3 ms·

> The quoted section says it's about ads The document makes it clear it's about behavioral advertising. It's not the ads that are the problem here, but the tar

> The quoted section says it's about ads The document makes it clear it's about behavioral advertising. It's not the ads that are the problem here, but the targeting which comes from the user data that they have to consent to. > What they appear to be demanding (today) is that all services are free and funded by ads that are randomly chosen. That's not even close. You can charge money for services, or you can serve ads at random, or based on the content. You can't base them on the user without consent. I.e. as you mention in the examples, you can advertise games before an action movie, but you can't advertise games to kids and nappies to moms, unless they consent to profiling. I agree there are weird edge cases, but this isn't it. Just read the actual document. You're there one adding interpretation which isn't there in the act/ruling.

mike_hearn 2y ago
This type of response is what I meant by a chorus of people claiming they should always have known. You don't actually know what they can or can't do, because the EU change their mind constantly and don't interpret anything in obvious ways. Example: ads based on "content" that are not behaviorally targeted are OK, you say. And what if the content itself is selected based on behavior? Behavior such as, for example, clicking the like button on certain things? Is that behaviorally targeted ads? It's a rhetorical question, so don't bother answering it. Point is that you have no idea what the correct interpretation is and nor does anyone else, including the EU institutions who are clearly making this up as they go along. What we can be certain of is that whatever tech firms do will be automatically asserted to be the wrong thing, because that way the EU can top up its budget from the pockets of these companies whilst simultaneously claiming to be virtuous. This path leads to eventual ruin for the EU. The law must be just, it must be clear, and it must be predictable. EU law doesn't come close to meeting this bar and the result will be that the US increasingly just nopes out of there. People in Europe don't want to be excluded so the result will be a wave of petty lawbreaking with VPNs, casual smuggling and so on as people find ways to get access to US tech regardless of local laws.

mike_hearn 2y ago

This type of response is what I meant by a chorus of people claiming they should always have known. You don't actually know what they can or can't do, because the EU change their mind constantly and don't interpret anything in obvious ways. Example: ads based on "content" that are not behaviorally targeted are OK, you say. And what if the content itself is selected based on behavior? Behavior such as, for example, clicking the like button on certain things? Is that behaviorally targeted ads? It's a rhetorical question, so don't bother answering it. Point is that you have no idea what the correct interpretation is and nor does anyone else, including the EU institutions who are clearly making this up as they go along. What we can be certain of is that whatever tech firms do will be automatically asserted to be the wrong thing, because that way the EU can top up its budget from the pockets of these companies whilst simultaneously claiming to be virtuous. This path leads to eventual ruin for the EU. The law must be just, it must be clear, and it must be predictable. EU law doesn't come close to meeting this bar and the result will be that the US increasingly just nopes out of there. People in Europe don't want to be excluded so the result will be a wave of petty lawbreaking with VPNs, casual smuggling and so on as people find ways to get access to US tech regardless of local laws.