4 ms·

It would seem that having to be GDPR compliant would dis-proportionally favor large companies with a lot of lawyers and engineers to implement the needed featur

by gcp 8y ago

It would seem that having to be GDPR compliant would dis-proportionally favor large companies with a lot of lawyers and engineers to implement the needed features company-wide. If this is not working out for Google, perhaps it's because the business is fundamentally incompatible? But I have problems believing that. The outcome would be too good :-)

yulaow 8y ago
Honestly I think it favors more companies who just didn't do any shadow things with user data or just had not a business model built around it. If you were not one of those and maybe were already respecting the old eu privacy directive, being gdpr compliant is extremly easy and fast
Maarten88 8y ago
> perhaps it's because the business is fundamentally incompatible? After having read most of the GDPR, that's my conclusion: all advertising other than 1990's style bannering now needs per publisher, per user, opt-in for anything that does tracking or is personalized, where the default should be set to 'no', denying should be as easy as consenting, and refusing access is not a valid publisher response. That means i.m.o. that using any form of modern advertising has become illegal under GDPR, unless you get users to consent in a compliant way, and I have seen just a few sites even try. I think Google is scrambling to understand that their business is now mostly illegal in EU.
- Vinnl 8y ago
  I don't think that would mean that Google's business is fundamentally incompatible. If 90's-style bannering is the only thing that is allowed/feasible now, of all companies Google is in the best position to do that profitably.
  - chopin 8y ago
    I think the GP means ads need to be served 1st party. For this, Google would be out, imho. If Google hosted the ads, how would they not collecting your browsing habits? It's the same as with the embedded Facebook Like, which is in the same ballpark.
    - Vinnl 8y ago
      Yes, I meant that too. First party ads next to search results are some of the most relevant and profitable you could serve without tracking, I think.
    - Maarten88 8y ago
      I didn't mean ads need to be served 1st party. I think GDPR does not prevent Google or anyone from hosting ads for their customers. Maybe it's hard to imagine, but it is really simple to host ads without tracking users... Google simply has to NOT DO it. And guarantee that in writing to the publisher. Counting impressions and clicks are no problem, as long as no personal data is collected. But storing personally identifiable data for the click/impression (such as the full ip address, or advertising id in a cookie) needs consent. Unless you need (and only use it) to prevent fraud, which is a valid legitimate interest. Using it for (Re)marketing is not.

by gcp 8y ago

yulaow 8y ago

Honestly I think it favors more companies who just didn't do any shadow things with user data or just had not a business model built around it. If you were not one of those and maybe were already respecting the old eu privacy directive, being gdpr compliant is extremly easy and fast

Maarten88 8y ago

> perhaps it's because the business is fundamentally incompatible? After having read most of the GDPR, that's my conclusion: all advertising other than 1990's style bannering now needs per publisher, per user, opt-in for anything that does tracking or is personalized, where the default should be set to 'no', denying should be as easy as consenting, and refusing access is not a valid publisher response. That means i.m.o. that using any form of modern advertising has become illegal under GDPR, unless you get users to consent in a compliant way, and I have seen just a few sites even try. I think Google is scrambling to understand that their business is now mostly illegal in EU.

Vinnl 8y ago
I don't think that would mean that Google's business is fundamentally incompatible. If 90's-style bannering is the only thing that is allowed/feasible now, of all companies Google is in the best position to do that profitably.
- chopin 8y ago
  I think the GP means ads need to be served 1st party. For this, Google would be out, imho. If Google hosted the ads, how would they not collecting your browsing habits? It's the same as with the embedded Facebook Like, which is in the same ballpark.
  - Vinnl 8y ago
    Yes, I meant that too. First party ads next to search results are some of the most relevant and profitable you could serve without tracking, I think.
  - Maarten88 8y ago
    I didn't mean ads need to be served 1st party. I think GDPR does not prevent Google or anyone from hosting ads for their customers. Maybe it's hard to imagine, but it is really simple to host ads without tracking users... Google simply has to NOT DO it. And guarantee that in writing to the publisher. Counting impressions and clicks are no problem, as long as no personal data is collected. But storing personally identifiable data for the click/impression (such as the full ip address, or advertising id in a cookie) needs consent. Unless you need (and only use it) to prevent fraud, which is a valid legitimate interest. Using it for (Re)marketing is not.