4 ms·

That's how the GDPR works - unless the data being collected is required for the operation of the service, you cannot make data collection a requirement of using

That's how the GDPR works - unless the data being collected is required for the operation of the service, you cannot make data collection a requirement of using the service.

dmortin 8y ago
What if the ads are required for the operation of the website, because without them the site has to close? People are rarely willing to pay for big sites, they surely won't pay for many small sites separately. Smaller sites don't have the resources to curate their own ads, that's why they use ad networks. If we are strict about this then this rule will eliminate small sites while tightening the grip of the big sites on the net, because they have the resources to adapt.
- lbarrow 8y ago
  My understanding is that something being 'required for product to function' refers to technical requirements, not revenue requirements. So, yes I agree that it's a problem for small sites (or really anyone who tries to make money on ads).
  - dmortin 8y ago
    So this is a bad rule, because enforcing it will result in eliminating independent small sites which have no other means for financing themseves than ads.
    - vharuck 8y ago
      Advertising doesn't require recording detailed profiles of individuals without their consent. Think of magazines, billboards, television, radio, etc.
      - dmortin 8y ago
        In case of the advertising availabe for small sites with a handful of staff (ad networks) untargeted ads pay much less (even 50% less or more) and that revenue may not be enough to keep the sites operational.
    - brett40324 8y ago
      Is this necessarily a bad thing, or just a reality of operating a business?
- brylie 8y ago
  Advertisement doesn't require profiling and surveillance. That is what GDPR and other efforts like some ad blockers are trying to protect against. The emerging consensus is surveillance capitalism is unethical and increasingly illegal.
  - dmortin 8y ago
    > Advertisement doesn't require profiling and surveillance. Targeted ads pay much more. Eliminating targeted ads can result in a revenue drop of 50% or more, effectively killing small sites which most of the time make not much more money from ads than what is needed for financing themselves.
    - alkonaut 8y ago
      If a sites business model depends on using their users' data without their consent/knowledge then why would we want regulation to protect it from being eaten and their seat at the table taken by facebook?
      - dmortin 8y ago
        Because we need independent sites too, so we hear other opinions than just the agenda of big money. It's not ideal that we need targeted ads for that, but currently there is no viable alternative and untargeted ads don't pay enough.
        alkonaut 8y ago
        I think there is no alternative because it pays to much. It works both ways.
    - white-flame 8y ago
      The idea that a site should automatically generate revenue simply for existing, especially when it's relying on unwitting invasion of visitors' privacy in an increasingly illegal manner, is ridiculous at best; malicious and predatory at worst.
- alkonaut 8y ago
  > What if the ads are required for the operation of the website, because without them the site has to close? That's why you ask people. If enough people agree to paying for your content with their data, your site lives on. If too many opt to not pay for your content with their data, your site dies unless it can find another way of making money, such as subscriptions. Yes, it absolutely can mean that the giants will expand and lots of small sites that use ad networks will die.
  - dmortin 8y ago
    > That's why you ask people. Most people don't care and just choose the default option to get to the site. If opt out is the default and opt in requires a conscious decision then the majority of users won't opt in, because most users don't read the options, only clicks on the default option or the close popup X. > Yes, it absolutely can mean that the giants will expand and lots of small sites that use ad networks will die. And we already see the current situation where Facebook is dominant. If more small sites die and the big ones get even stronger then the situation will continue to deteriorate.
  - Dylan16807 8y ago
    It also can mean that small sites will expand and giants that use ad networks will die!

That's how the GDPR works - unless the data being collected is required for the operation of the service, you cannot make data collection a requirement of using the service.

dmortin 8y ago

What if the ads are required for the operation of the website, because without them the site has to close? People are rarely willing to pay for big sites, they surely won't pay for many small sites separately. Smaller sites don't have the resources to curate their own ads, that's why they use ad networks. If we are strict about this then this rule will eliminate small sites while tightening the grip of the big sites on the net, because they have the resources to adapt.

lbarrow 8y ago
My understanding is that something being 'required for product to function' refers to technical requirements, not revenue requirements. So, yes I agree that it's a problem for small sites (or really anyone who tries to make money on ads).
- dmortin 8y ago
  So this is a bad rule, because enforcing it will result in eliminating independent small sites which have no other means for financing themseves than ads.
  - vharuck 8y ago
    Advertising doesn't require recording detailed profiles of individuals without their consent. Think of magazines, billboards, television, radio, etc.
    - dmortin 8y ago
      In case of the advertising availabe for small sites with a handful of staff (ad networks) untargeted ads pay much less (even 50% less or more) and that revenue may not be enough to keep the sites operational.
  - brett40324 8y ago
    Is this necessarily a bad thing, or just a reality of operating a business?
brylie 8y ago
Advertisement doesn't require profiling and surveillance. That is what GDPR and other efforts like some ad blockers are trying to protect against. The emerging consensus is surveillance capitalism is unethical and increasingly illegal.
- dmortin 8y ago
  > Advertisement doesn't require profiling and surveillance. Targeted ads pay much more. Eliminating targeted ads can result in a revenue drop of 50% or more, effectively killing small sites which most of the time make not much more money from ads than what is needed for financing themselves.
  - alkonaut 8y ago
    If a sites business model depends on using their users' data without their consent/knowledge then why would we want regulation to protect it from being eaten and their seat at the table taken by facebook?
    - dmortin 8y ago
      Because we need independent sites too, so we hear other opinions than just the agenda of big money. It's not ideal that we need targeted ads for that, but currently there is no viable alternative and untargeted ads don't pay enough.
      - alkonaut 8y ago
        I think there is no alternative because it pays to much. It works both ways.
  - white-flame 8y ago
    The idea that a site should automatically generate revenue simply for existing, especially when it's relying on unwitting invasion of visitors' privacy in an increasingly illegal manner, is ridiculous at best; malicious and predatory at worst.
alkonaut 8y ago
> What if the ads are required for the operation of the website, because without them the site has to close? That's why you ask people. If enough people agree to paying for your content with their data, your site lives on. If too many opt to not pay for your content with their data, your site dies unless it can find another way of making money, such as subscriptions. Yes, it absolutely can mean that the giants will expand and lots of small sites that use ad networks will die.
- dmortin 8y ago
  > That's why you ask people. Most people don't care and just choose the default option to get to the site. If opt out is the default and opt in requires a conscious decision then the majority of users won't opt in, because most users don't read the options, only clicks on the default option or the close popup X. > Yes, it absolutely can mean that the giants will expand and lots of small sites that use ad networks will die. And we already see the current situation where Facebook is dominant. If more small sites die and the big ones get even stronger then the situation will continue to deteriorate.
- Dylan16807 8y ago
  It also can mean that small sites will expand and giants that use ad networks will die!