Ban surveillance-based advertising
-
This letter has been sent by the undersigned to EU & US regulators, to urge them to take action on banning surveillance-based ads, as recommended by the Norwegian Consumer Council.
Click here to see the full blog post
-
I appreciate and applaud your efforts on this matter. Now let's see how many legislators/lawmakers are paying attention.
-
+1
Roy Andre, CEO Enjoy.ly
-
@jon , now all that remains is for the different legislators, who confuse the remote control with a smartphone, to also take it into consideration. I hope so.
(Article shared in Lemmy) -
@jon Vivaldi, along with DuckDuckGo and Protonmail, was mentioned in a related article on Vice, which was then quoted on Slashdot just now.
-
Yes, this is getting attention, which is good.
-
@jon , strange (ironic?) that among the signatories does not appear neither Brave nor Mozilla ¬¬
Hopefully more services had a TOS and PP like this -
@jon This is good, and might be able to gain some traction. Because surveillance advertising ban is straightforward and reflects an experience many of us have.
That said, who organized this letter? Why are there no other browser vendors? And is there a petition that we can sign?
Thank you
-
We did not have a lot of time to do this. We wanted to come out in support of the paper from the Norwegian Consumer Counsel and we wanted to do so before some key meetings in the EU. We did not contact a lot of companies, given the time and some we did not get an answer from in time. I am sure more will sign up moving forward. We will likely do some kind of follow-up a bit later.
We have tried to include only companies that do not actively engage in surveillance-based advertising.
We will discuss with our partners the next steps. Petitions are a good option.
-
@jon , maybe the guys from SSuite are also good candidates to sign this paper. I can imagine that the effectiveness is greater when it is signed by companies and CEOs of websites and not by users.
-
That is quite possible. We welcome more companies signing up. They can send us a message and we can get them involved. I guess we need to make that easier over time for companies to add their names to the list.
The people we need to influence are politicians. They need to feel that there is support for their actions. Not only by companies and institutions, but also by individuals. We need ways for all your voices to be heard!
Remember that you all can contribute as well by sharing this letter and trying to influence people around you. Some people do not understand what is happening. Some people do not understand the extent to the data collection. Some people think that given it is happening, it cannot be that bad. There is a fair amount of education needed here and we need to work together on getting the word out.
-
@jon said in Ban surveillance-based advertising:
We have tried to include only companies that do not actively engage in surveillance-based advertising.
Why? In a previous thread you said that excluding people who have used or still use surveillance services shouldn’t be excluded from this movement.
I think an open petition as well as a way to contact you specifically to sign the letter for a company.
-
@jon When searching change.org for a petition to ban personalized ads, I found a popular petition to do the opposite:
https://www.change.org/p/youtubers-and-viewers-unite-against-ftc-regulation
-
I do see a difference between companies that are part of the overall eco-system that is available to them and those that are building the building blocks of the surveillance-based ad economy, but maybe you are right. If Google, Microsoft and Facebook had signed up on this, it would likely have been helpful, unless that was only to influence what the regulation would be. In fact, Facebook has been calling for regulation, although I fear it would not be this regulation.
-
As you can imagine, Big Tech has a lot of resources and clearly they can find people to fight their cause. This is why it is so important for us to step up the fight our selves.
-
@jon , I think the same, asking Google, FB & Cia to join this initiative, I think it will be an insider joke like the Do not Track option in Chrome.
-
Yes, I am fearing that there will be push for regulation that does not work. Clearly that is in the interest of some of these companies. They can then point at the regulation, saying they are being regulated and that what they are doing is thus OK.
Google´s introduction of FLOC is a great example of this. They introduce something new that they claim is a privacy feature, while in reality it is the opposite. We need to be on the watch here.
-
@jon Yes, but in this case the regulation is very clear: no more personalized ads.
I don’t think big tech will sign on directly, but maybe a subsidiary. For example, GitHub owned by Microsoft has committed to only using cookies necessary for the site’s operations, Edge owned by Microsoft has tracker blocking available. I don’t know of any google subsidiaries that are really committed to privacy, maybe Fitbit? Maybe Apple would consider it.
Then there are smaller companies like Brave and Mozilla that would probably sign, even if they use personalized ads.
-
Well ... if they actually ask you, they could do personalized ads. I mean, I might prefer ads for stuff I find useful as opposed to womens clothing or diapers (referring to stuff I've seen on my Android tablet). Not that they shouldn't already have figured out I'm a single male.
-
@sgunhouse Based on the last thread it sounds like Jon wants a ban on personalized ads, no matter what.
But if you’re not browsing a baby website you won’t see ads for diapers, in contextual ads.