4 ms·

I don't understand why there is so much negative impression of GDPR. Most businesses do not need to track users; they do it only because they can and it is not

I don't understand why there is so much negative impression of GDPR. Most businesses do not need to track users; they do it only because they can and it is not forbidden. Let me give you some examples: - Wikipedia can serve you pages without knowing anything about you - You can download and use Debian distribution without providing any data about yourself. Microsoft can do the same. - Internet shops like Amazon or Ebay don't need to track you. They earn money when you buy something and if they delete PII after the order is completed they still have the money. GDPR is not taking them away. - Google can work just fine without tracking users. They show advertisement in search results, they get paid for it and they don't need to collect everything you have typed to earn profit - Youtube can show ads and get paid for it to completely anonymous users - Android and Google Maps don't need to track you. You paid for them when you bought your device, you don't have to pay once more with your data and opt into dubious "help us improve your user experience" scams. - Netflix gets money from you anyway and doesn't need to track you - Facebook doesn't need to track you across the web. It can show ads and get paid for it anyway. Look around. Most of businesses can earn money without collecting any personal information. The ones who can lose because of GDPR are only shady marketing agencies, legal spam conpanies, data brokers and three-letter agencies. I don't feel sorry for any of them. We should think about better protection of privacy and anonimity rather than worry about profits of Californian corporations wanting to make everyone their product.

baseballdork 8y ago
If you're looking for advertisers, all other things being equal, do you go with the advertiser who guarantees your ads will go to those most likely to have interest in your product, or do you go with the advertiser that will send your ads to random people? Of course they _can_ serve ads randomly, but they're competing to provide the best value for those buying ads.
- codedokode 8y ago
  Corporations want cheaper ads; I understand that but I don't understand why I should be tracked. They should develop better ads without violating someone's privacy or anonymity.
  - mrep 8y ago
    Companies aren't paying just to show you ads. They are almost always paying for clicks on those ads that lead users to their website. That tracking allows them to build more accurate models on what ads a user will click on and then tailor ads to the user causing increased ad click rates which results in more revenue. And I'm not really concerned about the big companies. I'm concerned about all the news agencies that are barely scraping by with targeted advertising revenue. Remove the targeting and web journalism will get even worse as they have to layoff more people and resort to even more clickbaity news.
    - codedokode 8y ago
      Without tracking the ad won't disappear, just some kinds of it can become more expensive and less effective; that is not a big problem. Companies can still show relevant ads: Google can show ads matching current search query, Youtube can show ads relevant to the video, and so on. Regarding news sites, they have a lot of opportunities to earn money, for example, publish sponsored articles. They can also use subscription model. It is better than have mobile apps that scrap data from your phone, Google Maps that track every your step, and data brokers you never heard of but they have full information about you. We should not sacrifice our privacy only because someone out there cannot make the ends meet. Google won't shut down if you stop it from tracking users' location. People will still search the internet and buy smartphones.

baseballdork 8y ago

If you're looking for advertisers, all other things being equal, do you go with the advertiser who guarantees your ads will go to those most likely to have interest in your product, or do you go with the advertiser that will send your ads to random people? Of course they _can_ serve ads randomly, but they're competing to provide the best value for those buying ads.

codedokode 8y ago
Corporations want cheaper ads; I understand that but I don't understand why I should be tracked. They should develop better ads without violating someone's privacy or anonymity.
- mrep 8y ago
  Companies aren't paying just to show you ads. They are almost always paying for clicks on those ads that lead users to their website. That tracking allows them to build more accurate models on what ads a user will click on and then tailor ads to the user causing increased ad click rates which results in more revenue. And I'm not really concerned about the big companies. I'm concerned about all the news agencies that are barely scraping by with targeted advertising revenue. Remove the targeting and web journalism will get even worse as they have to layoff more people and resort to even more clickbaity news.
  - codedokode 8y ago
    Without tracking the ad won't disappear, just some kinds of it can become more expensive and less effective; that is not a big problem. Companies can still show relevant ads: Google can show ads matching current search query, Youtube can show ads relevant to the video, and so on. Regarding news sites, they have a lot of opportunities to earn money, for example, publish sponsored articles. They can also use subscription model. It is better than have mobile apps that scrap data from your phone, Google Maps that track every your step, and data brokers you never heard of but they have full information about you. We should not sacrifice our privacy only because someone out there cannot make the ends meet. Google won't shut down if you stop it from tracking users' location. People will still search the internet and buy smartphones.