7 ms·

I'm surprised about: >Consent must also be freely given. The DPA highlighted that users should have a real choice not to consent without any negative consequen

by Hitton 6y ago

I'm surprised about: >Consent must also be freely given. The DPA highlighted that users should have a real choice not to consent without any negative consequences. Grindr made use of the app conditional on consenting to data sharing or to paying a subscription fee. I thought that this was allowed. Kind of puts companies depending on advertising in really bad position. One would expect that having choice of paying or getting tracked would be, at least for some people, better than just having to pay to get to the content.

dmitriid 6y ago
You can advertise without bulk collection of personal data.
- freebuju 6y ago
  Yeah, but personal data is way more profitable. Hence why every popular site puts all the opt-out buttons & privacy terms behind tiny fonts placed in some hidden inconspicuous corner. I recently stopped thinking of myself as an Internet user on the web but rather an advertising ID holder.
  - donohoe 6y ago
    I would dispute the profitability of contextual vs personalized advertising (see NYT’s experience) but is too early and coffee hasn’t kicked in yet.
- Blikkentrekker 6y ago
  What kind of financial losses are we realistically talking about from being denied such tracking? what kind of percentages of lesser revenue?
  - TeMPOraL 6y ago
    Probably net zero, as long as everyone follows the same rules. Advertising is a zero-sum game, and changing the height of the playing field shouldn't impact relative revenue all that much.
    - cm2012 6y ago
      As an advertiser, not true at all. Promoting products to any niche smaller than "man" or "woman" basically requires targeted advertising to make work.
      - anticristi 6y ago
        Couldn't this be done based on content, without looking at personal data? "Here is an article on investment. How about I show an ad of an investment bank." If only one company does it, they lose. But if everyone is forced to do it, noone will lose.
        Blikkentrekker 6y ago
        And it's more commercially effective to be more specific than that and take the reader's profile into account. It's also not a zero sum at all. An advertisement that is not within the user's interest is wasted, rather than going to the competitor.
        TeMPOraL 6y ago
        > An advertisement that is not within the user's interest is wasted, rather than going to the competitor. Not completely, if there is anything to the concept of "brand awareness" (and I believe there is, and a good chunk of advertisers do too). An ad that is not within user's interest still makes an imprint of the brand, product and vendor in their head. Later on, where user's interest change, that brand/product/vendor is a bit more likely to be recalled by them. A mistargeted ad is better than no ad at all.
        cm2012 6y ago
        In theory, yes, in reality, no. The strongest, biggest signal of what ads people will click is what kind of ads they clicked in the past. Content based ads have really bad performance comparably.
        6y ago
matsemann 6y ago
> I thought that this was allowed. No, that's one of the big wins of GDPR. You cannot just force the users to sign away their rights.
- virgilp 6y ago
  Yet a very large number of companies do. Open Facebook in an incognito window - it'll give you a dialog with "Accept FB cookies"; options are, "Accept all" or "Manage" (already in violation of GDPR since rejecting is not as easy as accepting!). Click manage, and you get presented with a single button, "I Accept"; sure, there's one checkbox that you can leave unchecked, but it's really unclear from that wall of text what exactly you are "Accepting" and what you're not. If Grinder was fined 10% of revenue - why exactly aren't they fining Facebook 2.2 billion? It'd be much more impactful, and hopefully help put an end to those practices.
- Hitton 6y ago
  How is giving choice between paying with money or paying with data forcing users into signing their rights away?
  - TeMPOraL 6y ago
    I'm not sure if I've ever seen such choice being offered in the first place. It's always either "pay with your data or don't use it at all", or "pay with your money and your data, or don't use it at all". Also, prior to GDPR, the "pay with your data" aspect wasn't even mentioned by the companies. Ultimately, GDPR doesn't prevent people from donating their data - it just requires that it's explicit and not mandatory.
    - mrep 6y ago
      Really? Going to der spiegel as someone from Chicago I get a "Continue reading with ads, Visit SPIEGEL.de as you normally would with the advertising and the usual tracking. (You can revoke your consent at any time.)" with an accept and continue box or "… or purchase a PUR subscription, It allows you to visit our site without any ad tracking and mostly free of advertising. €4.99/month, €1.99 for SPIEGEL+ subscribers".
stretchcat 6y ago
> Kind of puts companies depending on advertising in really bad position Good. I hope these companies die. This business model is more toxic than Dow Chemical.

by Hitton 6y ago

dmitriid 6y ago

You can advertise without bulk collection of personal data.

freebuju 6y ago
Yeah, but personal data is way more profitable. Hence why every popular site puts all the opt-out buttons & privacy terms behind tiny fonts placed in some hidden inconspicuous corner. I recently stopped thinking of myself as an Internet user on the web but rather an advertising ID holder.
- donohoe 6y ago
  I would dispute the profitability of contextual vs personalized advertising (see NYT’s experience) but is too early and coffee hasn’t kicked in yet.
Blikkentrekker 6y ago
What kind of financial losses are we realistically talking about from being denied such tracking? what kind of percentages of lesser revenue?
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  Probably net zero, as long as everyone follows the same rules. Advertising is a zero-sum game, and changing the height of the playing field shouldn't impact relative revenue all that much.
  - cm2012 6y ago
    As an advertiser, not true at all. Promoting products to any niche smaller than "man" or "woman" basically requires targeted advertising to make work.
    - anticristi 6y ago
      Couldn't this be done based on content, without looking at personal data? "Here is an article on investment. How about I show an ad of an investment bank." If only one company does it, they lose. But if everyone is forced to do it, noone will lose.
      - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
        And it's more commercially effective to be more specific than that and take the reader's profile into account. It's also not a zero sum at all. An advertisement that is not within the user's interest is wasted, rather than going to the competitor.
        TeMPOraL 6y ago
        > An advertisement that is not within the user's interest is wasted, rather than going to the competitor. Not completely, if there is anything to the concept of "brand awareness" (and I believe there is, and a good chunk of advertisers do too). An ad that is not within user's interest still makes an imprint of the brand, product and vendor in their head. Later on, where user's interest change, that brand/product/vendor is a bit more likely to be recalled by them. A mistargeted ad is better than no ad at all.
      - cm2012 6y ago
        In theory, yes, in reality, no. The strongest, biggest signal of what ads people will click is what kind of ads they clicked in the past. Content based ads have really bad performance comparably.
        6y ago

matsemann 6y ago

> I thought that this was allowed. No, that's one of the big wins of GDPR. You cannot just force the users to sign away their rights.

virgilp 6y ago
Yet a very large number of companies do. Open Facebook in an incognito window - it'll give you a dialog with "Accept FB cookies"; options are, "Accept all" or "Manage" (already in violation of GDPR since rejecting is not as easy as accepting!). Click manage, and you get presented with a single button, "I Accept"; sure, there's one checkbox that you can leave unchecked, but it's really unclear from that wall of text what exactly you are "Accepting" and what you're not. If Grinder was fined 10% of revenue - why exactly aren't they fining Facebook 2.2 billion? It'd be much more impactful, and hopefully help put an end to those practices.
Hitton 6y ago
How is giving choice between paying with money or paying with data forcing users into signing their rights away?
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  I'm not sure if I've ever seen such choice being offered in the first place. It's always either "pay with your data or don't use it at all", or "pay with your money and your data, or don't use it at all". Also, prior to GDPR, the "pay with your data" aspect wasn't even mentioned by the companies. Ultimately, GDPR doesn't prevent people from donating their data - it just requires that it's explicit and not mandatory.
  - mrep 6y ago
    Really? Going to der spiegel as someone from Chicago I get a "Continue reading with ads, Visit SPIEGEL.de as you normally would with the advertising and the usual tracking. (You can revoke your consent at any time.)" with an accept and continue box or "… or purchase a PUR subscription, It allows you to visit our site without any ad tracking and mostly free of advertising. €4.99/month, €1.99 for SPIEGEL+ subscribers".

stretchcat 6y ago

> Kind of puts companies depending on advertising in really bad position Good. I hope these companies die. This business model is more toxic than Dow Chemical.