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

711–720 of 765 posts

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

#711

Post by Eridrus »

itishappy wrote: post #392
cm2012 wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FYI - referring to Cambridge Analytica like it has any meaningful relationship to privacy, ad tech or election results is the silliest thing you can say to someone who has any understanding of the subject. Cambridge Analytica is a like a canary in a coal mine that says, "this person has no actual understanding of the issues".

Why? They harvested personal info from 87 million users under false pretenses. They're also an explicitly political company. We can debate their effectiveness, but their stated intent was to influence elections. These seem like meaningful and relevant additions to a conversation about data collection and privacy. Your comment is rather light on information that might support your points.

I have two thoughts on Cambridge Analytica: a) Influencing elections is not a harm, even if you disagree with the political ends. b) They were notoriously ineffective, which further solidifies this into the non-story bucket

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

#712

Post by froh »

hirako2000 wrote: post #609
froh wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook is notorious for supporting microtargeting political ads. those that brought us the brexit and a couple more political turmoils. I couldn't care less about personalized add for toothpaste. but Facebook doesn't ban microtargeting political disinformation. classical newspapers do.

Newspapers are themselves in the business of targetted political ads. Facebook etc, while politically biased, keep profit as a target above their views, for the most part. Brexit? I remember most news and ads were selling "no" yet "yes" happened. I recall the "no" voters either were of the category that wanted to vote against the political party in power, or of the type of voters having had enough to be told how to t…

> Newspapers are themselves in the business of targetted political ads.

I think you are confusing being opinionated "tinted" of sorts, as newspapers are, with microtargeting. a progressive newspaper will have progressively tinted reporting, and you get what you buy. and the newspaper is showing every reader the same content for the same article.

microtargeting means you identify personal traits and you present a content that fits your profile. probably pro brexit? contents that engaged you to go and vote and contents that you will more likely share with like minded people. probably against brexit? deter you from voting, by giving you a false sense of the outcome, or by frustrating you just enough. and so on.

I was shocked when I realized that political campaigns create dozens of variations of contents tailored for different combinations and varuations of personality parameters. the wasp lesbian gets another one their than the Catholic than than the black atheist.

and in this game Facebook keeps their own opinion out. they just offer means for the microtargeting, so the different messaging reaches their individual targets.

and that is the problem I have with it.

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

#713

Post by cush »

avarun wrote: post #701
cush wrote: post #697

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's clarify - 3rd party tracking is the issue. Tracking me on your site is fine... it's expected. Spotify should build a profile of my musical tastes. But my profile on your site should be relegated to your site. Facebook not only tracks you off their site, they sell your information to literally anyone willing to pay. It's ludicrous that we've allowed this, and the EU is finally stepping in.

> Facebook not only tracks you off their site, they sell your information to literally anyone willing to pay. This is just blatantly incorrect. Please inform yourself about topics before choosing to comment on them. https://www.facebook.com/help/152637448140583

Sure. Facebook is still the data custodian, but it's been proven that the granularity of their targeting is so small that it's possible to target individuals - a la Cambridge Analytica and a few other studies. They're selling the use of your profile, not the profile itself. It's gross.

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

#714

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

The choices will be

(a) consent to personalised ads

(b) subscribe

(c) do nothing

Will Meta block people from using its websites if they refuse to consent to personalised ads, i.e., option (c). That would seem quite stupid. Meta would lose the traffic.

If millions of people consent, i.e., choose option (a), it defeats the purpose of GDPR. Meta scores a victory against privacy. They may even succeed in complying before the ban comes into effect.

If millions of people choose (c), i.e., to retain their rights under GDPR, then Meta is fscked.

EU is forcing the issue, but Meta will only present this choice of options to people over 18. Quite a large carveout.

Users in the EU should choose (c) and call Meta's bluff. There is no sensible reason that Meta would block users who do not consent to personalised ads.

If a user wants personalised ads, they can opt-in. Users who find personalised ads useful, such as the lone outlier commenter at the top of this thread, can opt-in.

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

#715

Post by thunkshift1 »

arbuge wrote: post #631

I might be in the minority here but I personally find personalized ads useful, and am far more annoyed by ads recommending products and services completely irrelevant to my interests and/or needs. (The latter still account for the ads I see most of the time, unfortunately.)

Yes you are in the minority.. those ads are trash and not worth what you are giving up

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

#716

Post by arbuge »

thunkshift1 wrote: post #715
arbuge wrote: post #631

I might be in the minority here but I personally find personalized ads useful, and am far more annoyed by ads recommending products and services completely irrelevant to my interests and/or needs. (The latter still account for the ads I see most of the time, unfortunately.)

Yes you are in the minority.. those ads are trash and not worth what you are giving up

I find them useful, as I said. So I'm going to disagree with you on the trash thing.

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

#717

Post by fahhem »

arbuge wrote: post #638
imafish wrote: post #636

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. As long as I don’t have to deliver (all) my private data to get those relevant ads.

ALL your private data sounds rather extreme. That could certainly mean a lot of things! Some examples of what I'm fine with: if I visit a hardware store's online website and am then retargeted by their ads, or I visit a hardware magazine's website and am then targeted by hardware ads.

The ads can be targeted to the publisher, so the hardware magazine's ads will likely all be hardware related, instead of related to whatever website you visited before it

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

#718

Post by itishappy »

Eridrus wrote: post #711
itishappy wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? They harvested personal info from 87 million users under false pretenses. They're also an explicitly political company. We can debate their effectiveness, but their stated intent was to influence elections. These seem like meaningful and relevant additions to a conversation about data collection and privacy. Your comment is rather light on information that might support your points.

I have two thoughts on Cambridge Analytica: a) Influencing elections is not a harm, even if you disagree with the political ends. b) They were notoriously ineffective, which further solidifies this into the non-story bucket

> Influencing elections is not a harm, even if you disagree with the political ends.

It feels icky, but still I mostly agree. I do think there's a limit as I would consider directly influencing elections (via force or deceit) to be harmful, but I'm largely ok with trying to sway public opinion.

> They were notoriously ineffective, which further solidifies this into the non-story bucket.

Unfortunately, they were surprisingly effective at the thing I care about which is collecting millions of people's personal information without their knowledge or consent. The fact they turned out to be incompetent does not inspire confidence.

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

#719

Post by _heimdall »

arbuge wrote: post #638
imafish wrote: post #636

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. As long as I don’t have to deliver (all) my private data to get those relevant ads.

ALL your private data sounds rather extreme. That could certainly mean a lot of things! Some examples of what I'm fine with: if I visit a hardware store's online website and am then retargeted by their ads, or I visit a hardware magazine's website and am then targeted by hardware ads.

My clarification then, targeted ads are fine if ai don't have to provide ANY of my private data.

The site showing an ad knows the context of what I'm looking at, whether that's a specific news article or the weather. That's enough info for a reasonably targeted ad without needing to match back to my browsing history, who I bank with, my likely religious views or sexual orientation, etc

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

#720

Post by Fice »

arbuge wrote: post #631

I might be in the minority here but I personally find personalized ads useful, and am far more annoyed by ads recommending products and services completely irrelevant to my interests and/or needs. (The latter still account for the ads I see most of the time, unfortunately.)

Advertising does not simply suggest you something that you might need, it often tries to manipulate you into needing something, and with the amounts of personal data being collected and advancements in machine learning this manipulation becomes dangerously effective.
Post reply on HN