2 ms·

Most of you won't read the past the headline but this isn't accurate >The agency said there is an "asymmetry" in which user consent for Apple's own data collec

Most of you won't read the past the headline but this isn't accurate >The agency said there is an "asymmetry" in which user consent for Apple's own data collection is obtained with a single pop-up, but other publishers are "required to obtain double consent from users for tracking on third-party sites and applications." The press release notes that "while advertising tracking only needs to be refused once, the user must always confirm their consent a second time." They take issue with Apple making it easier for their apps but applying a different standard for third parties. I think this fine is fair.

bberenberg 2y ago
Is Apples third party though? I don’t know, genuinely asking. If no, then first party vs third party having different standards of consent seems reasonable?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- 9283409232 2y ago
  This is referring to Apple's first party apps so no they aren't third party. I can understand why someone would make that argument but the French regulator argument here is that in the spirit of competition, third-parties should have the same barrier to entry as Apple's first party apps and I can see the argument they are making.
  - bberenberg 2y ago
    I feel like if the apps have their own tracking then yes one click makes sense. If they include third party then multi consent also makes sense. They’re not contradictory points.
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      And most can't. It's an absurdly high barrier to interest and thus uncompetitive. That's what the ruling is based on. Most of us can't just whip up our own tracking network just to save on one click.
    - bilbo0s 2y ago
      Yeah. Not sure how you collect all the necessary consent clicks without at least two clicks if a third party is involved? Do they get a pass on collecting a consent click for one of the parties? Or do you only ever need the consent for the third party to track? My understanding was you needed to get consent for every company in the chain. Is that untrue?

bberenberg 2y ago

Is Apples third party though? I don’t know, genuinely asking. If no, then first party vs third party having different standards of consent seems reasonable?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
9283409232 2y ago
This is referring to Apple's first party apps so no they aren't third party. I can understand why someone would make that argument but the French regulator argument here is that in the spirit of competition, third-parties should have the same barrier to entry as Apple's first party apps and I can see the argument they are making.
- bberenberg 2y ago
  I feel like if the apps have their own tracking then yes one click makes sense. If they include third party then multi consent also makes sense. They’re not contradictory points.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    And most can't. It's an absurdly high barrier to interest and thus uncompetitive. That's what the ruling is based on. Most of us can't just whip up our own tracking network just to save on one click.
  - bilbo0s 2y ago
    Yeah. Not sure how you collect all the necessary consent clicks without at least two clicks if a third party is involved? Do they get a pass on collecting a consent click for one of the parties? Or do you only ever need the consent for the third party to track? My understanding was you needed to get consent for every company in the chain. Is that untrue?