Ban surveillance-based advertising
-
@code3: , the online ad industry worked just fine for 15 years, before the introduction of surveillance-based advertising. There is no need to track individuals or groups of individuals for the ad systems to work.
The introduction of the surveillance-based ad industry has likely led to a lot more fraud. The systems are fragile.
-
@jon I'm not saying you're wrong in theory, but in practice, what will actually happen? Will google (and other adtech companies) say "we give up on this ad serving, let's go back to the way things used to be" when surveillance ads are banned? I think they'll just serve contextual ads, like they already do for certain users for GDPR compliance. Still, even Google Adsense Contextual would be better than what we have now. They're not the kind of ethical ads I would opt to see, though.
-
@code3: Not sure what you mean to imply here. That Google will not follow the law? Basically if surveillance-based ads are banned, the parties need to comply. There will then be other ads instead. Typically contextual ads, just like we had before the introduction of surveillance-based ads and like we do still in most other cases. TV ads are still mostly contextual. Print ads are contextual. By going back to using the same system for digital as as other forms, with some benefits still as you can use location, for example, you will in practice have a better ad system that is not based on disrespecting the users and messing up society.
-
@jon No, I'm saying that when you compare contextual vs surveillance you seem to actually be comparing before (Contextual + Individual ad deals) vs now (Personalized + Mass ad networks). After banning surveillance ads we will have contextual ads but will likely still have mass ad networks such as Adsense. It won't be the same as it used to be. But it will be better than personalized ads.
On another note, how should companies that want to sign the letter go about doing so? Email you?
-
@code3 , you seem to misunderstand what I write at times and when you represent what I write, it is quite often not fully accurate. Please do not put words in my mouth. I can represent my views.
DoubleClick was an ad network. Big one. Ad sense used to be contextual, based on the text on the page. You can still have ad networks. In reality, I think this opens up to more ad networks and more direct advertising on location, but we have to see. Clearly when you take the surveillance out of the system, things change.
I wish you would stop using the term "personalized ads". It is highly misleading and the reason why Big Tech invented the term. It is surveillance-based ads. That is the correct term, IMHO.
If companies send us a message, we will try to get them onto the list as well as we can. I think we should try to create a form for that purpose.
-
@jon , I think it is also important to educate users not to turn 'I have read and I accept' into a lie, because many pages intentionally turn the reading of TOS and PP into a tedious, long reading of several pages in legal jargon, apart almost always not translated. This also needs a mandatory change, since apart from this request, the most efficient way that large companies stop these practices is that people stop using their services, because they are aware of their abusive practices.
I'm already tired of talking to people who say 'if you want privacy, use FOSS, which of course nonsens, what will it do for them, if they have the script open, but they don't even bother to read the terms of use that this has.
Today comments regarding this letter that I published in Lemmy, which can be taken as an example of the misinformation of the people.Vivaldi is Trash
Vivaldi Chrome +Bloatware
I use FF, because it`s FOSS, if they track me, it financed the Coommunity(Facepalm) they don't even read the letter. A lot of work to do
-
@catweazle: there are plenty of things to work on, but for this particular matter, it really is about spreading the word. We need to get surveillance-ads banned. I think we need to stay focused on that. Discussing reading TOS and Privacy notices is not going to help. In reality, a clear ban can reduce the need for those cookie dialogs. They are no longer needed as what you can and cannot do is clear. There is no asking for permission, as you cannot ask for permission. Better for everyone.
There will always be people that will bash us. More as we grow. Not much we can do about that except to stay on topic and keep it civilized.
-
@jon , that is what I do, I always try to explain things as clearly and politely as possible, but it's certainly frustrating at times. Anyway, at least the publications have received many more positive votes than these negative comments from those who are believed to be experts, where there is no other way to practice this 'don't feed the Troll' and ignore them.
-
Absolutely fantastic that your are championing this issue - my donation is enroute.
-
https://cdn.chiefmartec.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/martech-landscape-2020-martech5000.pdf (PDF 155MB)
And that is only the tip of the iceberg, the county specific companies are left out.Hm... ban all those companies from doing their stuff?
Not going to happen anytime soon.They already have other strategies how to "optimize" targeting and contextual targeting is none of them: Now they are more into platform integration, which gives them the advantage that people willingly give them all the data they want.
-
Commenting recently on the revelations about Pegasus.
-