4 ms·

GDPR wants 0 tracking. That's wrong too, the internet can't work that way, even governments can't work that way. EU wants advertising to go back to the popup /

GDPR wants 0 tracking. That's wrong too, the internet can't work that way, even governments can't work that way. EU wants advertising to go back to the popup / animated gifs & flash / interstitial era to maximize clickthroughs in the off-chance one of them is actually interested in your ads. That's regression

martin_a 7y ago
> GDPR wants 0 tracking. That's wrong too, the internet can't work that way, even governments can't work that way. How did it work like that all the time? It can work perfectly without all the tracking. Tracking is just so omni-present that some people can not imagine a world without it. > EU wants advertising to go back to the popup / animated gifs & flash / interstitial era to maximize clickthroughs in the off-chance one of them is actually interested in your ads. That's regression Actually that would be a great regression! I'd soooo love to have static images delivered to me again, instead of some JS bullshit which is tracking me all over the web. Let's just kill all the ad networks over night. It will be a great time and we have a second chance to make the internet a great place.
DanBC 7y ago
> GDPR wants 0 tracking That's wrong. You're allowed to track users. You just need a legal basis to do so.
TeMPOraL 7y ago
GDPR wants 0 tracking without explicit, informed consent. That's the key thing in this regulation: informed consent. Dealing with people fairly. > EU wants advertising to go back to the popup / animated gifs & flash / interstitial era to maximize clickthroughs in the off-chance one of them is actually interested in your ads. Not true, unfortunately. EU wants the ads to not track people without their explicit, informed consent. GDPR isn't an anti-advertising law, it's a data protection law (says so literally in the name). > That's regression No. That's remission.
- buboard 7y ago
  - users could always install an adblocker if they dont consent. - users could consent once for each tracker if thats what the law cared for. Consenting for each tracker x for each website is purposeful obstruction in order to make advertising optional
  - icebraining 7y ago
    > - users could always install an adblocker if they dont consent. - To consent, one must be informed, so the sites would have to advertise adblockers, why they exist and how can they be used. - Current adblockers rely on volunteers compiling lists of ads, and sites trying to evade those lists. That's not a reasonable way to ensure a legal right, so sites / networks would have to publish those lists themselves. - The GDPR is about way more than website access tracking, so you'd still need all the same rules about the rest of the use of personal information. Seems like a duplication of effort and complexity. > - users could consent once for each tracker if thats what the law cared for. Just because I'm OK with a network knowing I visit nytimes.com doesn't mean I'm OK with them knowing (and using the information) that I visit pornhub.com. Consent per site is crucial.

martin_a 7y ago

> GDPR wants 0 tracking. That's wrong too, the internet can't work that way, even governments can't work that way. How did it work like that all the time? It can work perfectly without all the tracking. Tracking is just so omni-present that some people can not imagine a world without it. > EU wants advertising to go back to the popup / animated gifs & flash / interstitial era to maximize clickthroughs in the off-chance one of them is actually interested in your ads. That's regression Actually that would be a great regression! I'd soooo love to have static images delivered to me again, instead of some JS bullshit which is tracking me all over the web. Let's just kill all the ad networks over night. It will be a great time and we have a second chance to make the internet a great place.

DanBC 7y ago

> GDPR wants 0 tracking That's wrong. You're allowed to track users. You just need a legal basis to do so.

TeMPOraL 7y ago

GDPR wants 0 tracking without explicit, informed consent. That's the key thing in this regulation: informed consent. Dealing with people fairly. > EU wants advertising to go back to the popup / animated gifs & flash / interstitial era to maximize clickthroughs in the off-chance one of them is actually interested in your ads. Not true, unfortunately. EU wants the ads to not track people without their explicit, informed consent. GDPR isn't an anti-advertising law, it's a data protection law (says so literally in the name). > That's regression No. That's remission.

buboard 7y ago
- users could always install an adblocker if they dont consent. - users could consent once for each tracker if thats what the law cared for. Consenting for each tracker x for each website is purposeful obstruction in order to make advertising optional
- icebraining 7y ago
  > - users could always install an adblocker if they dont consent. - To consent, one must be informed, so the sites would have to advertise adblockers, why they exist and how can they be used. - Current adblockers rely on volunteers compiling lists of ads, and sites trying to evade those lists. That's not a reasonable way to ensure a legal right, so sites / networks would have to publish those lists themselves. - The GDPR is about way more than website access tracking, so you'd still need all the same rules about the rest of the use of personal information. Seems like a duplication of effort and complexity. > - users could consent once for each tracker if thats what the law cared for. Just because I'm OK with a network knowing I visit nytimes.com doesn't mean I'm OK with them knowing (and using the information) that I visit pornhub.com. Consent per site is crucial.