, do you really deserve to stay in business? > 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? More…

> Too bad, if your business model can’t make money without breaking laws and harming people’s rights, do you really deserve to stay in business?

That's not the argument I'm making nor the comment I'm responding to. OP presented non-personalized ads as a viable alternative for their business. It's not. Let's not pretend it is.

It's a totally different conversation from one you try to turn it into.

> More like banning formula 1 cars from suburbs.

It's not, unless there have been F1 cars in every suburb for last decade.

I get it, you hate ads. Great. But that's not what we're talking about.

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

#665

Post by shaftway »

xigoi wrote: post #371
tzs wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My recollection is that at least some country's regulators have said that if you offer option A you must also offer option A': continue for free without tracking and profiling. Their reasoning was that GDPR says that consent must be freely given. If the site provides more service if you consent than the consent is not freely given according to those regulators. (It seemed kind of goofy to me. In every other context I…

If what you're describing is free consent, then what does non-free consent look like?

"Look at these ads or I will hit you with a hammer"

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

#666

Post by avarun »

kaftoy wrote: post #652
foota wrote: post #644

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you're debating the merits of the law in question, it doesn't seem like a valid defense to say "if they can't do business under the law then that's their fault". If I say "car dealers can't sell cars that go faster than 10mph and if they go out of business then they shouldn't exist", it's clearly fallacious, and I don't see how this is any different.

It is different. Rules and laws are supposed to make sense, but the one with 10 mph is not. There are limita to 250 kph in Europe and I dont see car dealers going down. Also, for years there are emissions regulators that make life hard for auto makers, but they obey and still sell cars.

> Rules and laws are supposed to make sense

Agreed. So why do none of the EU's moronic laws make sense?

Most normal people are happy when they come across a useful product or service as an ad in their Instagram feed. After these laws, that won't be possible anymore for an entire continent of people.

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

#667

Post by justapassenger »

kaftoy wrote: post #652
foota wrote: post #644

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you're debating the merits of the law in question, it doesn't seem like a valid defense to say "if they can't do business under the law then that's their fault". If I say "car dealers can't sell cars that go faster than 10mph and if they go out of business then they shouldn't exist", it's clearly fallacious, and I don't see how this is any different.

It is different. Rules and laws are supposed to make sense, but the one with 10 mph is not. There are limita to 250 kph in Europe and I dont see car dealers going down. Also, for years there are emissions regulators that make life hard for auto makers, but they obey and still sell cars.

Anti-car folks will likely disagree with you that 10mph speed limit doesn't make sense.

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

#668

Post by extraduder_ire »

arbuge wrote: post #649
echelon wrote: post #639

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sellers and marketers don't want you opting into their market (eg. by checking a box that says "I want ads for computers"). They want to target their customers with fine-tuned, data-driven assumptions. Age, gender, income, interests, career... This is the value Facebook delivers (targeting and measuring), and it's about to go up in smoke. Nobody will pay the same price for a billboard.

Where would Facebook be getting income data from?

From banks, via some middleman service.

Or, the facebook pixel embedded in a page you (or your employer) put your tax info into.

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

#669

Post by JAlexoid »

taway1237 wrote: post #658
JAlexoid wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would like to vote out my homophobic government, but I can't. I can't avoid not paying taxes to fund the catholic church in my country, that uses that money to lobby homophobic laws... I can block Google and not use them. This is not a simple "just vote them out", unless you're part of the privileged majority that can affect the policy.

You personally can't, but a majority can. My country just did that (voted out a regressive government).

Barely, my Polish neighbor...

And no, they're not going to magically stop funding the Catholic church or become a safe haven for LGBT people.

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

#670

Post by d0gbread »

tsimionescu wrote: post #490
konschubert wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, advertising isn’t zero sum. There is no reason to assume that the negative effects outweigh the positive effects. There are some forms of advertisement which are maybe bad. I think we would be worse off if all advertising were banned.

Yes it is. Advertising is about convincing you to buy product A instead of product B (which may be no product/investing your money). That's the very definition of a zero-sum game. Most forms of advertising are bad. There are maybe a few which are decent, but there are far better alternatives (such as business directories and non-paid review sites). If you believe in the free market to any extent, you should be agains…

You're making a lot of statements across all your comments that are not backed up and easily disproven, and you double down with more of the same so it's not particularly valuable to engage.

I think with a little critical thinking you can take your "the only" or "is about" statements and ask yourself if you can think of exceptions. You can, and easily.

Post reply on HN