5 ms·

GDPR could end free internet services. Maybe it is the outcome that the EU desires, I'm not sure, but I don't see how you can run non-transactional, free servic

GDPR could end free internet services. Maybe it is the outcome that the EU desires, I'm not sure, but I don't see how you can run non-transactional, free services without monetizing them via the best possible advertising. Do they want everyone to go back to punch-the-monkey and mortgage ads exclusively?

_red 8y ago
Chinese websites are exempt. What does that tell you?
- spullara 8y ago
  I can't find a reliable reference for this. Can you point me to something official about it?
  - anonymousab 8y ago
    I was able to find an Alex Jones / Infowars video about it, but I'm unable to watch to see if it's just infotainment bluster, or based off of something more concrete that the parent poster could be referring to.
  - dazc 8y ago
    Maybe because the EU has no jurisdiction or influence over China?
    - dingaling 8y ago
      They certainly have both over Alibaba and JD.com which have European offices. And that's just two off the top of my head.
whatshisface 8y ago
Free services existed before megatracking. Advertisements will go back to being targeted contextually, which will raise the value of views on "Tom's Train Fan Web Hub (and camera reviews)" at the expense of "Zuckerberg's Universal Website for Everyone." Look at Duck Duck Go for an example of advertising that is contextualized only with the current page, as opposed to the entirety of your personal history.
- setquk 8y ago
  I welcome the old days. Everything has been heading in the direction of data grabbing and market share focused turf wars between big tech companies all trying to establish the most profitable monopoly.
  - TAForObvReasons 8y ago
    The best part is: by revealing the true "cost" of the free services and slowly starting to curb their behaviors, high-quality paid services and content are becoming more palatable and viable.
    - zerostar07 8y ago
      You can’t say that until you see the price. Facebook would cost $20 per year per person. It s up to the users to decide if thats a good price
      - setquk 8y ago
        I wouldn't pay that to be offended by my relatives.
- TomMarius 8y ago
  I don't remember anyone running services with offerings similar to e.g. Gmail back then without income from targeted advertising. Back then, my mailbox had 10 MB capacity while Gmail offered 1 GB thanks to the money from advertising.
  - anonymousab 8y ago
    It's unclear to me how much of Gmail was made possible due to immediate pocket lining potential, and how much was possible due to their bringing the model of "offer orders of magnitude more service than what the average person will use, and absorb the outliers in the margins" to a web app service. I don't think Gmail started out with heavy email content harvesting and integrated advertising but I could be misremembering.
anonymousab 8y ago
I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that advertising needs to be based around tracking your every move to make the best or most effective ads. Domain relevance is still one viable path in some cases. The rise of adblocking and the ongoing arms race from that would prompt innovation and change eventually. I don't think we need to underestimate the advertising industry's ability to route and innovate around regulation and irritated consumers.
jlarocco 8y ago
That's not a bad thing. The general public has never wanted web companies to spy on them, and tech companies have been taking advantage of people's ignorance. Everybody in the ad world knows it, too, and that's why so many companies are freaking out. They'll never get permission from people to spy on them like they have been. They whined about the "Do not track" header in the same way - they want to hide what they're doing as much as possible. If asking "customers" to opt-in in to your business model is going to hurt your business, it was a shitty business model in the first place.
zerostar07 8y ago
Unlikely. Most people are going through be clickinc yes. The ones that wouldn’t are already using ad blockers. Gdpr launch has created a privacy hysteria but that will go away.
dgudkov 8y ago
>GDPR could end free internet services. They are not free. Someone pays for them. If someone wants to pay for an internet service by giving advertisers access to their PII -- that's fine. But it doesn't mean that this monetization scheme should be applied to anyone using the service. Internet companies should provide a paid, tracking-free, and GDPR-compliant access mode, as an alternative to a free ad-based one. Who knows, maybe brick & mortar companies would also accept this double-monetization model, so that when you come to Starbucks next time you would be able to get a free coffee in exchange for your PII and a non-removable tracking bracelet.
frockington 8y ago
Fortunately the EU has other things to worry about at the moment so GDPR hysteria should die down quick

_red 8y ago

Chinese websites are exempt. What does that tell you?

spullara 8y ago
I can't find a reliable reference for this. Can you point me to something official about it?
- anonymousab 8y ago
  I was able to find an Alex Jones / Infowars video about it, but I'm unable to watch to see if it's just infotainment bluster, or based off of something more concrete that the parent poster could be referring to.
- dazc 8y ago
  Maybe because the EU has no jurisdiction or influence over China?
  - dingaling 8y ago
    They certainly have both over Alibaba and JD.com which have European offices. And that's just two off the top of my head.

whatshisface 8y ago

Free services existed before megatracking. Advertisements will go back to being targeted contextually, which will raise the value of views on "Tom's Train Fan Web Hub (and camera reviews)" at the expense of "Zuckerberg's Universal Website for Everyone." Look at Duck Duck Go for an example of advertising that is contextualized only with the current page, as opposed to the entirety of your personal history.

setquk 8y ago
I welcome the old days. Everything has been heading in the direction of data grabbing and market share focused turf wars between big tech companies all trying to establish the most profitable monopoly.
- TAForObvReasons 8y ago
  The best part is: by revealing the true "cost" of the free services and slowly starting to curb their behaviors, high-quality paid services and content are becoming more palatable and viable.
  - zerostar07 8y ago
    You can’t say that until you see the price. Facebook would cost $20 per year per person. It s up to the users to decide if thats a good price
    - setquk 8y ago
      I wouldn't pay that to be offended by my relatives.
TomMarius 8y ago
I don't remember anyone running services with offerings similar to e.g. Gmail back then without income from targeted advertising. Back then, my mailbox had 10 MB capacity while Gmail offered 1 GB thanks to the money from advertising.
- anonymousab 8y ago
  It's unclear to me how much of Gmail was made possible due to immediate pocket lining potential, and how much was possible due to their bringing the model of "offer orders of magnitude more service than what the average person will use, and absorb the outliers in the margins" to a web app service. I don't think Gmail started out with heavy email content harvesting and integrated advertising but I could be misremembering.

anonymousab 8y ago

I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that advertising needs to be based around tracking your every move to make the best or most effective ads. Domain relevance is still one viable path in some cases. The rise of adblocking and the ongoing arms race from that would prompt innovation and change eventually. I don't think we need to underestimate the advertising industry's ability to route and innovate around regulation and irritated consumers.

jlarocco 8y ago

That's not a bad thing. The general public has never wanted web companies to spy on them, and tech companies have been taking advantage of people's ignorance. Everybody in the ad world knows it, too, and that's why so many companies are freaking out. They'll never get permission from people to spy on them like they have been. They whined about the "Do not track" header in the same way - they want to hide what they're doing as much as possible. If asking "customers" to opt-in in to your business model is going to hurt your business, it was a shitty business model in the first place.

zerostar07 8y ago

Unlikely. Most people are going through be clickinc yes. The ones that wouldn’t are already using ad blockers. Gdpr launch has created a privacy hysteria but that will go away.

dgudkov 8y ago

>GDPR could end free internet services. They are not free. Someone pays for them. If someone wants to pay for an internet service by giving advertisers access to their PII -- that's fine. But it doesn't mean that this monetization scheme should be applied to anyone using the service. Internet companies should provide a paid, tracking-free, and GDPR-compliant access mode, as an alternative to a free ad-based one. Who knows, maybe brick & mortar companies would also accept this double-monetization model, so that when you come to Starbucks next time you would be able to get a free coffee in exchange for your PII and a non-removable tracking bracelet.

frockington 8y ago

Fortunately the EU has other things to worry about at the moment so GDPR hysteria should die down quick