4 ms·

> rely on such data processing to be financially viable I'm not convinced this is true. Television, billboards, and print newspapers demonstrate that advertisi

by gnode 7y ago

> rely on such data processing to be financially viable I'm not convinced this is true. Television, billboards, and print newspapers demonstrate that advertising can still exist and support a business model without invading the privacy of users. I'm also not convinced that user-targeted advertising is significantly more effective in practise than contextual advertising.

Silhouette 7y ago
You might be right in at least some cases, but I don't think this is really the point. Requiring businesses to provide their services to arbitrary numbers of people who are offering them nothing in return is a dangerous and ultimately unsustainable strategy. Maybe if we were faced with some severe and immediate threat to public health and the business were a manufacturer of essential medication, there might be some overriding public interest justification for adopting that sort of position in law, but I think it would need to be a crisis of that sort of level to justify such direct intervention. I don't think the situation we're talking about here is anywhere close to justifying it on similar grounds. Nor do I see any obvious evidence that forcing the matter through regulatory action will motivate a shift to more desirable funding models for the affected businesses. First some good alternative models would have to be identified, and if we'd done that already, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation at all.
- gnode 7y ago
  > Requiring businesses to provide their services to arbitrary numbers of people who are offering them nothing in return is a dangerous and ultimately unsustainable strategy. The advertising industry has been subject to regulation for a long time, especially in European countries. There is precedent for regulating the quantity and quality of advertising, banning classes of adverts (e.g. tobacco), and the use of personal data for direct marketing (telemarketing). Ultimately they have the option of providing their services within the bounds of the law, or not providing them at all. I don't see why web advertising should be exceptionally unregulated. The GDPR does not prohibit advertising, and as a website operator you would be within your rights to block access to adblocker users. Advertising without the use of personal data is demonstrably successful (TV; radio; cinema; magazines; sponsorship). Personal targeting of adverts may improve revenue, but so would allowing tobacco advertising, increasing the length of advert breaks on TV, or numerous other regulated practises.

by gnode 7y ago

Silhouette 7y ago

You might be right in at least some cases, but I don't think this is really the point. Requiring businesses to provide their services to arbitrary numbers of people who are offering them nothing in return is a dangerous and ultimately unsustainable strategy. Maybe if we were faced with some severe and immediate threat to public health and the business were a manufacturer of essential medication, there might be some overriding public interest justification for adopting that sort of position in law, but I think it would need to be a crisis of that sort of level to justify such direct intervention. I don't think the situation we're talking about here is anywhere close to justifying it on similar grounds. Nor do I see any obvious evidence that forcing the matter through regulatory action will motivate a shift to more desirable funding models for the affected businesses. First some good alternative models would have to be identified, and if we'd done that already, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation at all.

gnode 7y ago
> Requiring businesses to provide their services to arbitrary numbers of people who are offering them nothing in return is a dangerous and ultimately unsustainable strategy. The advertising industry has been subject to regulation for a long time, especially in European countries. There is precedent for regulating the quantity and quality of advertising, banning classes of adverts (e.g. tobacco), and the use of personal data for direct marketing (telemarketing). Ultimately they have the option of providing their services within the bounds of the law, or not providing them at all. I don't see why web advertising should be exceptionally unregulated. The GDPR does not prohibit advertising, and as a website operator you would be within your rights to block access to adblocker users. Advertising without the use of personal data is demonstrably successful (TV; radio; cinema; magazines; sponsorship). Personal targeting of adverts may improve revenue, but so would allowing tobacco advertising, increasing the length of advert breaks on TV, or numerous other regulated practises.