3 ms·

probably because most people wouldn't consider all ad targeting illegitimate. Most countries distinguish between so called protected classes that deserve to be

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)
  - 5y ago
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?

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)
- 5y ago

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?