9 ms·

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 p

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]

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]