[HN Gopher] Democrats unveil bill to ban online 'surveillance ad...
___________________________________________________________________
Democrats unveil bill to ban online 'surveillance advertising'
Author : stalfosknight
Score : 29 points
Date : 2022-01-18 20:09 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theverge.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theverge.com)
| vmception wrote:
| Bill text
|
| https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/23177323/B...
| f0e4c2f7 wrote:
| I've proposed this idea before and still see the merit in it.
|
| Online platforms can still be funded by advertising. Taking away
| the targeting just reduces the incentive to spy on users.
| vmception wrote:
| I think there is a better opportunity to incentivize the desired
| behavior, instead of attempt to disincentivize with the civil
| code
|
| Congress, particularly these representatives, doesn't know what
| outcome they want though
|
| How about making users the direct recipients of the value of
| their data, with consent provable revokable consent. Similar to a
| streamlined licensing agreement.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| All revokable consent will get us is spam surveillance
| advertising. (Junk phone calls are illegal if you're on the Do
| Not Call list, but I still get them.)
| colejohnson66 wrote:
| You still get them because the do-not-call registry is
| basically ignored by regulatory agencies. What's needed
| (IMHO), before new laws, is enforcement of the ones we have
| right now.
| tomohawk wrote:
| Given that democrat run companies control almost all online
| advertisement, who are they fooling? They could change this today
| if they wanted to.
| kup0 wrote:
| This line of thinking makes the incredibly naive mistake of
| thinking that all Democrats feel the same about online
| advertisement (or anything, really)
|
| What makes you think that Democrat legislators and "democrat
| run companies" (operating on the assumption this is true and on
| the assumption that all of the company's operations match it's
| executives' political views- again a pretty big question mark)
| in any way share the same views concerning surveillance
| advertising?
| datavirtue wrote:
| Let me guess, Manchin blocks it and the senate puts the last nail
| in the coffin.
| skulk wrote:
| I'm curious what the enforcement pathway will look like under
| this bill, if signed into law. Does it start with someone
| thinking "hmm, this ad is suspiciously specific to me?" How do
| you even know if you're being targeted via one of the exceptions
| (like what state you're in or keywords you've searched) versus
| banned info (like zip code)?
| Hokusai wrote:
| "whistleblowers" is one answer. Public APIs and contracts are
| another, it's difficult for Facebook to offer targeted adds to
| companies while hiding it from law enforcement.
| KoftaBob wrote:
| I imagine it may involve periodic/unscheduled audits of adtech
| companies platforms under the hood, to see how they're
| targeting?
| jklinger410 wrote:
| Platforms can allow marketers to target without abusing their
| users. The ball is really already in their court there. This is
| pretty heavy-handed.
|
| I also can't help but think that this creates a mote for
| companies like Google and Facebook, who employ lawyers and
| engineers to make sure their ad business is legal. Furthermore
| using machine learning and proprietary signals in lieu of
| whatever data stuff like this manages to restrict.
|
| As an upstart website, ad monetization will become increasingly
| difficult. As a small business, serving ads to the right users
| will become increasingly difficult.
|
| Ads will not go away or stop being annoying from a user's
| perspective. They will be less relevant, too.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-01-18 23:02 UTC)