4 ms·
> You could probably take it a step further and say that it is in the user’s best interest to see targeted rather than generic advertising, because you can show
by 908087 8y ago
> You could probably take it a step further and say that it is in the user’s best interest to see targeted rather than generic advertising, because you can show fewer ads and make the same revenue. I don’t know if regulators will buy it though.
It would be hard to argue that when none of these companies are in fact showing "fewer ads" as a result of targeting.
- hshehehjdjdjd 8y agoYou don’t know that, because you don’t know how many ads they would be showing in the alternate reality where they only show non-targeted advertisements.
- 908087 8y agoSo regulators should just take their word for it and allow them to slide on compliance because they claim they would be showing more ads in some alternate reality if it weren't for targeting? That sounds like a loophole that would allow pretty much everyone to ignore GDPR completely, and I think you'd actually have to live in an alternate reality to consider that reasonable. The entire advertising industry would be exempt from GDPR. By that logic, they could fill an entire site with ads, and claim that since those ads are targeted it's still a benefit to users, because if the ads weren't targeted they would have to make the site larger in order to fill it with even more ads. There's no limit to how far you could take that.
- hshehehjdjdjd 8y agoI wouldn’t say they should take their word for it. They should hear the argument and decide if it is reasonable and supported by the data.