These rules don't stop anything about ads, they just make them less targeted. Not a big deal, but it will increase the costs of serving users and thus decrease the total amount of commercial projects started.
Less targeted ads are exactly what we need. That's what the regulation aims for!
Your argument is like claiming that unfortunately, due to car dafety regulations, we cannot enjoy as many fatal accidents as we once did.
And to make my point of view clear: not all businesses deserve to exist. We as society decide which business models and behaviours are okay. "Decrease the total amount of commercial businesses started" cannot ever be a persuasive argument.
Nobody reasonable is arguing that it's a bad idea to let customers control their data. The actual issue is that the rules are vague and thus create a lot of confusion and waste that affects all companies, while not providing any real protection against the massive conglomerates that abuse data in the first place.
The #1 complaint about advertising is that in 2018, it has evolved into a shadowy, insecure brokerage of surveillance data that it obtains using all kinds of under-handed tactics. If the GDPR curbs this in the slightest, it will be a net positive for people of Europe.
They are playing games, and don't respect the requirements that the GDPR puts on "consent": focussed, freely given (non-punitive), fully informed.
Or maybe it's because the rules are confusing and messy and you have a different interpretation?
This a fallacy, not an argument. [1]
> Or maybe it's because the rules are confusing and messy and you have a different interpretation?
Please point out which rules are confusing and/or messy. Virtualy every single blog post about GDPR points out how it’s well written compared to other juridictions on the same subject. The language is clear and the website provides a Q/A section as well as concrete example for every point.
> Please point out which rules are confusing and/or messy.
The comment thread you just replied to -- the one where you seem to saying that random HN commenter is more accurate than Facebook's entire legal team on regulation that is supposed to be unequivocal -- is a start.
No, it does not.
Maybe your playacting is simply because you‘re „Currently working on Instinctive, a B2B marketing technology company.“?
You do not know my history, and sadly you didn't even bother to do some basic research or you would recognize that I'm one of the few in our industry that has called for regulation and data protections for years. [1] Instinctive has been on the forefront of this as well with our most recent push for net neutrality. [2]
And surprisingly you seem to miss that B2B marketing is rather unaffected by GDPR since everything we do has always been contextually targeted, consent-based, and 1st-party relationships anyway. If you want to have a discussion, base it on the ideas and not the person.
1. https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&q=manigandham%20regulati...
2. https://www.newamerica.org/oti/press-releases/companies-urge...
--
As for Facebook breaking laws, I find that incredibly hard to believe given their resources, recent legal , 1st-party data and consumer connections in their walled garden, and the fact that consent is already given by billions of users who just want to use FB products and don't care about the rest. They have nothing to gain from skirting regulations that only serve to strength their relationship.
I have nothing against targeted ads. I am against targeting ads and collecting/distributing my data without my explicit consent. E.g. mobile companies selling my real time location because there's some obscure sentence in their 90 page terms of service.
I wish regulation like GDPR would also be implemented in US, but really unlikely.
I mostly like GDPR. Ability to opt-in and being of charge of your data, i.e. removing it from a service if you want to, and the right to export and move it to another service are great and long due.
What I don't like is that it's a principle based regulation and thus it can be applied arbitrarily and selectively.
The side effects would include:
1) Reduced number of services available to EU customers.
2) EU users will be trained to click "Agree" without reading, because web sites would ask them for permission very frequently, and users do not have time to read web site policies anyway.
That’s not a bad thing. If services that don’t want to protect their users’ privacy can’t operate, that’s a good thing.
> 2) EU users will be trained to click "Agree" without reading, because web sites would ask them for permission very frequently, and users do not have time to read web site policies anyway.
How does this have anything to do with GDPR?
Some value it until they hit XXXXXXXXX amount of extra cost. Some only value it until they hit XXXX amount of extra cost.
Most probably only value it as much as they're forced to.
From what I've read, opt-in is only supposed to be used when there's an actual voluntary choice, and "allow us to share your data with 3rd party trackers or we block you" doesn't count as a real choice.
It should be treated in the same way as opting into marketing emails. Totally optional. Not opting in shouldn't totally break a site.
Why not?
The greater the power imbalance, the less free the choice. Social networks are a great example of this. You can choose not to use a particular one, but what's the alternative if everyone is already on that platform? You can go without, but what if it's LinkedIn, and there can be a real impact on your career?
But you do have a choice. Don't use the site if you don't consent to its rules. Pretty straightforward choice.
It is, if you don't think the rest of what I wrote is worth any consideration.
Nobody is suggesting companies provide free services. We're saying that personal data is more than commodity, and we should be looking to more ethical business models. And we won't be sad to lose companies that can't adapt.
edit: And I don't think my point was silly, but I'm also not really libertarian. So I don't think it's acceptable for companies to abuse their dominant position to make things worse for society at large.
because everyone knows that it is better to not make no money at all, than just a slightly less than normal because your ads are not targeted.
> 2) EU users will be trained to click "Agree" without reading, because web sites would ask them for permission very frequently, and users do not have time to read web site policies anyway.
Sure, and it is their absolute right to do so, but other people finally have some control over their data, I especially like the fact that finally user can also remove/change the data about them.
Which is exactly what GDPR is designed to stop. You're welcome - the rest of the world.
is it though? According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ease_of_doing_business_index#R...
USA is 3 positions behind Denmark which is in EU, and just one ahead of UK.