5 ms·

The basic argument as I understand it is that products paid for by advertising and tracking require you to accept advertising and tracking in order to obtain th

by Joeri 8y ago

The basic argument as I understand it is that products paid for by advertising and tracking require you to accept advertising and tracking in order to obtain them. In other words, you are explicitly agreeing to purchase the product in exchange for your privacy / attention. This argument will be settled in the courts. If it holds up, GDPR won't affect privacy much because I don't think most people will opt for privacy over convenience. If the courts rule against this reasoning, we'll see the rise of micropayments on the web.

alkonaut 8y ago
I thought that was literally what the law was supposed to prevent. That is: viewers should not even be allowed to agree to data collection that is only used for tracking and not for the actual business. A newspaper might argue that their business is tracking users so they can show ads and afford journalists, but it won’t hold up. Of course sites will rather try to pull a stunt like this if the option is shutting down your business directly - but I sure hope regulators force sites to turn to paid content or shut down.
- merb 8y ago
  > A newspaper might argue that their business is tracking users so they can show ads and afford journalists, but it won’t hold up. I think it will hold up. Newspapers are a big factor in European the courts would not risk anything against them. Especially not if they might loose a big chunk of revenue.
  - alkonaut 8y ago
    It’s certainly going to be a battle. Allowing “ad-walls” like agree in order to see content they are making GDPR pointless. The law text seems pretty clear on that I think. Q is what will actually happen if the law is interpreted the way I want/think? Newspapers are doing quite poorly already.
    - azernik 8y ago
      They'll be fined, or will change their ways under a direct threat of being fined.
    - usrusr 8y ago
      > Allowing “ad-walls” like agree in order to see content they are making GDPR pointless. Not at all: on the surface, it's the difference between "give me a dollar for a bar of candy" and "here, have a free bar of candy (and I'll help myself to a dollar (or two))". Beneath the surface, it means that the ad-financed newspaper will have to aggregate their PII in-house (or with the help of carefully vetted partners) into targeting decisions instead of blindly throwing it over a wall to random third parties.
      - icebraining 8y ago
        There's a difference, but the principle behind the GDPR is that "personal information cannot be conceived as a mere economic asset", and both those versions violate it.
        usrusr 8y ago
        You can't put forth accumulation as a legitimate use of data, as in "it might help our eventual value when the company is sold, therefore we sleep it all up" and neither would "we hand over the data, we get money, therefore it's our business" fly, but using PII in-house for running ads in a "registered, but not paying" service tier has all the trappings of legitimate interest.
    - intrasight 8y ago
      Things like this don't really have a "point" until the courts give it one. And I think the courts are going to give serious consideration to the viability of the press.
      - Semirhage 8y ago
        The press is viable using ads, just not ads that are targeted by spying on people and selling their information. In the long run it also might be the only thing that reduces use of outright ad-blockers, which could kill industries.

by Joeri 8y ago

alkonaut 8y ago

I thought that was literally what the law was supposed to prevent. That is: viewers should not even be allowed to agree to data collection that is only used for tracking and not for the actual business. A newspaper might argue that their business is tracking users so they can show ads and afford journalists, but it won’t hold up. Of course sites will rather try to pull a stunt like this if the option is shutting down your business directly - but I sure hope regulators force sites to turn to paid content or shut down.

merb 8y ago
> A newspaper might argue that their business is tracking users so they can show ads and afford journalists, but it won’t hold up. I think it will hold up. Newspapers are a big factor in European the courts would not risk anything against them. Especially not if they might loose a big chunk of revenue.
- alkonaut 8y ago
  It’s certainly going to be a battle. Allowing “ad-walls” like agree in order to see content they are making GDPR pointless. The law text seems pretty clear on that I think. Q is what will actually happen if the law is interpreted the way I want/think? Newspapers are doing quite poorly already.
  - azernik 8y ago
    They'll be fined, or will change their ways under a direct threat of being fined.
  - usrusr 8y ago
    > Allowing “ad-walls” like agree in order to see content they are making GDPR pointless. Not at all: on the surface, it's the difference between "give me a dollar for a bar of candy" and "here, have a free bar of candy (and I'll help myself to a dollar (or two))". Beneath the surface, it means that the ad-financed newspaper will have to aggregate their PII in-house (or with the help of carefully vetted partners) into targeting decisions instead of blindly throwing it over a wall to random third parties.
    - icebraining 8y ago
      There's a difference, but the principle behind the GDPR is that "personal information cannot be conceived as a mere economic asset", and both those versions violate it.
      - usrusr 8y ago
        You can't put forth accumulation as a legitimate use of data, as in "it might help our eventual value when the company is sold, therefore we sleep it all up" and neither would "we hand over the data, we get money, therefore it's our business" fly, but using PII in-house for running ads in a "registered, but not paying" service tier has all the trappings of legitimate interest.
  - intrasight 8y ago
    Things like this don't really have a "point" until the courts give it one. And I think the courts are going to give serious consideration to the viability of the press.
    - Semirhage 8y ago
      The press is viable using ads, just not ads that are targeted by spying on people and selling their information. In the long run it also might be the only thing that reduces use of outright ad-blockers, which could kill industries.