4 ms·
The Slow Death of Surveillance Capitalism Has Begun
- mpweiher 4y agoFrom TFA: It’s also a sign that GDPR, Europe’s landmark privacy law that was introduced in 2018, actually has teeth. I've been saying this ever since I took some seminars on how the GDPR actually worked after it was passed (and before it came into effect). People, particularly in the SV tech bubble, laughed and said (and presumably thought) this was Cooke Banners 2.0. It's not. And in fact, almost all the GDPR banners now used are illegal, and as we can see, this will be enforced. It just takes time, because GDPR is a sensible law that aims for compliance, not for fines. So at first there will be notifications, information, smaller fines. But they will escalate until compliance is achieved. And yes, as the title says, this is the end of Surveillance Capitalism. Good riddance.
- AtlasBarfed 4y agoSo there can't be OBVIOUS evidence users are being tracked. Or explicit. But every site "tracks" its users. Logins are tracking. Just offload the illegal stuff to rotating fallguys. WE didn't create the targeted ad, we just serve ads. THEY made the ad. HOW did they target it? We don't know, ask them. Or, they analyze the legal corner cases until the exception becomes the garage door you drive a train through. I applaud the GDPR and other legislation, but it won't last.
- mpweiher 4y agoThey already tried the fall guy approach: it failed. The companies that contracted them were found liable. GDPR doesn’t care about the loopholes you think you found. They’re illusory, as companies are discovering. Now they will continue to try, but as you can see with the FB case, they will continue to fail. This is the end of surveillance capitalism.
- jonas-w 4y agoSorry, couldn't find it online, what exactly does TFA mean?
- k12sosse 4y agoThe featured article, I believe.
- wkat4242 4y agoIndeed, though informally the F can also stand for something else much akin to the acronym RTFM. Depends on the context :) In this case featured seems to be the intended word indeed.
- jonas-w 4y agoThank you guys, i see TFA everyday and i know that the post is meant but the exact wording always was a puzzle to me.
- mpweiher 4y agoThe Fine Article
- avsteele 4y agoThis seems: Good for megacorps who don't need targeting and can be pay less for ads. Bad for small/niche advertisers who do need targeting. Neutral for the vast majority of consumers who don't appear to care about tracking.
- mrbadger 4y agoDid you miss the bit where given a choice most people opted out of surveillance? No concern at all about the adverse effects on democracies of the misuse of data?
- avsteele 4y agoThe popularity of these services is good evidence to the contrary. Also you are assuming you can have 'same' service after banning targeting. That remains to be seen. Also, you could consider disagreeing without being rude.
- wkat4242 4y agoWe can't have the same right now because these companies are so focused on making targeted ads work. Which is not because it works so well but because it's their #1 market benefit. Facebook wants to sell targeted ads because few players have as wide reaching insight as they have. Once they have to stop they will have to actually put effort in making contextual advertising work. Imagine a local business sponsoring a related Facebook page. Or buying ads for declared interests. It can work but the big parties don't want it to. Because they've invested billions in building their market advantage in targeted.
- tinus_hn 4y agoTargeting is a thing from the last decade, we did fine before and we will do fine after.
- avsteele 4y agoCan a business have its ads seen just in its local geographic area without targeting?
- fiberhood 4y agohttps://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wired.com%2Fstory%2Fmeta-surveillance-capitalism%2F https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wired.com%2Fstory%...