4 ms·

As I understand you have to Target EU citizens, having a box which states you exempt yourself is allowed. You just have to explain that it is their choice and i

As I understand you have to Target EU citizens, having a box which states you exempt yourself is allowed. You just have to explain that it is their choice and if they choose to allow you they grant you permission. It just has to be an explicit agree.

Nursie 7y ago
IIRC you are explicitly not allowed to deny service if someone doesn't agree to tracking/targetting, so I'm not sure how that would fly.
- ApolloFortyNine 7y ago
  I believe you are correct, though I have no idea how it came to be. If I can't profit off serving you content without you consenting to the targeting (so that the ads will pay out more money), I should not be legally required to provide you content at a loss. I'm sure it wouldn't fly in the U.S, though I'm not sure what protections businesses have in the EU.
  - craigsmansion 7y ago
    > I should not be legally required to provide you content at a loss You aren't. In fact, you're forbidden to provide this content in the EU.
  - MereInterest 7y ago
    If your business model does not work when behaving ethically, perhaps that is a problem with the business model, rather than a problem with the ethics.
    - manigandham 7y ago
      Ethics are irrelevant here. There's nothing unethical about ads. If you don't want to view ads in exchange for the content then you can pay for it or visit a different site.
      - MereInterest 7y ago
        > Ethics are irrelevant here. First, ethics are not irrelevant. You may argue that ethics has been satisfied in a case, but that doesn't make it irrelevant. > There's nothing unethical about ads. If you don't want to view ads in exchange for the content then you can pay for it or visit a different site. I have two issues with this line of reasoning. First, it assumes that the issue is with the ads themselves, rather than the stalking being done. Second, it assumes that the content can be paid for (not always the case) and that other sites do not perform similar stalking of the users.
        manigandham 7y ago
        They're irrelevant because they're subjective. Feel whatever way you want but you don't have to participate if you don't want to.
        MereInterest 7y ago
        I'm confused. Your first sentence states that ethics are irrelevant, while your second sentence gives an argument about ethics. Surely, if they are as irrelevant as you say, making an argument about ethics would be pointless.
        manigandham 7y ago
        The ads business model is legal and works for billions of people and millions of companies around the world. In the context of your specific complaint about "behaving ethically", that's entirely your subjective judgement and irrelevant because giving you the choice to do what you want is about as morally good as it gets. If you don't like the model then don't engage. But claiming that it doesn't behave ethically because you just don't like it is silly.
        MereInterest 7y ago
        So, ethics are not at all irrelevant, and you are instead arguing that tracking somebody's every movement online and, increasingly, in the real world, is ethical?
  - matthewmacleod 7y ago
    This is not a very strong argument – if privacy is a protected and regulated right, then it's totally reasonable that your inability to build a business model which meets the requirements of privacy regulations means that your business is no longer viable. It's kind of like arguing that businesses should be free to dump toxic waste wherever they want, because they can't produce their products at a profit without doing so. They are free to either adjust their business models to compensate, or stop doing business.
  - Nursie 7y ago
    > If I can't profit off serving you content without you consenting to the targeting Then you don't get to play in the EU. Businesses have many protections in the EU, the right to indiscriminately track and target users without permission is not one of them, nor to make provision of service dependent on tracking. Make no mistake - The GDPR is absolutely an attack on the business of targeted advertising.

Nursie 7y ago

IIRC you are explicitly not allowed to deny service if someone doesn't agree to tracking/targetting, so I'm not sure how that would fly.

ApolloFortyNine 7y ago
I believe you are correct, though I have no idea how it came to be. If I can't profit off serving you content without you consenting to the targeting (so that the ads will pay out more money), I should not be legally required to provide you content at a loss. I'm sure it wouldn't fly in the U.S, though I'm not sure what protections businesses have in the EU.
- craigsmansion 7y ago
  > I should not be legally required to provide you content at a loss You aren't. In fact, you're forbidden to provide this content in the EU.
- MereInterest 7y ago
  If your business model does not work when behaving ethically, perhaps that is a problem with the business model, rather than a problem with the ethics.
  - manigandham 7y ago
    Ethics are irrelevant here. There's nothing unethical about ads. If you don't want to view ads in exchange for the content then you can pay for it or visit a different site.
    - MereInterest 7y ago
      > Ethics are irrelevant here. First, ethics are not irrelevant. You may argue that ethics has been satisfied in a case, but that doesn't make it irrelevant. > There's nothing unethical about ads. If you don't want to view ads in exchange for the content then you can pay for it or visit a different site. I have two issues with this line of reasoning. First, it assumes that the issue is with the ads themselves, rather than the stalking being done. Second, it assumes that the content can be paid for (not always the case) and that other sites do not perform similar stalking of the users.
      - manigandham 7y ago
        They're irrelevant because they're subjective. Feel whatever way you want but you don't have to participate if you don't want to.
        MereInterest 7y ago
        I'm confused. Your first sentence states that ethics are irrelevant, while your second sentence gives an argument about ethics. Surely, if they are as irrelevant as you say, making an argument about ethics would be pointless.
        manigandham 7y ago
        The ads business model is legal and works for billions of people and millions of companies around the world. In the context of your specific complaint about "behaving ethically", that's entirely your subjective judgement and irrelevant because giving you the choice to do what you want is about as morally good as it gets. If you don't like the model then don't engage. But claiming that it doesn't behave ethically because you just don't like it is silly.
        MereInterest 7y ago
        So, ethics are not at all irrelevant, and you are instead arguing that tracking somebody's every movement online and, increasingly, in the real world, is ethical?
- matthewmacleod 7y ago
  This is not a very strong argument – if privacy is a protected and regulated right, then it's totally reasonable that your inability to build a business model which meets the requirements of privacy regulations means that your business is no longer viable. It's kind of like arguing that businesses should be free to dump toxic waste wherever they want, because they can't produce their products at a profit without doing so. They are free to either adjust their business models to compensate, or stop doing business.
- Nursie 7y ago
  > If I can't profit off serving you content without you consenting to the targeting Then you don't get to play in the EU. Businesses have many protections in the EU, the right to indiscriminately track and target users without permission is not one of them, nor to make provision of service dependent on tracking. Make no mistake - The GDPR is absolutely an attack on the business of targeted advertising.