11 ms·

EU Parliament pushes to ban ads targeting health, religion, sexual orientation

131 points by riffraff 5y ago

usrbinbash 5y ago
How about we ban ALL targeted ads, dear political representatives, thereby removing one of the primary incentives to collect all that information in the first place?
- DocTomoe 5y ago
  But then, who is paying all that nice money for politicians parties, fun ones and organisational ones? Like always when it comes to politics, these things boil down to "who gave the tribal chief bigger spoils". We as a civic society should eventually learn that corruption is maybe the only way to get to where we want to be.
  - dcyyerg 5y ago
    Or maybe a politically significant amount of people don't find targeted ads particularly invasive and at least prefer them to being suggested things with no relevance to the individual whatsoever?
- Barrin92 5y ago
  probably because most people wouldn't consider all ad targeting illegitimate. Most countries distinguish between so called protected classes that deserve to be outside of the marketplace and classes that are not. I don't really see the problem with ads that discriminate based on profession or income.
  - DarkWiiPlayer 5y ago
    Personally, I don't think ads should consider any information other than what products a user has already bought or looked at. Whether they should be allowed to collect and consider other information is of course a different question.
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    It would help for acceptance that if they ask about building a profile on you. That is especially a problem for said protected classes or anyone that diverges from a corridor of contemporary opinions. This data is sold and you have no control over it. As it is, no I don't like any form of targeted ads and I have never responded to them. But mostly I don't like their invasive behavior and unregulated business incentives.
  - atoav 5y ago
    You could still control the audience of your ads by choosing where to publish them. What should be illegal is to target individuals by using their browsing data.
  - Lio 5y ago
    > I don't really see the problem with ads that discriminate based on profession or income. For me it's always been about control. If the surveillance companies (Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc.) used opt-in or honoured the Do Not Track header all this could be avoided. Those that want tracked and targeted ads could request them and those that don't would be left alone. Instead, by refusing to not honour, Do Not Track or using Dark UX Patterns to make it hard to opt out[1] they're affectively saying, "tough luck, we're going to do whatever we want regardless". It's a race to the bottom to see which company can get away with being the most obnoxious. We're left with legal means as the only curbs their behaviour. . 1. Why do so many web sites get away with an "Allow All" but no reliable[2] "Reject All"? 2. Why is there a second set of things to opt out of as "Legitimate Purpose"? Why doesn't the "Reject All", when present, not cover these too?
    - mschuster91 5y ago
      > 2. Why is there a second set of things to opt out of as "Legitimate Purpose"? Why doesn't the "Reject All", when present, not cover these too? Because you need to name stuff like session ID cookies, loadbalancer backend cookies and other stuff that is necessary for operation ("legitimate interest")... but you do not need consent from the user for these.
      - mmarq 5y ago
        Session IDs and loadbalancer cookies would be required cookies, "legitimate purpose" is a different concept
        lawtalkinghuman 5y ago
        The whole point of misusing legitimate purpose is they're trying to end-run around consent. It's a bad hack until one of the national data protection agencies decides to say "no, you can't do that" and then it goes away.
      - dmitriid 5y ago
        > Because you need to name stuff like session ID cookies, loadbalancer backend cookies and other stuff that is necessary for operation No you don't. You don't need to ask for permission for data you collect/store that is strictly required for your business to operate. Key word: strictly required. Meanwhile these leeches have latched on on a more nebulously defined "legitimate interest". For example, if you need fraud protection for your order-processing business, you have a legitimate interest to process and store more data than is strictly required. Since such legitimate interests are innumerable they are not explicitly defined in the law. So, the parasites clamp things like "siphon your data and sell it to the highest bidder" under "legitimate interest". Which skirts the law, and will fall apart under scrutiny. See the three-part test by UK's data authority, https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/legitimate-interests/what-is-the-legitimate-interests-basis/ https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protectio... (UK is so far still bound by GDPR)
  - usrbinbash 5y ago
    > I don't really see the problem with ads that discriminate based on profession or income. The problem is: The only way such ads are possible, is by private parties collecting information about the people they want to target with such ads.
  - WithinReason 5y ago
    If the advertiser can correlate health, religion and sexual orientation with the allowed parameters, then they can still target ads implicitly based on these categories.
    - maccard 5y ago
      Right - is targeting ads to the Vatican city about signs of abuse considered religious advertising?
- akvadrako 5y ago
  Even better, we should ban all ads.
  - Nextgrid 5y ago
    Determining what is considered an ad is going to be tricky. "Targeting" and the associated data collection is much easier to determine and codify into law.
  - usrbinbash 5y ago
    No, why? Ads are a completely legitimate business practice: I make a product or offer a service, so I want people to know about it. Bans on targeted ads are not about the advertising, they are about the privacy concerns resulting from the data collection that is the prerequisite for targeted ads.
    - minimilian 5y ago
      Because they pollute the world?
    - akvadrako 5y ago
      I don't care about your product and I don't want my view obscured by your ads. The fact you think you should be able to force me to see them is the problem.
      - maccard 5y ago
        What do you think the purpose of this site is?
      - usrbinbash 5y ago
        Where ads are, and how visible they are in relation of other content, is up to whoever owns the website.
    - cfcf14 5y ago
      Although it would be a world very different from ours, I wonder what the consequences of an ad-ban would be? You create a business or service, but the only way an individual could discover it is by intentionally going out and seeking that information (perhaps you've made a new washing machine, and they seek out information for washing machines). Perhaps specialised 'discovery' services would pop up for people wondering what sorts of new stuff/services was out there? On the surface of it, I'd assume that if reaching out to customers to 'let them know you exist' via advertisements was prohibited, the amount of innovation and investment into products would decrease. But at the same time, the amount of money allocatable to product development within a given budget would increase, as you wouldn't have to expend so much on marketing (which in some cases, dwarfs the cost of R&D). But maybe the markets would just adapt anyways. Seems a fun thought experiment.
- eterevsky 5y ago
  Suppose you go on YouTube and it recommends you a video that is similar to the ones that you liked. This is a targeted ad. Would you like to ban it?
  - notRobot 5y ago
    That is decidedly not a "targeted ad". Recommendations are different.
    - eterevsky 5y ago
      I agree that there is a difference, but it's pretty hard to define. YouTube videos are a product, the creators are earning money from your views one way or another. If you ban targeted ads while allowing recommendations, Facebook will just claim that it shows you targeted recommendations.
  - usrbinbash 5y ago
    This can easily be done with contextual advertising, wich requires no user tracking. I have no problem with a shop showing me eg. an ad-banner for a gym membership if I happen to buy lots of sports wear in that shop. However, if a website I never visited before shows me the same ads, data collection happened, and that should either be banned, or made into strict opt-on-only.
    - eterevsky 5y ago
      When you open the YouTube front page, there is no context except for what YouTube already knows about your preferences. If this situation I would prefer to receive video recommendations based on my past preferences, which could be considered targeted ads.
      - usrbinbash 5y ago
        > When you open the YouTube front page, there is no context Yes there is: My useraccount. Ideally, if I am logged in, and if I consented that they may show me videos based on my preferences, I would be okay with them may recommending videos to me and refining these recommendations based on my views. The consent should of course be opt-in only (eg. a simple switch in the account settings). Using this information for recommending videos within that pages context only != Targeted advertising. As long as the information never leaves their page, is used in no other page of their ecosystem, and as long as I can tell them to stop collecting it, delete what they already have, and are guaranteed by law that they keep no connection between that data and any identifying information other than my useraccount, I would be okay with that. And yes, when I visit youtube without being logged in, I would be perfectly okay with having no/default recommendations, or recommendations based on the context of that page visit only.
- foxfluff 5y ago
  This proposal bans all targeted ads unless you give consent. Targeting minors and certain protected groups is banned even if they consented to targeted advertising. There's also this gem: In order to avoid fatiguing recipients who refuse to consent, terminal equipment settings that signal an objection to processing of personal data should be respected. Yes, please, bring us a legally binding No Consent and Do Not Track.
  - gruez 5y ago
    What do you do when all the sites hold their content hostage unless you consent?
    - foxfluff 5y ago
      Point it out to the authorities and hope the company gets smacked with a huge fine and makes it to this list: https://www.enforcementtracker.com/ https://www.enforcementtracker.com/
- hackeraccount 5y ago
  I understand that commercial speech is the red headed step-child to political speech but this still seems a little extreme.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
loceng 5y ago
I wonder if this includes using inferences to indirectly target these categories, albeit with somewhat less accuracy but certainly more than non-targeted?
dusted 5y ago
So, if we get consumerism accepted as a religion, does that make all ads for products one can buy banned? Who wanna join? :D
- oxfordmale 5y ago
  My religion doesn't allow any advertisements on Sunday, as they are the work of the devil. Monday to Saturday are off limits for the same reason :-)
  - foxfluff 5y ago
    Well, if they don't target ads based on religion, they don't need to give a crap what your religion thinks about ads :)
- josefx 5y ago
  I think you can still advertise health and religion related items you just can't use a persons health or religion as target parameter anymore.
ComSubVie 5y ago
Why not ban ALL ads?!?
- MauranKilom 5y ago
  Bold stance! I think it goes too far - there is definitely value for society in people being able to make services and goods they offer publicly known. No doubt we're currently too far in the "ads everywhere" direction, but within limits I think ads can have net benefit.
  - minimilian 5y ago
    If that's the only reason for accepting ads, then they could be consigned to particular websites and stop polluting the world for the rest of us. Then, if you need something, you can go watch all the stupid ads.
- TacticalCoder 5y ago
  Once in a rare while there's an ad which makes me want to buy something but I don't know if it's worth all the noise. Something really sad is that sometimes you search for something you actually want to buy like, say, winter tire chains for your car... Then you end up buying them but for two weeks you keep getting ads: because the system has no way of knowing you actually now bought some at the petrol station down the street. I run pi-hole now: works great and seems to at least take care of the worst offenders.
  - akvadrako 5y ago
    If you want to be informed of product suggestions you could sign up for a service like that. I think we should ban all ads, but I would use such a service if it worked well.
- lamp987 5y ago
  are you willing to send money over paypal to each website you ever visit?
causi 5y ago
I get banning the collection of data, but why ban the targeting? Does showing someone products they're more likely to want hurt them in some way? Saying an advertising company is allowed to know everyone's personal details but isn't allowed to, say, only show Islamic prayer mat advertisements to Muslims seems pretty backwards.
- avs733 5y ago
  You’re looking at positive examples. The negative examples have serious potential to create harm. E.g.; 1) a teenager exploring/researching their own sexuality on the family computer causes ads to be served to very religious mom and dad for queer friendly products or a pride flag 2) ads targeting someone with covid that send them to a scam testing site (that charges both the patient and the government) or pushing ineffective or dangerous treatments like colloidal silver. It’s not that these are the only categories that can be abused but these are some most rife for abuse
  - notahacker 5y ago
    It must be said that the problem with (2) is the site pushing the claims being allowed to advertise/operate at all. Its only marginally less harmful if it can still profit from less directly targeted advertising. I also think there's an important distinction between data that can be used on a platform's own website and information that follows you around the Internet (which this legislation doesn't appear to draw). In practical terms, this is the distinction between ads for services a gay teenager might actually use on a login-based social profile the teenager has voluntarily publicly displayed their sexual orientation on (and bombarding them with slightly fewer invitations to be heterosexual!) and rainbow ads following their mum round Internet.
    - avs733 5y ago
      In the abstract I totally agree But if you limit their targeting the entire method becomes much much less effective and hurts the economic incentive. Right now that seems the best they can do. The policies have to be realistic. The issue is information following you…but good luck solving that
aspyct 5y ago
That, and GDPR. Damn I'm so glad I live in the EU. Say what you will about those annoying cookie banners, I see that as good things. Progress is made!
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- xxs 5y ago
  Those cookie banners are often times illegal, i.e. consent has to be freely given and it should not be as easy not to give, instead of click and select multiple choices. The explanations have to be layman ones and what not. It's a very dark pattern, and at some point it should be addressed.
- CodeGlitch 5y ago
  Sorry have to disagree. GDPR, cookie banners and now this new ad-ban are just putting plasters over a problem, rather actually solving the root-cause of the problem. Now I'm not saying that solving the root causes of these problems is easy, but these solutions are just so lame. Just a couple of concrete examples: * I see and hear of GDPR violations everywhere (here in the UK, pre and post Brexit). Despite the threat of legal action, companies still ignore (too small to care) or are ignorant of the rules. At the end of the day, Big Tech still owns all the personal data in some way or another getting around EU restrictions. * The annoying cookie banners where everyone just clicks "accept all" because no one wants to go through a list of checkboxes. This is classic EU strategy to problems: just throw more bureaucracy and administration at a problem. The solution should be that the EU creates its own Big Tech, under the rules and regulations that it itself creates. Instead all of our politicians are using WhatsApp to perform Official communications (frankly this is horrific to me).
  - mmarq 5y ago
    > I see and hear of GDPR violations everywhere (here in the UK, pre and post Brexit). Despite the threat of legal action, companies still ignore (too small to care) or are ignorant of the rules. At the end of the day, Big Tech still owns all the personal data in some way or another getting around EU restrictions. Companies may ignore law, but fines are being issued, so they do it at their own risk: https://www.enforcementtracker.com/ https://www.enforcementtracker.com/ > The annoying cookie banners where everyone just clicks "accept all" because no one wants to go through a list of checkboxes. This is classic EU strategy to problems: just throw more bureaucracy and administration at a problem. These cookie banners are (slowly) being deemed illegal: "Accept all" and "Reject all" must have the same prominence and accessibility. GDPR is forcing companies to care about security and about how they use information about their users and, probably for the first time, it's forcing companies to be transparent with how they are processing their users' data. And it's not requiring company to do anything you wouldn't expect an honest person to do when you give them some personal information, it's not just throwing bureaucracy at a problem.
dessant 5y ago
Targeted ads that follow you around on the web need to be banned entirely. My aunt can predict what health issues or products my mom searches for on Google, because Facebook almost immediately serves her ads related to my mom's searches and browsing history. Targeted ads are turned off in my mom's Google account, and she does not have a Facebook account. The two identities were linked together by the ad industry when in 2014 my aunt logged into Facebook once from my mom's previous tablet, and that's when they gave my aunt a fifth sense. What's even more frustrating is that the current tablet runs Blokada for host based blocking, and there's uBlock Origin in the browser, but none of that matters, my aunt will call her to point out what shoes my mom was reading about days before.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- vidarh 5y ago
  If I was your mom, I'm not sure I could've resisted trolling your aunt with a sudden burst of bizarre searches in that case.
- eterevsky 5y ago
  Google most certainly doesn't share user's search history with Facebook. There may be some tracking on the sites themselves, that allows Facebook to detect user's interests. However I don't think it's supposed to use one persons web history to show ads to another user. What might be happening is that they are using some common accounts or a shared browser that leaks the data between them.
  - dessant 5y ago
    No, they don't use common accounts or devices, and they don't connect from the same network.
- Vinnl 5y ago
  Unfortunately the Greens proposed that, but it didn't make it: https://twitter.com/kimvsparrentak/status/1484116335097438213 https://twitter.com/kimvsparrentak/status/148411633509743821...
linspace 5y ago
I think there are two points of views: 1. This is unnecessary regulation between private parties 2. This is power balancing between individuals and big corporations Obviously legislators are aligned with case 2. I think they have realized that the problem is so complex that is better to regulate at the end of the pipeline and let the companies figure out how to achieve it. Otherwise you may forbid gathering data X only to incentivize gathering data Y to circumvent it and make things even worse
- sgjohnson 5y ago
  3. Doesn’t matter for everyone who actually cares, as it’s trivial to cripple the ad tracking. https://trackthis.link https://trackthis.link works quite well and is an insanely low-tech approach that works on basically all platforms. Not to mention tools like uBlock Origin.
3np 5y ago
Interesting to see "political orientation" missing here, as historically that is something that many countries have prevented registration of (by police, employers, etc)
4ad 5y ago
I don't care about what ads they are allowed to show me, since I block their ads anyway. What I care about is whether they are allowed to use the information used to compute the ads to track me. It would be a pyrrhic victory if the law simply says that can't use some specific type of data for computing ads, but it still allows them to track and use the same type of data for something else.
donatj 5y ago
Hear me out - unpopular opinion. Banning targeted ads wastes everyone’s times. Ads for things that have zero applicability to me are a waste of my time, the advertisers time, everyone’s time. We’re not going to ever live in a world without ads and I would far rather they be an actual service to me, presenting me things I actually think are cool and might like to buy. A well targeted ad can be a net positive to my life. An ad for something I would never use, ever, because it doesn’t apply to me is a net negative.
- tgv 5y ago
  Hear me out. Perhaps it's not about the ads per se.
  - donatj 5y ago
    Go on?
    - sgjohnson 5y ago
      It’s about the data collection incentives. If you can’t use the data you collect to advertise, there’s no point in collecting the data in the first place. Except in this case, where it makes no difference at all, because only certain groups are protected.
      - donatj 5y ago
        And I come back with what is the actual harm in data collection? It’s not like all the governments of the world don’t already have a much more intensive dossier on you. The governments are the ones out to kill you or otherwise materially destroy your life. Corporations just want you to buy stuff. All preventing private industry from data collection is prevent useful things like this.
        sgjohnson 5y ago
        > And I come back with what is the harm in data collection? None. Because it’s done anyway, except in an “anonymized” form. But as we all know, lifting that veil is trivial if you have enough data.
amitport 5y ago
What about the fact that models effectively have access to such features without actually having them explicitly apriory. Given all the data fb/google/etc have, they can probably infer these properties in high accuracy anyway. Are we going to exclude all data that correlates with these properties? Probably not, rendering this effort kind of pointless.
JanneVee 5y ago
The number of financial scam ads I have been targeted with is staggering. Youtube presented me with an ad that was ~24 minutes long with an investment strategy that was supposed to make you a $1000 a day. Facebook is the same thing with crypto scams and binary options were popular back in the day. This ban would not make dent in my problem with targeted ads. That someone gets scammed out of their money and it had nothing to do with their health, religion or sexual orientation.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
dotcoma 5y ago
Good luck enforcing it.
Vinnl 5y ago
This is important to realise: > Lawmakers will now have to negotiate with the Council, representing the 27 EU governments, which has shown no interest in tackling online advertising in the DSA. As I understand it, the vote essentially determines the mandates of the representatives who will negotiate with the Council on behalf of the Parliament. Out of that negotiation will emerge the act that will actually come into effect.
- pmyteh 5y ago
  That's right. It's for co-decision, so the Council and Parliament jointly need to agree a final outcome. This vote does not 'ban targeted ads' so much as lay down a marker that the Parliament wants targeted ads banned as part of the package, and instruct their representatives to argue for it.
ErikCorry 5y ago
They don't want to ban targeted ads based on political views? Is this because the politicians don't want to ban the techniques that they use to get reelected? And do they want to ban ads targeted by "customer lists". Both Google Facebook allow advertizers to upload email or FB-ID lists, and will target an ad to show it only to people on the list. This (http://ghostinfluence.com/the-ultimate-retaliation-pranking-my-roommate-with-targeted-facebook-ads/ http://ghostinfluence.com/the-ultimate-retaliation-pranking-...) feels a lot more spooky to me than advertizing target to wide categories like health - I don't want or need to see products that are are for menopausal women, impotent men, or deaf old people since I'm not in any of these category.
- macilacilove 5y ago
  FB & google already voluntarily banned buying politically targeted ads for money. [1] A politician needs to give big tech something other than money to get their messages to be favourably targeted. Don't forget that they already have access to virtually infinite money through abuse of market dominance, the only thing that can stand in their way is antitrust and data regulation. [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-parent-meta-bans-targeting-for-political-ads-11636488053 https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-parent-meta-bans-targe...
  - ErikCorry 5y ago
    Interesting. That's new (less than three months old). What does microtargeting mean precisely to Facebook? Is it still ok if the customer list is above a certain size?
    - macilacilove 5y ago
      yes. I think tha change is from now on you can not target your ad for only conservatives/ only socialist leaning people (as determined by their browsing data). You used to be able to send socialist ads to socialists and conservative ads to conservatives... and be everything at the same time and win. Its like a cheat code of politics. Now to do this you have to promise Zuck to not support any antitrust and data protection regulation in return Zuck will probably take you to office by microtargeting. You don't need to worry about the media, facebook will "fact check" everything for you. You can still target nonpolitical ads based on other attributes if it is not specific to very few people.
ivanmontillam 5y ago
The main thing with AI-based services (and in this case, targeted ads) is that after a long while, your preferences are enforced over time in a such way you're deprived from discoverability of new products. You might like something that is out of your usual searches, then you see other people with it and complain how you didn't know before, because the algorithm made you be within your own bubble. The algorithm is "more of you" than you ever are of yourself. I think random ads decimates the entire targeted ads industry (at least for ads in EU), and that protects the consumers, and is a big win from discoverability of products, hopefully creating a more fair marketplace. I use the word "hopefully," because one never knows how much ads are gonna cost if the criteria is "sheer force of exposure". EDIT: Awful typos.
macilacilove 5y ago
Can facebook still target any content based on anything? In other words only outsiders are are restricted from buying some of the manipulation power of facebook but not fb and its strategic partners?
foxfluff 5y ago
This is a nice proposal overall. I'm not sure I agree with the bans on health, religion and sexual orientation (depending on your point of view such ads can be exploitative or useful) but I agree that targeting minors is not cool, and I like how the proposal makes targeting off-by-default and requires your consent. It sounds like they're also trying to make things like Do Not Track legally binding: In order to avoid fatiguing recipients who refuse to consent, terminal equipment settings that signal an objection to processing of personal data should be respected. It does seem like they're trying to outlaw dark patterns that nag and coerce a consent out of you. This would be a massive win if you ask me. I don't want to be bombarded with consent bullshit all the time, and I also don't want my privacy violated.
HumanReadable 5y ago
This is a very misleading title and should be changed. The EU Parliament has NOT banned these ads. Rather they have voted yes to the act. Unless the council votes yes as well, nothing is going to happen. The politico title is correct, please change the title to that.
- dang 5y ago
  Thanks! I've changed it now (shortened to fit the 80 char limit).
danielfoster 5y ago
This is going to have major unintended consequences for businesses that cater to the LGBT community.
- floatingatoll 5y ago
  Advertisers are still allowed to select businesses to display their ads, and can focus their LGBT budget on LGBT-proximal businesses.
999900000999 5y ago
I actually don't mind targeted ads. For example, I buy alot of musical gear. I love seeing ads with guitars and pianos. This seems like a good compromise.
- esarbe 5y ago
  Good thing you're not a young teenager with a eating disorder. Can you imagine the targeted adds?
bigodbiel 5y ago
now base ads on food, places visited, language used. This is useless and just show off.
Proven 5y ago

131 points by riffraff 5y ago

How about we ban ALL targeted ads, dear political representatives, thereby removing one of the primary incentives to collect all that information in the first place?

DocTomoe 5y ago
But then, who is paying all that nice money for politicians parties, fun ones and organisational ones? Like always when it comes to politics, these things boil down to "who gave the tribal chief bigger spoils". We as a civic society should eventually learn that corruption is maybe the only way to get to where we want to be.
- dcyyerg 5y ago
  Or maybe a politically significant amount of people don't find targeted ads particularly invasive and at least prefer them to being suggested things with no relevance to the individual whatsoever?
Barrin92 5y ago
probably because most people wouldn't consider all ad targeting illegitimate. Most countries distinguish between so called protected classes that deserve to be outside of the marketplace and classes that are not. I don't really see the problem with ads that discriminate based on profession or income.
- DarkWiiPlayer 5y ago
  Personally, I don't think ads should consider any information other than what products a user has already bought or looked at. Whether they should be allowed to collect and consider other information is of course a different question.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  It would help for acceptance that if they ask about building a profile on you. That is especially a problem for said protected classes or anyone that diverges from a corridor of contemporary opinions. This data is sold and you have no control over it. As it is, no I don't like any form of targeted ads and I have never responded to them. But mostly I don't like their invasive behavior and unregulated business incentives.
- atoav 5y ago
  You could still control the audience of your ads by choosing where to publish them. What should be illegal is to target individuals by using their browsing data.
- Lio 5y ago
  > I don't really see the problem with ads that discriminate based on profession or income. For me it's always been about control. If the surveillance companies (Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc.) used opt-in or honoured the Do Not Track header all this could be avoided. Those that want tracked and targeted ads could request them and those that don't would be left alone. Instead, by refusing to not honour, Do Not Track or using Dark UX Patterns to make it hard to opt out[1] they're affectively saying, "tough luck, we're going to do whatever we want regardless". It's a race to the bottom to see which company can get away with being the most obnoxious. We're left with legal means as the only curbs their behaviour. . 1. Why do so many web sites get away with an "Allow All" but no reliable[2] "Reject All"? 2. Why is there a second set of things to opt out of as "Legitimate Purpose"? Why doesn't the "Reject All", when present, not cover these too?
  - mschuster91 5y ago
    > 2. Why is there a second set of things to opt out of as "Legitimate Purpose"? Why doesn't the "Reject All", when present, not cover these too? Because you need to name stuff like session ID cookies, loadbalancer backend cookies and other stuff that is necessary for operation ("legitimate interest")... but you do not need consent from the user for these.
    - mmarq 5y ago
      Session IDs and loadbalancer cookies would be required cookies, "legitimate purpose" is a different concept
      - lawtalkinghuman 5y ago
        The whole point of misusing legitimate purpose is they're trying to end-run around consent. It's a bad hack until one of the national data protection agencies decides to say "no, you can't do that" and then it goes away.
    - dmitriid 5y ago
      > Because you need to name stuff like session ID cookies, loadbalancer backend cookies and other stuff that is necessary for operation No you don't. You don't need to ask for permission for data you collect/store that is strictly required for your business to operate. Key word: strictly required. Meanwhile these leeches have latched on on a more nebulously defined "legitimate interest". For example, if you need fraud protection for your order-processing business, you have a legitimate interest to process and store more data than is strictly required. Since such legitimate interests are innumerable they are not explicitly defined in the law. So, the parasites clamp things like "siphon your data and sell it to the highest bidder" under "legitimate interest". Which skirts the law, and will fall apart under scrutiny. See the three-part test by UK's data authority, https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/legitimate-interests/what-is-the-legitimate-interests-basis/ https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protectio... (UK is so far still bound by GDPR)
- usrbinbash 5y ago
  > I don't really see the problem with ads that discriminate based on profession or income. The problem is: The only way such ads are possible, is by private parties collecting information about the people they want to target with such ads.
- WithinReason 5y ago
  If the advertiser can correlate health, religion and sexual orientation with the allowed parameters, then they can still target ads implicitly based on these categories.
  - maccard 5y ago
    Right - is targeting ads to the Vatican city about signs of abuse considered religious advertising?
akvadrako 5y ago
Even better, we should ban all ads.
- Nextgrid 5y ago
  Determining what is considered an ad is going to be tricky. "Targeting" and the associated data collection is much easier to determine and codify into law.
- usrbinbash 5y ago
  No, why? Ads are a completely legitimate business practice: I make a product or offer a service, so I want people to know about it. Bans on targeted ads are not about the advertising, they are about the privacy concerns resulting from the data collection that is the prerequisite for targeted ads.
  - minimilian 5y ago
    Because they pollute the world?
  - akvadrako 5y ago
    I don't care about your product and I don't want my view obscured by your ads. The fact you think you should be able to force me to see them is the problem.
    - maccard 5y ago
      What do you think the purpose of this site is?
    - usrbinbash 5y ago
      Where ads are, and how visible they are in relation of other content, is up to whoever owns the website.
  - cfcf14 5y ago
    Although it would be a world very different from ours, I wonder what the consequences of an ad-ban would be? You create a business or service, but the only way an individual could discover it is by intentionally going out and seeking that information (perhaps you've made a new washing machine, and they seek out information for washing machines). Perhaps specialised 'discovery' services would pop up for people wondering what sorts of new stuff/services was out there? On the surface of it, I'd assume that if reaching out to customers to 'let them know you exist' via advertisements was prohibited, the amount of innovation and investment into products would decrease. But at the same time, the amount of money allocatable to product development within a given budget would increase, as you wouldn't have to expend so much on marketing (which in some cases, dwarfs the cost of R&D). But maybe the markets would just adapt anyways. Seems a fun thought experiment.
eterevsky 5y ago
Suppose you go on YouTube and it recommends you a video that is similar to the ones that you liked. This is a targeted ad. Would you like to ban it?
- notRobot 5y ago
  That is decidedly not a "targeted ad". Recommendations are different.
  - eterevsky 5y ago
    I agree that there is a difference, but it's pretty hard to define. YouTube videos are a product, the creators are earning money from your views one way or another. If you ban targeted ads while allowing recommendations, Facebook will just claim that it shows you targeted recommendations.
- usrbinbash 5y ago
  This can easily be done with contextual advertising, wich requires no user tracking. I have no problem with a shop showing me eg. an ad-banner for a gym membership if I happen to buy lots of sports wear in that shop. However, if a website I never visited before shows me the same ads, data collection happened, and that should either be banned, or made into strict opt-on-only.
  - eterevsky 5y ago
    When you open the YouTube front page, there is no context except for what YouTube already knows about your preferences. If this situation I would prefer to receive video recommendations based on my past preferences, which could be considered targeted ads.
    - usrbinbash 5y ago
      > When you open the YouTube front page, there is no context Yes there is: My useraccount. Ideally, if I am logged in, and if I consented that they may show me videos based on my preferences, I would be okay with them may recommending videos to me and refining these recommendations based on my views. The consent should of course be opt-in only (eg. a simple switch in the account settings). Using this information for recommending videos within that pages context only != Targeted advertising. As long as the information never leaves their page, is used in no other page of their ecosystem, and as long as I can tell them to stop collecting it, delete what they already have, and are guaranteed by law that they keep no connection between that data and any identifying information other than my useraccount, I would be okay with that. And yes, when I visit youtube without being logged in, I would be perfectly okay with having no/default recommendations, or recommendations based on the context of that page visit only.
foxfluff 5y ago
This proposal bans all targeted ads unless you give consent. Targeting minors and certain protected groups is banned even if they consented to targeted advertising. There's also this gem: In order to avoid fatiguing recipients who refuse to consent, terminal equipment settings that signal an objection to processing of personal data should be respected. Yes, please, bring us a legally binding No Consent and Do Not Track.
- gruez 5y ago
  What do you do when all the sites hold their content hostage unless you consent?
  - foxfluff 5y ago
    Point it out to the authorities and hope the company gets smacked with a huge fine and makes it to this list: https://www.enforcementtracker.com/ https://www.enforcementtracker.com/
hackeraccount 5y ago
I understand that commercial speech is the red headed step-child to political speech but this still seems a little extreme.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

loceng 5y ago

I wonder if this includes using inferences to indirectly target these categories, albeit with somewhat less accuracy but certainly more than non-targeted?

dusted 5y ago

So, if we get consumerism accepted as a religion, does that make all ads for products one can buy banned? Who wanna join? :D

oxfordmale 5y ago
My religion doesn't allow any advertisements on Sunday, as they are the work of the devil. Monday to Saturday are off limits for the same reason :-)
- foxfluff 5y ago
  Well, if they don't target ads based on religion, they don't need to give a crap what your religion thinks about ads :)
josefx 5y ago
I think you can still advertise health and religion related items you just can't use a persons health or religion as target parameter anymore.

ComSubVie 5y ago

Why not ban ALL ads?!?

MauranKilom 5y ago
Bold stance! I think it goes too far - there is definitely value for society in people being able to make services and goods they offer publicly known. No doubt we're currently too far in the "ads everywhere" direction, but within limits I think ads can have net benefit.
- minimilian 5y ago
  If that's the only reason for accepting ads, then they could be consigned to particular websites and stop polluting the world for the rest of us. Then, if you need something, you can go watch all the stupid ads.
TacticalCoder 5y ago
Once in a rare while there's an ad which makes me want to buy something but I don't know if it's worth all the noise. Something really sad is that sometimes you search for something you actually want to buy like, say, winter tire chains for your car... Then you end up buying them but for two weeks you keep getting ads: because the system has no way of knowing you actually now bought some at the petrol station down the street. I run pi-hole now: works great and seems to at least take care of the worst offenders.
- akvadrako 5y ago
  If you want to be informed of product suggestions you could sign up for a service like that. I think we should ban all ads, but I would use such a service if it worked well.
lamp987 5y ago
are you willing to send money over paypal to each website you ever visit?

causi 5y ago

I get banning the collection of data, but why ban the targeting? Does showing someone products they're more likely to want hurt them in some way? Saying an advertising company is allowed to know everyone's personal details but isn't allowed to, say, only show Islamic prayer mat advertisements to Muslims seems pretty backwards.

avs733 5y ago
You’re looking at positive examples. The negative examples have serious potential to create harm. E.g.; 1) a teenager exploring/researching their own sexuality on the family computer causes ads to be served to very religious mom and dad for queer friendly products or a pride flag 2) ads targeting someone with covid that send them to a scam testing site (that charges both the patient and the government) or pushing ineffective or dangerous treatments like colloidal silver. It’s not that these are the only categories that can be abused but these are some most rife for abuse
- notahacker 5y ago
  It must be said that the problem with (2) is the site pushing the claims being allowed to advertise/operate at all. Its only marginally less harmful if it can still profit from less directly targeted advertising. I also think there's an important distinction between data that can be used on a platform's own website and information that follows you around the Internet (which this legislation doesn't appear to draw). In practical terms, this is the distinction between ads for services a gay teenager might actually use on a login-based social profile the teenager has voluntarily publicly displayed their sexual orientation on (and bombarding them with slightly fewer invitations to be heterosexual!) and rainbow ads following their mum round Internet.
  - avs733 5y ago
    In the abstract I totally agree But if you limit their targeting the entire method becomes much much less effective and hurts the economic incentive. Right now that seems the best they can do. The policies have to be realistic. The issue is information following you…but good luck solving that

aspyct 5y ago

That, and GDPR. Damn I'm so glad I live in the EU. Say what you will about those annoying cookie banners, I see that as good things. Progress is made!

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
xxs 5y ago
Those cookie banners are often times illegal, i.e. consent has to be freely given and it should not be as easy not to give, instead of click and select multiple choices. The explanations have to be layman ones and what not. It's a very dark pattern, and at some point it should be addressed.
CodeGlitch 5y ago
Sorry have to disagree. GDPR, cookie banners and now this new ad-ban are just putting plasters over a problem, rather actually solving the root-cause of the problem. Now I'm not saying that solving the root causes of these problems is easy, but these solutions are just so lame. Just a couple of concrete examples: * I see and hear of GDPR violations everywhere (here in the UK, pre and post Brexit). Despite the threat of legal action, companies still ignore (too small to care) or are ignorant of the rules. At the end of the day, Big Tech still owns all the personal data in some way or another getting around EU restrictions. * The annoying cookie banners where everyone just clicks "accept all" because no one wants to go through a list of checkboxes. This is classic EU strategy to problems: just throw more bureaucracy and administration at a problem. The solution should be that the EU creates its own Big Tech, under the rules and regulations that it itself creates. Instead all of our politicians are using WhatsApp to perform Official communications (frankly this is horrific to me).
- mmarq 5y ago
  > I see and hear of GDPR violations everywhere (here in the UK, pre and post Brexit). Despite the threat of legal action, companies still ignore (too small to care) or are ignorant of the rules. At the end of the day, Big Tech still owns all the personal data in some way or another getting around EU restrictions. Companies may ignore law, but fines are being issued, so they do it at their own risk: https://www.enforcementtracker.com/ https://www.enforcementtracker.com/ > The annoying cookie banners where everyone just clicks "accept all" because no one wants to go through a list of checkboxes. This is classic EU strategy to problems: just throw more bureaucracy and administration at a problem. These cookie banners are (slowly) being deemed illegal: "Accept all" and "Reject all" must have the same prominence and accessibility. GDPR is forcing companies to care about security and about how they use information about their users and, probably for the first time, it's forcing companies to be transparent with how they are processing their users' data. And it's not requiring company to do anything you wouldn't expect an honest person to do when you give them some personal information, it's not just throwing bureaucracy at a problem.

dessant 5y ago

Targeted ads that follow you around on the web need to be banned entirely. My aunt can predict what health issues or products my mom searches for on Google, because Facebook almost immediately serves her ads related to my mom's searches and browsing history. Targeted ads are turned off in my mom's Google account, and she does not have a Facebook account. The two identities were linked together by the ad industry when in 2014 my aunt logged into Facebook once from my mom's previous tablet, and that's when they gave my aunt a fifth sense. What's even more frustrating is that the current tablet runs Blokada for host based blocking, and there's uBlock Origin in the browser, but none of that matters, my aunt will call her to point out what shoes my mom was reading about days before.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
vidarh 5y ago
If I was your mom, I'm not sure I could've resisted trolling your aunt with a sudden burst of bizarre searches in that case.
eterevsky 5y ago
Google most certainly doesn't share user's search history with Facebook. There may be some tracking on the sites themselves, that allows Facebook to detect user's interests. However I don't think it's supposed to use one persons web history to show ads to another user. What might be happening is that they are using some common accounts or a shared browser that leaks the data between them.
- dessant 5y ago
  No, they don't use common accounts or devices, and they don't connect from the same network.
Vinnl 5y ago
Unfortunately the Greens proposed that, but it didn't make it: https://twitter.com/kimvsparrentak/status/1484116335097438213 https://twitter.com/kimvsparrentak/status/148411633509743821...

linspace 5y ago

I think there are two points of views: 1. This is unnecessary regulation between private parties 2. This is power balancing between individuals and big corporations Obviously legislators are aligned with case 2. I think they have realized that the problem is so complex that is better to regulate at the end of the pipeline and let the companies figure out how to achieve it. Otherwise you may forbid gathering data X only to incentivize gathering data Y to circumvent it and make things even worse

sgjohnson 5y ago
3. Doesn’t matter for everyone who actually cares, as it’s trivial to cripple the ad tracking. https://trackthis.link https://trackthis.link works quite well and is an insanely low-tech approach that works on basically all platforms. Not to mention tools like uBlock Origin.

3np 5y ago

Interesting to see "political orientation" missing here, as historically that is something that many countries have prevented registration of (by police, employers, etc)

4ad 5y ago

I don't care about what ads they are allowed to show me, since I block their ads anyway. What I care about is whether they are allowed to use the information used to compute the ads to track me. It would be a pyrrhic victory if the law simply says that can't use some specific type of data for computing ads, but it still allows them to track and use the same type of data for something else.

donatj 5y ago

Hear me out - unpopular opinion. Banning targeted ads wastes everyone’s times. Ads for things that have zero applicability to me are a waste of my time, the advertisers time, everyone’s time. We’re not going to ever live in a world without ads and I would far rather they be an actual service to me, presenting me things I actually think are cool and might like to buy. A well targeted ad can be a net positive to my life. An ad for something I would never use, ever, because it doesn’t apply to me is a net negative.

tgv 5y ago
Hear me out. Perhaps it's not about the ads per se.
- donatj 5y ago
  Go on?
  - sgjohnson 5y ago
    It’s about the data collection incentives. If you can’t use the data you collect to advertise, there’s no point in collecting the data in the first place. Except in this case, where it makes no difference at all, because only certain groups are protected.
    - donatj 5y ago
      And I come back with what is the actual harm in data collection? It’s not like all the governments of the world don’t already have a much more intensive dossier on you. The governments are the ones out to kill you or otherwise materially destroy your life. Corporations just want you to buy stuff. All preventing private industry from data collection is prevent useful things like this.
      - sgjohnson 5y ago
        > And I come back with what is the harm in data collection? None. Because it’s done anyway, except in an “anonymized” form. But as we all know, lifting that veil is trivial if you have enough data.

amitport 5y ago

What about the fact that models effectively have access to such features without actually having them explicitly apriory. Given all the data fb/google/etc have, they can probably infer these properties in high accuracy anyway. Are we going to exclude all data that correlates with these properties? Probably not, rendering this effort kind of pointless.

JanneVee 5y ago

The number of financial scam ads I have been targeted with is staggering. Youtube presented me with an ad that was ~24 minutes long with an investment strategy that was supposed to make you a $1000 a day. Facebook is the same thing with crypto scams and binary options were popular back in the day. This ban would not make dent in my problem with targeted ads. That someone gets scammed out of their money and it had nothing to do with their health, religion or sexual orientation.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

dotcoma 5y ago

Good luck enforcing it.

Vinnl 5y ago

This is important to realise: > Lawmakers will now have to negotiate with the Council, representing the 27 EU governments, which has shown no interest in tackling online advertising in the DSA. As I understand it, the vote essentially determines the mandates of the representatives who will negotiate with the Council on behalf of the Parliament. Out of that negotiation will emerge the act that will actually come into effect.

pmyteh 5y ago
That's right. It's for co-decision, so the Council and Parliament jointly need to agree a final outcome. This vote does not 'ban targeted ads' so much as lay down a marker that the Parliament wants targeted ads banned as part of the package, and instruct their representatives to argue for it.

ErikCorry 5y ago

They don't want to ban targeted ads based on political views? Is this because the politicians don't want to ban the techniques that they use to get reelected? And do they want to ban ads targeted by "customer lists". Both Google Facebook allow advertizers to upload email or FB-ID lists, and will target an ad to show it only to people on the list. This (http://ghostinfluence.com/the-ultimate-retaliation-pranking-my-roommate-with-targeted-facebook-ads/ http://ghostinfluence.com/the-ultimate-retaliation-pranking-...) feels a lot more spooky to me than advertizing target to wide categories like health - I don't want or need to see products that are are for menopausal women, impotent men, or deaf old people since I'm not in any of these category.

macilacilove 5y ago
FB & google already voluntarily banned buying politically targeted ads for money. [1] A politician needs to give big tech something other than money to get their messages to be favourably targeted. Don't forget that they already have access to virtually infinite money through abuse of market dominance, the only thing that can stand in their way is antitrust and data regulation. [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-parent-meta-bans-targeting-for-political-ads-11636488053 https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-parent-meta-bans-targe...
- ErikCorry 5y ago
  Interesting. That's new (less than three months old). What does microtargeting mean precisely to Facebook? Is it still ok if the customer list is above a certain size?
  - macilacilove 5y ago
    yes. I think tha change is from now on you can not target your ad for only conservatives/ only socialist leaning people (as determined by their browsing data). You used to be able to send socialist ads to socialists and conservative ads to conservatives... and be everything at the same time and win. Its like a cheat code of politics. Now to do this you have to promise Zuck to not support any antitrust and data protection regulation in return Zuck will probably take you to office by microtargeting. You don't need to worry about the media, facebook will "fact check" everything for you. You can still target nonpolitical ads based on other attributes if it is not specific to very few people.

ivanmontillam 5y ago

The main thing with AI-based services (and in this case, targeted ads) is that after a long while, your preferences are enforced over time in a such way you're deprived from discoverability of new products. You might like something that is out of your usual searches, then you see other people with it and complain how you didn't know before, because the algorithm made you be within your own bubble. The algorithm is "more of you" than you ever are of yourself. I think random ads decimates the entire targeted ads industry (at least for ads in EU), and that protects the consumers, and is a big win from discoverability of products, hopefully creating a more fair marketplace. I use the word "hopefully," because one never knows how much ads are gonna cost if the criteria is "sheer force of exposure". EDIT: Awful typos.

macilacilove 5y ago

Can facebook still target any content based on anything? In other words only outsiders are are restricted from buying some of the manipulation power of facebook but not fb and its strategic partners?

foxfluff 5y ago

This is a nice proposal overall. I'm not sure I agree with the bans on health, religion and sexual orientation (depending on your point of view such ads can be exploitative or useful) but I agree that targeting minors is not cool, and I like how the proposal makes targeting off-by-default and requires your consent. It sounds like they're also trying to make things like Do Not Track legally binding: In order to avoid fatiguing recipients who refuse to consent, terminal equipment settings that signal an objection to processing of personal data should be respected. It does seem like they're trying to outlaw dark patterns that nag and coerce a consent out of you. This would be a massive win if you ask me. I don't want to be bombarded with consent bullshit all the time, and I also don't want my privacy violated.

HumanReadable 5y ago

This is a very misleading title and should be changed. The EU Parliament has NOT banned these ads. Rather they have voted yes to the act. Unless the council votes yes as well, nothing is going to happen. The politico title is correct, please change the title to that.

dang 5y ago
Thanks! I've changed it now (shortened to fit the 80 char limit).

danielfoster 5y ago

This is going to have major unintended consequences for businesses that cater to the LGBT community.

floatingatoll 5y ago
Advertisers are still allowed to select businesses to display their ads, and can focus their LGBT budget on LGBT-proximal businesses.

999900000999 5y ago

I actually don't mind targeted ads. For example, I buy alot of musical gear. I love seeing ads with guitars and pianos. This seems like a good compromise.

esarbe 5y ago
Good thing you're not a young teenager with a eating disorder. Can you imagine the targeted adds?

bigodbiel 5y ago

now base ads on food, places visited, language used. This is useless and just show off.

Proven 5y ago