4 ms·

What you're advocating for has a few 2nd order effects. 1. Entrenches Google, Facebook, etc. because they are the only people that have enough money to comply

What you're advocating for has a few 2nd order effects. 1. Entrenches Google, Facebook, etc. because they are the only people that have enough money to comply with the regulation. 2. Makes the rest of the internet worse (e.g. people show MORE ads because they are less effective because they show me boats and I hate boats) 3. Makes data brokers even more important because companies can't get data anywhere else. 4. Reduces competition because the incumbents will always have more data than startups (Nike knows I wear a size X and the startup can't ever get that data) Everything is a tradeoff. I, for one, would rather these regulatory agencies go after the 100,000s of data brokers that mine for SSNs, birth certificates, financial info, etc., rather than them going after Facebook, TikTok, etc. Ads are here to stay, if you don't want ads, then ban ads, and with it most of the internet, but if people keep making terrible regulations like this that try to hurt big companies and get rid of ads and in reality, you just enable and feed these massive companies. Regulation makes them MORE valuable, not less. (see Meta stock price vs. Snap after ATT)

ginko 1y ago
>1. Entrenches Google, Facebook, etc. because they are the only people that have enough money to comply with the regulation. TFA made it clear that they _aren't_ complying.
briandear 1y ago
> 2. Makes the rest of the internet worse (e.g. people show MORE ads because they are less effective because they show me boats and I hate boats) Back in the olden days, if you read a boat magazine, you’ll see ads for boat stuff. This was always fun for me — if I’m ready a motorcycle racing magazine, I’ll see ads for cool things that I had no idea existed and that would be useful to me. With “targeted” ads, it becomes an echo chamber — I see ads that are “tailored” for my alleged current interests, but nothing that helped me discover new things that I could become interested in. What’s wrong with context-based ads? If I’m reading about Thailand travel, then the publisher should sell ads related to SE Asia travel. Why am “I” being customized to rather than ads being relevant to the content? If you want to reach boat enthusiasts, then advertise on content related to boats (or perhaps water sports, etc.) You then don’t need to track “me,” but instead you can track “boat content. That takes the personal data out of it. This keeps me from being followed around the web trying to sell me a vacuum cleaner I already bought.
- literalAardvark 1y ago
  This is the part that I'm most confused about. How can it possibly be useful to try to sell me another fridge? Sure, it might be useful to try to sell me another burger, or another nicotine gum, but something went very wrong in the data processing if I'm being resold on lifetime goods. And it happens way too often.
  - hiq 1y ago
    > This is the part that I'm most confused about. How can it possibly be useful to try to sell me another fridge? I've seen this kind of comments several times over the years, and I've always thought that this might actually be the optimal strategy, because I'm not convinced the alternatives work better. You'd have to see the numbers over samples bigger than n=1. Let's say I just bought a bridge, and that's the only thing you know about me. What ads should you serve me? Maybe fridge accessories would make sense (I'm not sure that's a thing). But fridges themselves might be relevant as well, more so than some other random product: 1. I might be able to return the fridge I just bought, if I see another one I might prefer. 2. What's the life expectancy of such an appliance? I guess it either breaks quickly (manufacturing flaw) or not (hopefully it can last more than 5 years). In the first case, I'm back in the market right after my purchase. I'm also guessing that the margin on such an appliance might be higher than on burgers and nicotine gums, such that you can afford lower conversion rates.
    - literalAardvark 1y ago
      The life expectancy of large appliances is 10-20 bloody years. Who returns fridges? It's a tremendous pain in the ass to do. But you're right, it's possible. Logically I think I'd choose to show myself other new home related ads, or other long term appliances that are probably not bought yet or nearing end of life just like the fridge.
  - ujkhsjkdhf234 1y ago
    Goods aren't lifetime any more. Planned obsolesce is a business model.
sensanaty 1y ago
> 1. Entrenches Google, Facebook, etc. because they are the only people that have enough money to comply with the regulation. The article we're commenting on makes it clear the big guys aren't complying. Also, I reject the notion that you have to spend inordinate amounts of resources to comply, in fact it is the opposite. You don't spend money on data you don't store, after all. Co. I used to work for is microscopic in comparison to FAANG, and we didn't have a single cookie banner or anything of the sort and have absolutely no problem complying with GDPR because we track nothing and collect nothing more than what is strictly necessary, mostly because of individuals like myself who push hard against any data collection that doesn't have a well thought out reason. Hell, even Github with their massive scale has no problem with not having cookie banners or anything else of the like. This is a problem of will, not resources. > 2. Makes the rest of the internet worse (e.g. people show MORE ads because they are less effective because they show me boats and I hate boats) Perhaps, but we're already drowning in them as-is. The internet is unusable without uBlock and DNS-level adblocking. > 3. Makes data brokers even more important because companies can't get data anywhere else. If we make data radioactive, then data brokers wouldn't be able to exist. What we need is stringent and broad laws that limit data gathering, period, regardless of the source. Whether you collect it yourself or pay someone else to collect it for you is completely irrelevant, both should be made equally painful. I'd also have no qualms with making sharing any data that you do collect even more of a pain in the ass and a nightmare for everyone involved, this whole gray market has net negative benefits to everyone. > 4. Reduces competition because the incumbents will always have more data than startups (Nike knows I wear a size X and the startup can't ever get that data) Why would Nike have this data in the system we're talking about (data radioactivity)? How is this data even useful to anyone, other than for tracking purposes to make a unique profile out of you? Companies shouldn't have this data unless it's a podiatric clinic or something like that, whether it be Nike or this imaginary Shoe startup that needs feet sizes for whatever reason. I guess I could see there being genuine usefulness for people who have feet sizes that aren't the norm to find footwear that fits them, but there's no reason they have to have their entire essence tracked by every company on the internet for that.
- jkaplowitz 1y ago
  Regarding Nike and foot sizes specifically, rather than your general point: they do sell and ship shoes directly to consumers online, so yeah they’d have foot size info in that case, even if (as I hope) they don’t get that info from indirect purchases.
vman81 1y ago
> Entrenches Google, Facebook, etc. because they are the only people that have enough money to comply with the regulation. I have very little sympathy for the idea of NOT storing user data is some sort of onerous regulatory burden. Just stop collecting it

ginko 1y ago

>1. Entrenches Google, Facebook, etc. because they are the only people that have enough money to comply with the regulation. TFA made it clear that they _aren't_ complying.

briandear 1y ago

> 2. Makes the rest of the internet worse (e.g. people show MORE ads because they are less effective because they show me boats and I hate boats) Back in the olden days, if you read a boat magazine, you’ll see ads for boat stuff. This was always fun for me — if I’m ready a motorcycle racing magazine, I’ll see ads for cool things that I had no idea existed and that would be useful to me. With “targeted” ads, it becomes an echo chamber — I see ads that are “tailored” for my alleged current interests, but nothing that helped me discover new things that I could become interested in. What’s wrong with context-based ads? If I’m reading about Thailand travel, then the publisher should sell ads related to SE Asia travel. Why am “I” being customized to rather than ads being relevant to the content? If you want to reach boat enthusiasts, then advertise on content related to boats (or perhaps water sports, etc.) You then don’t need to track “me,” but instead you can track “boat content. That takes the personal data out of it. This keeps me from being followed around the web trying to sell me a vacuum cleaner I already bought.

literalAardvark 1y ago
This is the part that I'm most confused about. How can it possibly be useful to try to sell me another fridge? Sure, it might be useful to try to sell me another burger, or another nicotine gum, but something went very wrong in the data processing if I'm being resold on lifetime goods. And it happens way too often.
- hiq 1y ago
  > This is the part that I'm most confused about. How can it possibly be useful to try to sell me another fridge? I've seen this kind of comments several times over the years, and I've always thought that this might actually be the optimal strategy, because I'm not convinced the alternatives work better. You'd have to see the numbers over samples bigger than n=1. Let's say I just bought a bridge, and that's the only thing you know about me. What ads should you serve me? Maybe fridge accessories would make sense (I'm not sure that's a thing). But fridges themselves might be relevant as well, more so than some other random product: 1. I might be able to return the fridge I just bought, if I see another one I might prefer. 2. What's the life expectancy of such an appliance? I guess it either breaks quickly (manufacturing flaw) or not (hopefully it can last more than 5 years). In the first case, I'm back in the market right after my purchase. I'm also guessing that the margin on such an appliance might be higher than on burgers and nicotine gums, such that you can afford lower conversion rates.
  - literalAardvark 1y ago
    The life expectancy of large appliances is 10-20 bloody years. Who returns fridges? It's a tremendous pain in the ass to do. But you're right, it's possible. Logically I think I'd choose to show myself other new home related ads, or other long term appliances that are probably not bought yet or nearing end of life just like the fridge.
- ujkhsjkdhf234 1y ago
  Goods aren't lifetime any more. Planned obsolesce is a business model.

sensanaty 1y ago

> 1. Entrenches Google, Facebook, etc. because they are the only people that have enough money to comply with the regulation. The article we're commenting on makes it clear the big guys aren't complying. Also, I reject the notion that you have to spend inordinate amounts of resources to comply, in fact it is the opposite. You don't spend money on data you don't store, after all. Co. I used to work for is microscopic in comparison to FAANG, and we didn't have a single cookie banner or anything of the sort and have absolutely no problem complying with GDPR because we track nothing and collect nothing more than what is strictly necessary, mostly because of individuals like myself who push hard against any data collection that doesn't have a well thought out reason. Hell, even Github with their massive scale has no problem with not having cookie banners or anything else of the like. This is a problem of will, not resources. > 2. Makes the rest of the internet worse (e.g. people show MORE ads because they are less effective because they show me boats and I hate boats) Perhaps, but we're already drowning in them as-is. The internet is unusable without uBlock and DNS-level adblocking. > 3. Makes data brokers even more important because companies can't get data anywhere else. If we make data radioactive, then data brokers wouldn't be able to exist. What we need is stringent and broad laws that limit data gathering, period, regardless of the source. Whether you collect it yourself or pay someone else to collect it for you is completely irrelevant, both should be made equally painful. I'd also have no qualms with making sharing any data that you do collect even more of a pain in the ass and a nightmare for everyone involved, this whole gray market has net negative benefits to everyone. > 4. Reduces competition because the incumbents will always have more data than startups (Nike knows I wear a size X and the startup can't ever get that data) Why would Nike have this data in the system we're talking about (data radioactivity)? How is this data even useful to anyone, other than for tracking purposes to make a unique profile out of you? Companies shouldn't have this data unless it's a podiatric clinic or something like that, whether it be Nike or this imaginary Shoe startup that needs feet sizes for whatever reason. I guess I could see there being genuine usefulness for people who have feet sizes that aren't the norm to find footwear that fits them, but there's no reason they have to have their entire essence tracked by every company on the internet for that.

jkaplowitz 1y ago
Regarding Nike and foot sizes specifically, rather than your general point: they do sell and ship shoes directly to consumers online, so yeah they’d have foot size info in that case, even if (as I hope) they don’t get that info from indirect purchases.

vman81 1y ago

> Entrenches Google, Facebook, etc. because they are the only people that have enough money to comply with the regulation. I have very little sympathy for the idea of NOT storing user data is some sort of onerous regulatory burden. Just stop collecting it