Target lost - European Parliament approves initial proposal to ban some targeted ads

[Lightwreather]

Summary

On Thursday, the European Parliament voted to approve the initial draft of a bill that aims to curb Big Tech’s invasive advertising practices (via Bloomberg). The Parliament adopted the draft with 530 votes of approval, 78 against, and 80 absentations.

 

Quotes

Quote

The Digital Services Act, which was first introduced in 2020, will prevent platforms, like Google, Amazon, and the Meta-owned Facebook, from using sensitive information, such as sexual orientation, race, and religion for targeted ads. It will require services to give users the ability to easily opt out of tracking, and pressures platforms to remove illegal content and products online, including hate speech or counterfeit goods.

“With a huge majority, the European Parliament adopted the Digital Services Act,” Dutch politician and Parliament member Paul Tang wrote on Twitter. “A big win, with support from left to right.”

The approved proposal also includes two rules that the Parliament agreed on last month: a ban on both targeted ads for minors and dark patterns, a practice that some platforms use to trick users into agreeing to share their data. Any company in violation of these policies could face fines of up to six percent of its global revenue.

 

My thoughts

Well, the EU has voted to ban targetted advertising to an extent. Now, I haven't read the draft yet, I just couldn't rn, but well I am hoping someone reading this can and provide their opinon as well. From a consumer and normie standpoint, this seems like a big win for privacy. How much are you willing to bet that Meta and Google will try and find a way around this law? Well, that aside, while this law has passed the EU s Parliament, it still has to pass the Council as well, so we might have to wait for a bit before this law is implemented. 

 

Sources

TheVerge

Bloomberg

EU 1-Newsroom 2-Q&A

[Bombastinator]

7 minutes ago, J-from-Nucleon said:

Summary

On Thursday, the European Parliament voted to approve the initial draft of a bill that aims to curb Big Tech’s invasive advertising practices (via Bloomberg). The Parliament adopted the draft with 530 votes of approval, 78 against, and 80 absentations.

 

Quotes

 

My thoughts

Well, the EU has voted to ban targetted advertising to an extent. Now, I haven't read the draft yet, I just couldn't rn, but well I am hoping someone reading this can and provide their opinon as well. From a consumer and normie standpoint, this seems like a big win for privacy. How much are you willing to bet that Meta and Google will try and find a way around this law? Well, that aside, while this law has passed the EU s Parliament, it still has to pass the Council as well, so we might have to wait for a bit before this law is implemented. 

 

Sources

TheVerge

Bloomberg

EU 1-Newsroom 2-Q&A

The Devil is generally in the details in such things.  We shall see what we shall see. 

[Quackers101]

lightly targeted, fine.

deep rooted through fingerprints/ID's and to other information that feels like stalking through multiple websites? no thanks.

[HeroRareheart]

32 minutes ago, J-from-Nucleon said:

How much are you willing to bet that Meta and Google will try and find a way around this law?\

Everything I own.

[poochyena]

So I'll see fewer relevant ads and my ad campaigns will be less beneficial
How is this a win, exactly?

[Bombastinator]

55 minutes ago, poochyena said:

So I'll see fewer relevant ads and my ad campaigns will be less beneficial
How is this a win, exactly?

It won’t be as profitable to know what your underwear preferences are so people will look less hard for them I guess. I personally find the capacities of big data terrifying

[PeachGr]

Just to say that European parliament, doesn't really have a big impact to the laws from European country to country, we have our own mess independently. Also I hope they mean gambling ads, like bet, crypto and similar sites/ apps

[Salv8 (sam)]

2 hours ago, J-from-Nucleon said:

From a consumer and normie standpoint, this seems like a big win for privacy. How much are you willing to bet that Meta and Google will try and find a way around this law?

seems is an understatement, it IS a big win, makes it harder for them to use the data they collect on people since not only are they not allowed to use this data for targeted ads.

they have to make turning it off as easy as turning on the bloody thing AND if users refuse, they can't be denied the service!

i'll also tldr some of the dot points they list in the original press room statement, go read the original if you want a more professional version and that probably explains it better then i can:

Spoiler

• minors can't have targeted ads at all and ads targeted at a single person that fits into "special category's" is also not allowed (what these category's are i don't know, most likely things like LGBT)
• things like amazon's 'items frequently bought together' is not allowed anymore
• users can choose between algorithm-based recommendations or a system where it doesn't use algorithms to recommend items (e.g popular items bought on amazon today instead of a new GPU because you bought a CPU, an expansion of the last point)
• users can't be nudged or influneced to activating these things, they must be told straight up what it does no sugar coating whatsoever (e.g google can't say "if you turn on targeted ads, your search results will be more personalized!" stuff like that isn't allowed)

the second thing though? they'll find a way, they always do.

they'll give in for now, then introduce their old shit after finding loopholes and exploiting them so they can bring back these things, if not, maybe it'll be a neutered version of it.

also don't call facebook meta, call them facebook, it ensures that their rebrand fails and teaches company's that a rebrand will not make the war crimes you committed go away.

 

but this is a a very BIG step to user privacy, as time goes on and more laws will be passed to restrict what google, facebook, apple and microsoft can do with our data, it will get harder and harder for them to use this data for profit. the day will come where they aren't allowed to profit from this data and they can delay it, but they cannot stop it.

[Derangel]

2 hours ago, poochyena said:

So I'll see fewer relevant ads and my ad campaigns will be less beneficial
How is this a win, exactly?

 

Why do you want targeted ads? The fact that these companies have so much data mining is terrifying. You do realize that they use it for more than just ad targeting, right? They also use the data to feed you topics, especially ones they believe will drive engagement. You think people accidentally stumble on conspiracy theories or other topics that either anger them or make them believe stupid things? Nope, social media companies feed this shit to drive clicks and engagement. The more that they’re banned from doing the better.

[poochyena]

7 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

It won’t be as profitable to know what your underwear preferences are so people will look less hard for them I guess. I personally find the capacities of big data terrifying

why do you find that terrifying?

6 hours ago, Derangel said:

Why do you want targeted ads?

So the ads I see are more interested and not stuff I don't care about.

6 hours ago, Derangel said:

They also use the data to feed you topics, especially ones they believe will drive engagement.

That sounds like a positive to me. Its a big reason I like google news, I get news on topics I care about like local news, gaming, tech, etc.

 

6 hours ago, Derangel said:

Nope, social media companies feed this shit to drive clicks and engagement.

Only to people who are already viewing that content. If they wanted to spread conspiracy theories to everyone, then they don't need targeted advertising for that.

[Kronoton]

27 minutes ago, poochyena said:

That sounds like a positive to me. Its a big reason I like google news, I get news on topics I care about like local news, gaming, tech, etc.

 

 

"Getting the news" does not make much for engagement.

 

Getting you to read stuff reinforces your believes and riles you up against "the other" will do a much better job.

 

-> thats why all social media is a total ####show once you venture out of talking non controversial topics with family and close friends.

[Master Disaster]

10 hours ago, J-from-Nucleon said:

Summary

On Thursday, the European Parliament voted to approve the initial draft of a bill that aims to curb Big Tech’s invasive advertising practices (via Bloomberg). The Parliament adopted the draft with 530 votes of approval, 78 against, and 80 absentations.

 

Quotes

 

My thoughts

Well, the EU has voted to ban targetted advertising to an extent. Now, I haven't read the draft yet, I just couldn't rn, but well I am hoping someone reading this can and provide their opinon as well. From a consumer and normie standpoint, this seems like a big win for privacy. How much are you willing to bet that Meta and Google will try and find a way around this law? Well, that aside, while this law has passed the EU s Parliament, it still has to pass the Council as well, so we might have to wait for a bit before this law is implemented. 

 

Sources

TheVerge

Bloomberg

EU 1-Newsroom 2-Q&A

Imma keep this short because my opinion on this is not exactly forum friendly.

 

This is basically cancel culture, the law. Sure its worded as advertising but its so vague it will be easy to apply it to anything.

 

Its the beginning of the end of the days of a free internet.

[poochyena]

 

3 minutes ago, Kronoton said:

"Getting the news" does not make much for engagement.

 

Getting you to read stuff reinforces your believes and riles you up against "the other" will do a much better job.

 

-> thats why all social media is a total ####show once you venture out of talking non controversial topics with family and close friends.

Can you point to me the article that is mean to "rile me up against the other"?

 

7 minutes ago, Kronoton said:

-> thats why all social media is a total ####show once you venture out of talking non controversial topics with family and close friends.

I don't follow any friends or family. If I click the "for you" tab, it recommends me rabbits

[Doobeedoo]

Cool. Ban all the adds.

[poochyena]

17 minutes ago, Caroline said:

those were usually about random bs and fake "win 10 iphones now!!!" crap that was so annoying

Yep. Those were the pre-targeted ads era. Without targeted advertising, the only profitable advertising are scams and ads from extremely rich corporations.

33 minutes ago, Doobeedoo said:

Cool. Ban all the adds.

You can say good bye to small businesses then, as you'd just be giving large corporations even more influence.

[Franck]

This whole thing is a double edge sword. Targeted ads have better acquisition value. target less ads pay less in return. Website using add revenue will need to increase the amount of ads to retain their profit. So less targeted ads mean more ads with no meaning on website. yeah this is soo good.

[tikker]

Reading through it, they don't seem to really ban targeted advertising. They are going for more restricted use and more power to you as a consumer to opt out. From the first EU source:

Quote

• targeted advertising: the text provides for more transparent and informed choice for the recipients of digital services, including information on how their data will be monetised. Refusing consent shall be no more difficult or time-consuming to the recipient than giving consent. If their consent is refused or withdrawn, recipients shall be given other options to access the online platform, including “options based on tracking-free advertising”;

 

• targeting or amplification techniques involving the data of minors for the purpose of displaying ads will be prohibited, as well as targeting individuals on the basis of special categories of data which allow for targeting vulnerable groups;

and from the secound EU source:

Quote

How does the Digital Services Act regulate online advertising?

The Digital Services Act covers any type of advertising, from digital marketing to issues-based advertising and political ads and complements existing rules such as the General Data Protection Regulation, which already establishes, for example, rules on users' consent or their right to object to targeted digital marketing.

 

These new rules will empower users in understanding and making informed decisions about the ads they see. They will have to be clearly informed whether and why they are targeted by each ad and who paid for the ad; they should also see very clearly when content is sponsored or organically posted on a platform. Notice and action obligations also apply for potentially illegal ads, as for any other type of content. 

For very large online platforms, the societal stakes are higher, and the rules include additional measures to mitigate risks and enable oversight. They will have to maintain and provide access to ad repositories, allowing researchers, civil society and authorities to inspect how ads were displayed and how they were targeted. They will also need to assess whether and how their advertising systems are manipulated, and take measures to mitigate these risks.

 

I think it's good in a way. More control over how your data gets used isn't a bad thing. We'll see how this unfolds.

[wanderingfool2]

The way I look at things, targeted ads are what made the internet such a viable thing.  Google had to switch to using cookies to track users back in the day because they were literally losing money (and at risk of not making it)...that was until they started doing cookie tracking.

 

The issue I have with these kinds of legislation is that it essentially just paints tracking as bad.  The whole concept of YouTube was to let you find similar kinds of videos as well, which wouldn't really be possible without tracking...so they already are doing the tracking.

 

What is more, is they should be targeting websites with sketchy ads.  Websites that deliver ads that contain viruses, ads that pop-up when users click any part of the screen (ones where a simple back button isn't great at closing).  There is so much worse stuff that should be riled in first...like at a certain point they need to address being served non-curated ads.  [i.e. ads that clearly feature adult content but isn't on a site that should contain it, and example being twitter ads which occasionally shows see through stuff and I report it every time]

[ACuriousWanderer]

11 hours ago, poochyena said:

So I'll see fewer relevant ads and my ad campaigns will be less beneficial
How is this a win, exactly?

Well I feel like it's important to note that it looks like the legislation is aimed at reducing manipulative practices. It doesn't look like it's an outright ban, just a protection measure for minors and people who care about their data. I have no problems with targeted ads if people agree to receive them. But there should be protection in place for vulnerable people (an example would be people who quit drinking being able to not see ads for alcoholic beverages).

[ACuriousWanderer]

53 minutes ago, Franck said:

This whole thing is a double edge sword. Targeted ads have better acquisition value. target less ads pay less in return. Website using add revenue will need to increase the amount of ads to retain their profit. So less targeted ads mean more ads with no meaning on website. yeah this is soo good.

I didn't think of that to be honest. I would be inclined to agree. That being said I don't think we're at that stage yet. Also it could be that people won't accept it, I normally immediately leave a website if it contains too many ads for my liking.

[Derangel]

5 hours ago, poochyena said:

why do you find that terrifying?

So the ads I see are more interested and not stuff I don't care about.

That sounds like a positive to me. Its a big reason I like google news, I get news on topics I care about like local news, gaming, tech, etc.

 

Only to people who are already viewing that content. If they wanted to spread conspiracy theories to everyone, then they don't need targeted advertising for that.

 

Let's put this in more perspective: If you use one of their mobile apps or use scams like the Honey extension, then they're not just using data gained from you browsing their sites or clicking on ads to feed you ads. They're using EVERYTHING you do on your device or on your browser. Google doesn't need to mine and purchase off-site data to feed your relevant news articles. They could easily just let you set topics and sites you want to see news from and then use on-site information like what articles you click on or topics you search to further refine your news feed.

 

My FB account exists solely to look at local marketplace stuff and occasionally sell items. It's never followed anyone, never had anything posted to the feed, never liked a single page, never done anything except engage with markeplace. Yet today I'm seeing ads for vision stuff. Why? Because last night I was researching lasik, on my tablet that has NEVER been logged into FB nor even had the FB app installed on it. Yet in the slightly more than 12 hours between me looking at that and now Google has sold my search and browsing data and I'm being fed personalized ads. Fuck that shit. Also, despite having no personal information on FB they've still managed to mine enough data on me to recommend I follow family members despite there being literally nothing on my FB linking me to them, I've even seem them recommend former classmates and current and former co-workers despite that info, again, not being on FB and not even being easy to find online. And it's not like I have an uncommon name either, it takes some very specific searching to even find myself on Google because my name is rather common. That is the level of data mining these fuckers engage in to deliver you personalized ads.

 

Oh, you think you have to actively engage with that shit to get it fed to you? No no no. Look up a controversial or trending topic on Google? Not only is Google itself going to feed you links to conspiracy theories, but they're going to sell the search info to social media sites. From there It gets automatically added to the algorithm, then matched to you, and suddenly you're being fed it because the algorithm believes it will drive you to engage further with the site. Happen to follow family members on social media that post about conspiracies or controversial topics? Welp, that's all in the algorithm as well and factors into what topics you're fed. This is even more common if the algorithm believes you will get angry about certain topics because an angry person is far more likely to engage with both the topic itself and the other people replying.

[poochyena]

20 minutes ago, Derangel said:

 

Let's put this in more perspective: If you use one of their mobile apps or use scams like the Honey extension, then they're not just using data gained from you browsing their sites or clicking on ads to feed you ads. They're using EVERYTHING you do on your device or on your browser. Google doesn't need to mine and purchase off-site data to feed your relevant news articles. They could easily just let you set topics and sites you want to see news from and then use on-site information like what articles you click on or topics you search to further refine your news feed.

They do do that, its a mix of both. Again, don't see how this is bad.

24 minutes ago, Derangel said:

Fuck that shit.

? Why does this upset you? You were searching for something, now you are seeing ads related to what you were looking for. How is that not the best case scenario for ads?

 

[Derangel]

1 minute ago, poochyena said:

They do do that, its a mix of both. Again, don't see how this is bad.

? Why does this upset you? You were searching for something, now you are seeing ads related to what you were looking for. How is that not the best case scenario for ads?

 

 

If it was strictly related to on-site activity it wouldn't be bad.

 

It's not the best case scenario because I do not want all of my god damn information and life being shared by megacorps that are harmful to society and actively contribute to the hellscape we currently live in,

[poochyena]

8 minutes ago, Derangel said:

 

If it was strictly related to on-site activity it wouldn't be bad.

 

It's not the best case scenario because I do not want all of my god damn information and life being shared by megacorps that are harmful to society and actively contribute to the hellscape we currently live in,

this sounds like one of the conspiracies you were talking about earlier.

[YoungBlade]

16 hours ago, poochyena said:

So I'll see fewer relevant ads and my ad campaigns will be less beneficial
How is this a win, exactly?

I'm actually of the opposite opinion - I want my ads to be irrelevant so that I have no incentive to buy more stuff I don't need. I don't want to be part of a hyper consumerist culture. I want to consume less and spend less and live my life more.