10 ms·
As a lawyer working on these topics, this is a poor phrasing. EU regulators don't need to "war" with advertisers - they have complete control over them. There's
by johndhi 3y ago
As a lawyer working on these topics, this is a poor phrasing. EU regulators don't need to "war" with advertisers - they have complete control over them. There's no other side of this war, just regulators issuing commands that industry tries to follow.
It's confusing as a war is because the regulators decided not to make the law say, 'behavioral advertising is illegal,' and instead have spent years slowly awakening to that conclusion, at the cost of zillions of dollars in legal fees.
- baq 3y agoIt’s as if they actually don’t want to introduce unnecessary regulation! Or they weren’t paid enough in legal and illegal bribes before, if you prefer the cynical take.
- TeMPOraL 3y agoAnd/or they realize that trying to introduce too large changes in one go will throw the markets into damage control mode, and the results will not be favorable to the legislators and their constituents. Better boil the frog gradually than have it jump out and take its money elsewhere.
- troupo 3y ago> There's no other side of this war, just regulators issuing commands that industry tries to follow. We know how well the industry "tries to follow" from how industry follows GDPR and how Facebook keeps pretending that it's their god-given right to use tracking data in advertisment. > It's confusing as a war is because the regulators decided not to make the law say, 'behavioral advertising is illegal,' and instead have spent years slowly awakening to that conclusion, at the cost of zillions of dollars in legal fees. It's not confusing. Regulators do what they always do: they let companies do whatever companies do. And when the companies keep doing shitty things, regulators regulate.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- sib 3y agoUnfortunately, it's really the EU regulators at war with companies' abilities to make better products.
- kranke155 3y agoAdvertising is not a product
- goodpoint 3y agoIf anything it's an antiproduct.
- throwaway5959 3y agogestures broadly at advertising everywhere OK, I’ll bite, then what is it?
- throwaway14356 3y agoproduct information
- justinclift 3y agoInfectious attention cancer?
- 3y ago
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- jmilloy 3y agoThis doesn't make sense to me. You make it sound like a rosy cooperative relationship where advertisers want to follow the rules and regulators just haven't made them. Even so, regulation isn't "complete control" in any way. It seems more like the advertisers are always going to try to make the advertisements as effective as possible while toeing the letter of the law as closely as possible and ignoring the spirit of the law completely. What are you actually trying to say here?
- johndhi 3y agoI'm saying the laws EU has released are too complex and indirect and cost too much money, and that if they wanted to ban behavioral advertising outright they should have and could have done that instead of what they have done.
- EMIRELADERO 3y agoCould you give some details about which provisions of those laws are too complex/cost too much money to comply with, and why?
- mrweasel 3y agoAny idea as to way they'd opt for this indirectness, rather than an outright ban? I'd imagine it would be to protect some niche, or to avoid getting the law dragged through courts for ten year.
- blackbeans 3y agoAs far as I know, the EU legislation is primarily aimed to protect privacy. Behavioral advertising is related because it requires tracking, and tracking requires the consent and understanding of users in the EU. There was (is) a huge dependence on US software in Europe, that's probably why there was some reluctance at the start in enforcing it. However since "America first" the EU is trying to be more independent and boost its own European made software, that's likely why the climate for other software has worsened.
- 3y ago
- imglorp 3y agoThe megacorporations are at war against humanity and won't stop until forced: they must profit and grow at the expense of civilization, climate, and biosphere. It's true the EU does not recognize it's in a war yet but they are at least trying to slow them down. The US is further behind.
- kmlx 3y agowait till you find out about politicians. the corps have nothing on them.
- t0bia_s 3y agoReally? How about that politicians constantly spamming antisocial networks? What would they do without those tech corpos? Big tech literary give them a power. And manipulate with politicians as well. You'll not free once you caught into trap of likes and virtual audience dopamine.
- kmlx 3y agothat’s exactly my point. they took that power that those companies gave them and used it for their own goals. they’re infinitely worse than any company just by the power they yield. the abuse part is the cherry on top.
- mantas 3y agoIs EU really trying to slow it down? TikTok ban in US seems to be a common talking point. Meanwhile here very few people talk about it and those are seen as lunatics in most cases. Most people seem to happily approve all the GDPR dialogs too. While doomscrolling TikTok/Instagram/FB.
- LelouBil 3y agoWhen you have a truly compliant gdpr dialog, aka simple yes/no, I found lots of non tech people around me click no. I'd say about 50%
- mikro2nd 3y agoYou're right, but "war" is so much better clickbait.
- mordae 3y agoNot quite. Ad companies win the elections, so the pressure on the elected politicians is to have really good relationship with them. What that means for the clerks trying to regulate the ad business... Well...
- stevage 3y agoSurely the other side is public opinion. If corporations convince the public that the regulators are going to make their life worse, the regulators lose.
- specialist 3y ago> There's no other side of this war, just regulators issuing commands that industry tries to follow. Data aggregators and advertisers don't have agency?