6 ms·

Meta can still use personal data for ads. They just have to explicitly ask for consent. I do not like these sensationalized titles on HN.

elcomet 4y ago
And no one will ever give them permission. Why would you?
- Nextgrid 4y ago
  Good riddance then? Time to find a new business model and maybe fire some people if your service can no longer sustain that many employees, or let a leaner competitor eat your lunch.
- malyk 4y ago
  If I'm going to be shown ads I might as well see ones that I'm more likely to be interested in.
  - williamdclt 4y ago
    - not if it comes at the price of huge invasion of privacy - Given the incredible amount of data they have, I'm constantly amazed at how bad FB/Amazon/others are at suggesting what I'm likely to be interested in
  - Nextgrid 4y ago
    Thankfully, the GDPR still allows you to opt into personal-data-based targeted advertising if you want to.
- thehappypm 4y ago
  If the “yes” button was easier to click than the “no” button 90% of people would.
  - Nextgrid 4y ago
    Thankfully the GDPR mandates that the "accept" option can't be more prominent than the "decline" one.
    - EForEndeavour 4y ago
      The endless barrage of insipid GDPR cookie consent banners have corrected a weird English-language blind spot I had: it turns out that the opposite of "accept" is not "reject," but rather "customize settings" or "view preferences."
      - dmitriid 4y ago
        Those banners are illegal according to GDPR. Once there's a threat of a fine on the horizon all those "insipid banners" quickly change to show you a reject button https://noyb.eu/en/where-did-all-reject-buttons-come https://noyb.eu/en/where-did-all-reject-buttons-come
- kjkjadksj 4y ago
  I’ve seen people comment on here how they actually like personalized ads.
  - InfamousRece 4y ago
    They like personalized ads because they work for ad tech.
- timeon 4y ago
  > Why would you? That is the point.
- therealdrag0 4y ago
  I’d be happy to opt into anonymized personalized ads. Wasn’t that what Apple was pitching recently? Has that rolled out yet?
jefftk 4y ago
I would be totally fine with a regulation where they had to ask before using personal data to show ads. The overreach is that the GDPR requires that the user be able to say "no" but still use the service -- you can't make use of the service conditional on accepting ads, and you can't require users to pay instead.
- pif 4y ago
  > you can't make use of the service conditional on accepting ads Edited for you: you can't make use of the service conditional on accepting personalized ads
  - jefftk 4y ago
    Possibly: it's not fully clear yet whether the GDPR requires you to offer people the opportunity to use your site without ad fraud detection, but I'm expecting it turns out it does. And without ad fraud detection ad-supported sites are mostly not practical.
    - Nextgrid 4y ago
      You can have ad models that are immune to fraud. A time-based model such as "your ad here for X days" is immune to fraud, just like ads in print or TV are immune to it. If the ad drives purchases, the advertiser renews; if it doesn't, you may have to lower your price until another one comes up.
      - jefftk 4y ago
        It's not immune to fraud: if I offer you ad space on jefftk.com how do you know how much to pay for it? Without some kind of fraud detection, how do you know whether to trust me when I tell you I have 25k unique visitors monthly?
        Nextgrid 4y ago
        Could always be an auction-based market - you start with a trial and only do a day/week/etc and gauge your results - if they're good you know you can bid more next time. With enough "liquidity" on either side the true price of said ad inventory will naturally come up without any tracking necessary.
baby 4y ago
It’s like the iOS popup “do you want to let the app track you?” It’s a BS feature and they might as well default to not let apps track. Is anyone going to click yes?
- Nextgrid 4y ago
  If they just defaulted to "no" with no option to opt-in this would prompt the argument that people love targeted ads and Apple is the bad guy for not allowing them. If they give the choice, they can put out real-world proof out there that nobody wants them, as demonstrated by low single-digit acceptance rates. They can use this proof in the future to default to "no" without possibility of opt-in.
  - baby 4y ago
    > They can use this proof in the future to default to "no" without possibility of opt-in. Maybe that's their strategy, but it's manipulative and a sneaky way to obtain what they want while avoiding [SOMETHING]. Where something is lawsuits? regulations? outrage? No idea.
- therealdrag0 4y ago
  I sometimes click yes. Why not? How has the last 20 years of ads effected me?

elcomet 4y ago

And no one will ever give them permission. Why would you?

Nextgrid 4y ago
Good riddance then? Time to find a new business model and maybe fire some people if your service can no longer sustain that many employees, or let a leaner competitor eat your lunch.
malyk 4y ago
If I'm going to be shown ads I might as well see ones that I'm more likely to be interested in.
- williamdclt 4y ago
  - not if it comes at the price of huge invasion of privacy - Given the incredible amount of data they have, I'm constantly amazed at how bad FB/Amazon/others are at suggesting what I'm likely to be interested in
- Nextgrid 4y ago
  Thankfully, the GDPR still allows you to opt into personal-data-based targeted advertising if you want to.
thehappypm 4y ago
If the “yes” button was easier to click than the “no” button 90% of people would.
- Nextgrid 4y ago
  Thankfully the GDPR mandates that the "accept" option can't be more prominent than the "decline" one.
  - EForEndeavour 4y ago
    The endless barrage of insipid GDPR cookie consent banners have corrected a weird English-language blind spot I had: it turns out that the opposite of "accept" is not "reject," but rather "customize settings" or "view preferences."
    - dmitriid 4y ago
      Those banners are illegal according to GDPR. Once there's a threat of a fine on the horizon all those "insipid banners" quickly change to show you a reject button https://noyb.eu/en/where-did-all-reject-buttons-come https://noyb.eu/en/where-did-all-reject-buttons-come
kjkjadksj 4y ago
I’ve seen people comment on here how they actually like personalized ads.
- InfamousRece 4y ago
  They like personalized ads because they work for ad tech.
timeon 4y ago
> Why would you? That is the point.
therealdrag0 4y ago
I’d be happy to opt into anonymized personalized ads. Wasn’t that what Apple was pitching recently? Has that rolled out yet?

jefftk 4y ago

I would be totally fine with a regulation where they had to ask before using personal data to show ads. The overreach is that the GDPR requires that the user be able to say "no" but still use the service -- you can't make use of the service conditional on accepting ads, and you can't require users to pay instead.

pif 4y ago
> you can't make use of the service conditional on accepting ads Edited for you: you can't make use of the service conditional on accepting personalized ads
- jefftk 4y ago
  Possibly: it's not fully clear yet whether the GDPR requires you to offer people the opportunity to use your site without ad fraud detection, but I'm expecting it turns out it does. And without ad fraud detection ad-supported sites are mostly not practical.
  - Nextgrid 4y ago
    You can have ad models that are immune to fraud. A time-based model such as "your ad here for X days" is immune to fraud, just like ads in print or TV are immune to it. If the ad drives purchases, the advertiser renews; if it doesn't, you may have to lower your price until another one comes up.
    - jefftk 4y ago
      It's not immune to fraud: if I offer you ad space on jefftk.com how do you know how much to pay for it? Without some kind of fraud detection, how do you know whether to trust me when I tell you I have 25k unique visitors monthly?
      - Nextgrid 4y ago
        Could always be an auction-based market - you start with a trial and only do a day/week/etc and gauge your results - if they're good you know you can bid more next time. With enough "liquidity" on either side the true price of said ad inventory will naturally come up without any tracking necessary.

baby 4y ago

It’s like the iOS popup “do you want to let the app track you?” It’s a BS feature and they might as well default to not let apps track. Is anyone going to click yes?

Nextgrid 4y ago
If they just defaulted to "no" with no option to opt-in this would prompt the argument that people love targeted ads and Apple is the bad guy for not allowing them. If they give the choice, they can put out real-world proof out there that nobody wants them, as demonstrated by low single-digit acceptance rates. They can use this proof in the future to default to "no" without possibility of opt-in.
- baby 4y ago
  > They can use this proof in the future to default to "no" without possibility of opt-in. Maybe that's their strategy, but it's manipulative and a sneaky way to obtain what they want while avoiding [SOMETHING]. Where something is lawsuits? regulations? outrage? No idea.
therealdrag0 4y ago
I sometimes click yes. Why not? How has the last 20 years of ads effected me?