from Hacker News

EU data regulator bans personalised advertising on Facebook and Instagram

by pbrw on 11/2/23, 10:34 AM with 735 comments

• by arbuge on 11/2/23, 6:59 PM

  I might be in the minority here but I personally find personalized ads useful, and am far more annoyed by ads recommending products and services completely irrelevant to my interests and/or needs.

  (The latter still account for the ads I see most of the time, unfortunately.)

• by leksak on 11/2/23, 11:28 AM

  > Meta has stated that it had already announced plans to provide users in the EU and EEA with an opportunity to provide consent and will introduce a subscription model in November to comply with regulatory requirements

  This effectively means then that if you are in the EU and you'd want to use either Facebook or Instagram you'd have to pay for a subscription then because they presumably won't offer the free-service without personalized ads and since the law prohibits them from doing that then the only way to use either service will be to pay for it..?

• by thorncorona on 11/2/23, 11:28 AM

  Hot take, it’s hard to have a free internet without ads. Lots of websites have marginal utility, but can be paid for with ads. And those websites will disappear when CPM rates go down the drain.

• by aloe_falsa on 11/2/23, 11:48 AM

  Does anyone have any specific details on the ban, maybe a link to the legal document?

  The article seems to use "personalized advertising" and "behavioral advertising" interchangeably, and also mentions that using location for advertising is a breach of privacy - which would prevent any local business from advertising itself to people in the same city, as I see it. Was that the intent here?

• by seydor on 11/2/23, 5:06 PM

  Whenever EU services "ban" facebook, i like to remember that European commission and parliament are among the biggest public spenders of ads on facebook, in most EU countries: https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/report/

• by RamblingCTO on 11/2/23, 12:56 PM

  The big problem a lot of people can't follow is this: they track you even without an account. You don't have a business relation with them. That's not ok. For users of their platform, whatever.

• by yason on 11/2/23, 1:42 PM

  Paper ads in magazines of interests were highly interesting, often useful and in sometimes better than the actual content in the magazine itself.

  I remember early, search keywords-based textual Google ads still being somewhat interesting, and if not necessarily useful at least comprehensibly relevant.

  Whatever slips past my adblocker these days is absolute junk. Internet doesn't effectively exist without an adblocker.

  It seems we reached a high-peak in the 90's on so many things.

• by mrweasel on 11/2/23, 11:51 AM

  Is there a reason as to why this is "on Facebook and Instagram" and not just a general ban on personalised advertising? Is there something specific that Meta does that others don't?

• by gatinsama on 11/2/23, 11:42 AM

  I have mixed feelings about this.

  I hate that Europe leads in regulation and lags so much in innovation. At the same time, this is a step in the right direction. True, people don't care about privacy, but it's mostly because they don't understand the extent and implications of letting companies control your data.

• by jerrac on 11/2/23, 2:42 PM

  I would love to see a regulation put in place requiring companies to notify their users every time they transfer data about their users to another organization. If the data is "anonymized", the company should have to notify all their users.

  If the company has contact info for the user, it should send the user a notification via that contact info. Even if that means having to send a physical letter.

  The company should also keep a public record of transfers, something like a page on their website listing when they've transferred data, why it was transferred, and what kind of data was transferred. That would cover anonymous users.

  There would need to be something in there covering data transfer as part of what the company's business is. Maybe a list of businesses that access your data as part of the provided services and are covered by the company's terms?

  Even better would be to force companies that make money selling your data to share the profits with every person they just sold data on.

• by DrScientist on 11/2/23, 3:48 PM

  The issues isn't just about the information that is captured and traded about you.

  The issue is how is that data put to use - how that affects your life and whether those decisions were made with flawed algorithms or indeed flawed data.

  And quite possibly, the whole process being so opaque that nobody understands how it works, or why certain things happened.

  And, in my view, a lot of it comes back to a lot of these internet businesses scale only if they leave an element of fairness behind.

  For example, if you are randomly banned from youtube by an algorithm, it's not economically worth it for Google to fund a process of proper appeal - because proper appeal process needs people.

  You then have a choice - dispense with fairness and justice or dispense with a business model that doesn't scale in a fair and just way.

• by n_ary on 11/2/23, 1:40 PM

  Disclaimer: Individual EU opinion not reflective of whole continent.

  I am very very happy to look at all the ads and even personalised ones, as long as those are not overly obnoxious and mostly (obviously-)scammy.

  If I have to scroll through endless ocean of ad with my actual priority(friends and family posting something) drowned out at the very bottom of my feed, I will naturally stop clicking any ads.

  All we need is a balance, overwhelming and making my feeds/timeline flooded w/ random ads is not really helpful and as a sane person, I am very happy to text my freinds and family and create whatsapp group to keep in contact.

• by kackiel on 11/2/23, 11:31 AM

  Why do people hate personalized ads so much? I understand hating ads in general, but why something personalized is worse than just random spam?

  EDIT ---

  Ok, I get it now. Personalized ads = surveillance. Fair enough.

  Doesn't the whole GDPR already cover it though? You can opt out of the surveillance.

• by jqpabc123 on 11/2/23, 10:48 AM

  Personalized advertising should never have been allowed without a specific opt-in.

  I know lots of advertisers think they can't live without it --- because promoters have told them so.

• by eschewingmycud on 11/2/23, 3:20 PM

  This is not a ban on personalized/behaviorial advertising. If a user consents, behavior advertising is still allowed.

  From the press release (https://edpb.europa.eu/news/news/2023/edpb-urgent-binding-de...):

    "On 27 October, the EDPB adopted an urgent binding decision ... to impose a ban on the processing of personal data for behavioural advertising on the legal bases of contract and legitimate interest ..."
  

  Under GDPR Article 6, all processing of personal data requires one of the following lawful bases: consent, contractual obligation, legal obligation, vital interests of a person, public interest, or legitimate interests of the controller. The ban says that Meta can't use two of these as bases---contract, legitimate interest---for behavior advertising. Behavior advertising that is consented to is a-okay.

• by mc32 on 11/2/23, 11:32 AM

  Oh, yeah!

  Can’t come soon enough. Kneecap the need to datamine users.

  I totally want to see this happen even if that means they will have to charge money for their heretofore “free” services.

  This would be a big win for society, in my view.

• by redder23 on 11/2/23, 6:07 PM

  Fuck yeah! I have no clue how it came this far, they really banned it. Not just mandated to be default and opt-in? That is crazy, and I honestly fail to understand why they are doing this, I mean do not get me wrong, I like it, I just do not trust the EU AT ALL. They are so in with big business, what do they gain from this? And do not tell me they are doing this "for the people". Probably because it's American companies and they want to push EU companies.

• by hdhianao on 11/2/23, 12:17 PM

  How is personalized advertising defined? Is it just one company singled out? Does this mean Netflix recommending x because I watched y is illegal? What about Spotify suggesting I consume another podcast or song because it of my listening history? Almost every business has some soft of loyalty program where they give you benefits/offers to entice you to transact more with them.

• by jonahhorowitz on 11/2/23, 4:09 PM

  I really hope they make the subscription option available in the US. I'd happily pay $25/mo to opt out of ads on both platforms. I was going to sign up for their "verified" option until I saw that it didn't remove the Ads.

• by josephd79 on 11/2/23, 12:40 PM

  Couldn't they just put in the TOS that if you create an account or use any of their services then they can just collect all the data they want?

• by jklinger410 on 11/2/23, 2:51 PM

  Facebook and all other ad networks using personalized advertising will pull out from the EU, then.

• by lfnoise on 11/2/23, 6:47 PM

  How will compliance be verified?

• by 1vuio0pswjnm7 on 11/2/23, 11:28 PM

  The choices will be

  (a) consent to personalised ads

  (b) subscribe

  (c) do nothing

  Will Meta block people from using its websites if they refuse to consent to personalised ads, i.e., option (c). That would seem quite stupid. Meta would lose the traffic.

  If millions of people consent, i.e., choose option (a), it defeats the purpose of GDPR. Meta scores a victory against privacy. They may even succeed in complying before the ban comes into effect.

  If millions of people choose (c), i.e., to retain their rights under GDPR, then Meta is fscked.

  EU is forcing the issue, but Meta will only present this choice of options to people over 18. Quite a large carveout.

  Users in the EU should choose (c) and call Meta's bluff. There is no sensible reason that Meta would block users who do not consent to personalised ads.

  If a user wants personalised ads, they can opt-in. Users who find personalised ads useful, such as the lone outlier commenter at the top of this thread, can opt-in.

• by hereme888 on 11/2/23, 8:21 PM

  The debt of countries keeps increasing. Wars from greed and for power, derivatives market, and data thieves. They can all burn for all I care. They should have never existed in the first place.

• by jokoon on 11/2/23, 4:37 PM

  I'm using firefox containers for youtube, so I don't login, don't have cookies etc, and yet youtube still suggests videos that are related to what I watched previously.

  So they even build profiles of people who evade tracking techniques. I don't understand how they can think it won't tarnish their image or backfire.

  It's funny because on one hand, we don't want government surveillance, but yet people criticize the GDPR or the EU or defend the advertising industry, which is probably a very efficient proxy for government surveillance.

• by asylteltine on 11/2/23, 6:51 PM

  Can they ban Facebook and instagram?

• by artursapek on 11/2/23, 3:07 PM

  Oooooohhhhh I'm regulaaaaaating

• by cm2012 on 11/2/23, 11:54 AM

  So stupid. Will be regretted.

• by jacquesm on 11/2/23, 3:24 PM

  Good. Now do Google.

• by 3cats-in-a-coat on 11/2/23, 5:14 PM

  It's unclear to me, honestly, why targeting ads is bad. Is random useless ads better. To compensate, they'll need even MORE ads.

• by seydor on 11/2/23, 11:57 AM

  You can't fight Gdpr, it's by design built like that. The only realizable outcome is to leave the market. Don't worry, nobody will spring up to replace you , because they'd have to do it for free as well.

• by bad_user on 11/2/23, 3:00 PM

  2018 — "GDPR doesn't work, says tech bros"

• by pembrook on 11/2/23, 11:52 AM

  Ok, my contrarian hot take (for HN at least). The real entities we need to be afraid of in regards to privacy are governments & politicians, not companies & entrepreneurs.

  The worst thing a company can do is try to sell you more soap. The government on the other hand can literally ruin your life (or even end it in some countries).

  The EU is doing a fantastic job of keeping everyone distracted by pointing the finger at the "evil American tech companies" while simultaneously doing the opposite when it comes to privacy from government...which is the real threat.

  I could point to many instances of this but the easiest one is the EU commission currently pushing a ban on encryption.

• by bluelu on 11/2/23, 2:39 PM

  I don't understand why this only applies for Facebook then.

  2 1/2 years, ago they opened up a loop hole for newspapers that they are explicitly allowed to do it (Either you pay, or when you use their free version, you must accept to be tracked for behavioural advertising).

  Are they any better than facebook?

  Some example news sites: www.zeit.de, www.spiegel.de

  More information on this:

  https://www.heise.de/news/E-Privacy-Verordnung-EU-Rat-fuer-V... (german)

  And https://www.consilium.europa.eu/de/press/press-releases/2021...

  Look here (referenced pdf in the above url): https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-6087-2021-I...

  (21aa) In some cases the use of processing and storage capabilities of terminal equipment and the collection of information from end-users' terminal equipment may also be necessary for providing a service, requested by the enduser, such as services provided in accordance with the freedom of expression and information including for journalistic purposes, e.g. online newspaper or other press publications as defined in Article 2 (4) of Directive (EU) 2019/790, that is wholly or mainly financed by advertising provided that, in addition, the end-user has been provided with clear, precise and user-friendly information about the purposes of cookies or similar techniques and has accepted such use.

• by mjburgess on 11/2/23, 11:58 AM

  Comments here so far focus on personalised ads as the issue -- but that's a symptom of what's being banned, which is the mass collection of personal data.

  Personalised ads are beside the point. The issue is how they are personalised, namely by building a rich profile of user behaviour based on non-consensual tracking.

  It isnt even clear that there's a meaningful sense of 'consent' to what modern ad companies (ie., google, facebook, amazon, increasingly microsoft, etc.) do. There is both an individual harm, but a massive collective arm, to the infrastructure of behavioural tracking that has been built by these companies.

  This infrastructure should be, largely, illegal. The technology to end any form of privacy is presently deployed only for ads, but should not be deployed anywhere at all.

• by prmoustache on 11/2/23, 12:51 PM

  At the same time EU wants to break SSL and facilitate man of the middle attacks.

  https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/fr/policies/discover-e... https://nce.mpi-sp.org/index.php/s/cG88cptFdaDNyRr

• by kwanbix on 11/2/23, 11:29 AM

  I know in HN there is a big "personalized advertising" is bad sentiment, but I don't get what the problem is.

  I mean, if I am looking for a notebook, I rather have FB/IG (or Google or whatever), show me adds of a notebook that I might end up buying, instead of the generic poker/porn adds that we had on the beginning of the internet.

  It is almost impossible to have a free internet without ads. So on one side, people want everything free, on the other side, we don't want ads, so there is a clear problem here.

  Can someone explain to me what the problem is? Honest question. Thanks.

• by DudeOpotomus on 11/2/23, 3:02 PM

  Nice to read this. Its not the medium, nor the media, its the business model that is the problem.

  The incentives are perverted and the outcome imbalanced. The entire ad tech universe is built on false metrics, lies and fraud. Burn it all down.

• by dang on 11/2/23, 10:11 PM

  Url changed from https://dig.watch/updates/eu-data-regulator-decided-to-ban-p..., which points to this.

  Submitters: "Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

• by Zetobal on 11/2/23, 6:19 PM

  I am so glad someone finally called their "we gonna leave" bluff.

• by EchoReflection on 11/2/23, 6:58 PM

  so far everyone's comments here are awesome

• by neaumusic on 11/2/23, 6:53 PM

  private data should be illegal, public behavioral data should be public, censorship is pretty much always wrong

• by germandiago on 11/2/23, 3:17 PM

  I am an european and I am pretty sure that some day in the EU they will regulate even the position to go to po...

  Also, we are pretty broke now so get ready for looking for gold even underground...

  In the meantime... these people do not do more important homework...

• by anon291 on 11/2/23, 2:54 PM

  While I could care less about Meta and Alphabet, I find it difficult not to basically see this as a form of economic warfare between the United States and the EU. The latter simply being jealous of the former's technological superiority, both economically and technically.