When the business model is the privacy violation(freedom-to-tinker.com)
freedom-to-tinker.com
When the business model is the privacy violation
https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2018/04/12/when-the-business-model-is-the-privacy-violation/
95 comments
I have been thinking about what would happen if all browsers had perfect ad blockers enabled by default, starting tomorrow. I think years later we would look back and decide that it was the right thing to do, despite the immediate short-term economic damage.
I like pretty much everyone else dislikes advertising, but it is a genuine source for a company to generate revenue.
I really don't know any other real alternatives other than making the user pay, which would in turn make the internet just basically one big subscription model. The majority of the "free" services which many people enjoy now, like YouTube, Facebook, etc probably could not exist as they do.
What is needed is some clear boundaries (legislation), and education. I believe without advertising that the internet would not have been what it is today, and I don't think it would have exponentially better.
I really don't know any other real alternatives other than making the user pay, which would in turn make the internet just basically one big subscription model. The majority of the "free" services which many people enjoy now, like YouTube, Facebook, etc probably could not exist as they do.
What is needed is some clear boundaries (legislation), and education. I believe without advertising that the internet would not have been what it is today, and I don't think it would have exponentially better.
Do we know how much Youtube, Facebook, etc. make in ad revenue per user? It can't be much. If micro-payments are an option, the ability to pay $0.75 a month for an ad-free social network would be fantastic.
I think the problem behind this is that ad revenue is not the same as a subscription revenue. You cannot assume that if a user was worth $3 a month in ad revenue that that would translate to a $3 a month subscription.
For example, I would have no doubt the the customer acquisition cost for an "free" application with advertising is a lot lower than trying to sell that same user a membership.
When it comes to social networks I would suggest that the stickiness is because your friends/family etc are on the same network. It's not if you are willing to pay, it is only really worth it, if your friends are willing to pay.
If you are talking more about a paid and free version, then there are already services out there like YouTube Red (available in some areas for $9.99+ USD). There are always options out there.
For example, I would have no doubt the the customer acquisition cost for an "free" application with advertising is a lot lower than trying to sell that same user a membership.
When it comes to social networks I would suggest that the stickiness is because your friends/family etc are on the same network. It's not if you are willing to pay, it is only really worth it, if your friends are willing to pay.
If you are talking more about a paid and free version, then there are already services out there like YouTube Red (available in some areas for $9.99+ USD). There are always options out there.
What about all the work that goes into maintaining the ad network and distribution, advertiser acquisition etc? That isn't free either.
In the US, Facebook makes $27/user/year. Worldwide it's $6
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/31/facebook-earnings-q4-2017-ar...
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/31/facebook-earnings-q4-2017-ar...
So $3 a month to turn off ads would be a pretty good deal for them.
For the US, the entire digital ad market is $83B/yr, which works out to $257 per person per year, or $717 per household. Keep in mind that about half of the country's population is "frequent internet users", so that number is almost certainly an underestimate for anyone who browses HN.
For comparison, this number just recently passed TV advertising, which is about $70B/yr ($217/person, $605/household).
For comparison, this number just recently passed TV advertising, which is about $70B/yr ($217/person, $605/household).
Yeah, also let’s not forget that the whole idea of ads is to sell people crap they don’t need. Industries are built to turn the environment into disposable products that people would not miss at all if they wouldn’t know about them. There’s obviously the question what would people do if they would not work for companies that produce waste and their actual needs have been met but I don’t think the current way is the correct answer, and there’s a huge part of the world who’s needs (food, shelter, clothing, self-actualization) are not being met.
You were probably downvoted for taking the position that you are the judge of what other people need, but besides that error, I think you bring up an interesting point.
It is an uncomfortable truth that we have yet to really contemplate as a society.
Consumerism ISN'T sustainable, and society will grow to a point where we are going to see seemingly fundamental systems start to crumble beneath the sheer weight of consumption.
We have to be willing to ask "should we?" in addition to "can we?"
It is an uncomfortable truth that we have yet to really contemplate as a society.
Consumerism ISN'T sustainable, and society will grow to a point where we are going to see seemingly fundamental systems start to crumble beneath the sheer weight of consumption.
We have to be willing to ask "should we?" in addition to "can we?"
> Yeah, also let’s not forget that the whole idea of ads is to sell people crap they don’t need.
That doesn't have to be true. Done right, ads can be about making more people aware of a product, to reach people who genuinely benefit from it but would not otherwise have heard about it. That's the advertising future I'd like to see, even if it's not how things are right now.
That doesn't have to be true. Done right, ads can be about making more people aware of a product, to reach people who genuinely benefit from it but would not otherwise have heard about it. That's the advertising future I'd like to see, even if it's not how things are right now.
If that were true all ads would simply be a bullet point list of features - branding would not exist, there would be no pretty models in the ad, etc etc etc
The argument that ads are about informing consumer just doesn’t stand up to reality. The whole concept is flawed.
The argument that ads are about informing consumer just doesn’t stand up to reality. The whole concept is flawed.
> but it is a genuine source for a company to generate revenue.
That's a common cultural belief that I do not subscribe to, seems to come with our currently trendy variants of capitalism/liberalism. I personally belief it is more akin to a crime that is currently not punished.
> probably could not exist as they do.
More industries have been outlawed in history.
> I believe without advertising that the internet would not have been what it is today,
I can take that as fact. But I do not think that "without ads" (on the internet or not) is "economically worse". I think without ads we would produce better quality; it's complete guessing, but that's just my expectation.
That's a common cultural belief that I do not subscribe to, seems to come with our currently trendy variants of capitalism/liberalism. I personally belief it is more akin to a crime that is currently not punished.
> probably could not exist as they do.
More industries have been outlawed in history.
> I believe without advertising that the internet would not have been what it is today,
I can take that as fact. But I do not think that "without ads" (on the internet or not) is "economically worse". I think without ads we would produce better quality; it's complete guessing, but that's just my expectation.
Amazon's model wins (this customer). Prime is something that I'm 100% willing to pay for (between shipping, music, video -- again, for this customer). That it comes with WP digital access is a nice add-on. If there were a $10/mo hike in price for lots of other digital access products, I would go without. If the price hike were mandatory to keep prime, I'd keep prime.
Again, for this customer...
I'm moving soon and seriously considering not signing up for internet at my new address (new job, I'll be at work a ton, and the common area has free wifi I could use for the occasional email or weekend netflix download). But I won't cancel my prime subscription. That's what made me realize how sticky amazon is: I will pay 3 figures for access, even without instant access to the network that lets me get to them!
Again, for this customer...
I'm moving soon and seriously considering not signing up for internet at my new address (new job, I'll be at work a ton, and the common area has free wifi I could use for the occasional email or weekend netflix download). But I won't cancel my prime subscription. That's what made me realize how sticky amazon is: I will pay 3 figures for access, even without instant access to the network that lets me get to them!
[deleted]
I think there are some services which people will pay for. People have been paying to be entertained for decades with pay TV models.
Do you think the users are not already paying for it? If you click on an ad and buy the product, you’re paying for that impression as well as 100s of others that resulted in a small annoyance instead of a conversion.
> If you click on an ad and buy the product, you’re paying for that impression as well as 100s of others that resulted in a small annoyance instead of a conversion.
Free shipping isn't really free, the cost of a product can include multiple different factors.
As far as the annoyance point, I guess that is somewhat balanced out by the importance of the site.
But that isn't the point I was making, the point I am making is that advertising is genuine way for companies to make money from offering services. There isn't really any other valid alternatives to this over than user pays or giving it away.
Free shipping isn't really free, the cost of a product can include multiple different factors.
As far as the annoyance point, I guess that is somewhat balanced out by the importance of the site.
But that isn't the point I was making, the point I am making is that advertising is genuine way for companies to make money from offering services. There isn't really any other valid alternatives to this over than user pays or giving it away.
Advertising isn't that profitable per-user basis anyway, you need a huge amount to break-even. I doubt the average user generates more than a few euros worth of advertising per month. Not to mention the indirect cost of advertising paid by the consumer as well.
I doubt the average user generates more than a few euros worth of advertising per month
We know exactly what the number is. Take Facebook’s revenue and divide it by their number of users.
We know exactly what the number is. Take Facebook’s revenue and divide it by their number of users.
Of course the average is as nonsensical as saying the average American has 2.5 kids.
Most users probably make facebook almost nothing, and then a smaller portion make them far more.
Most users probably make facebook almost nothing, and then a smaller portion make them far more.
A subscription model at a few Euros a month might attract only those users with high spending power, and whose ads (presumably) generate much more than a few Euros a month.
Browser-based ad blocking is pretty easy to bypass for companies like Facebook if they really want to. They already have their own ad network, so they will start serving all content (messages, ads, videos) from the same server with no way to distinguish between them programmatically.
At least, peformance-wise, that would be nice.
In Germany ads must be distinguishable from other content. If a human
can spot the difference it shouldn’t be too hard to automate that process.
Well Google certainly would not do that with Chrome. Firefox, Safari and Edge however could explore such ideas putting pressure on Google. It could be an option during setup, like disable tracking and known advertisers. That certainly would make a difference, bunch of things would break but alternatives would pop up quickly I'd assume
advertising would just shift to product placement in the news you get and affiliate links everywhere. not better. people tend to forget that advertising covers a real need.
I'll take the other side of that argument. Search engines should put the most relevant products at the top of the page because they are the best fit, not because someone paid for them to be there.
If all advertising disappeared tomorrow, the world would function better. Consumers would not have advertisers trying to manipulate them, and they would more rationally allocate their resources.
Advertising is a tax placed on people who have already bought a product, which made it more expensive, to manipulate other people into also buying that same product.
Without it, good products would succeed on merit / independent reviews / word of mouth.
* The one exception I can think of is possibly during the scale period of startups, helping them scale faster (artificially) than if they just followed the "be the best and it will catch on" approach.
If all advertising disappeared tomorrow, the world would function better. Consumers would not have advertisers trying to manipulate them, and they would more rationally allocate their resources.
Advertising is a tax placed on people who have already bought a product, which made it more expensive, to manipulate other people into also buying that same product.
Without it, good products would succeed on merit / independent reviews / word of mouth.
* The one exception I can think of is possibly during the scale period of startups, helping them scale faster (artificially) than if they just followed the "be the best and it will catch on" approach.
Companies are already starting to game "independent reviews" through incentivized reviews or downright fake reviews, and word of mouth has been gamed with referral programs. Fact is, when there's money on the line, it's gonna get dirty, PPC and banner ads just happen to be the cheapest option.
I'd love to not play the advertising game, but marketing seems to be one of the most important parts of running a business, if not the most important part, and it'll get its grimy hands on anything to acquire users. I'd prefer to avoid the world where they pay people to post rave reviews in HN comments to hype products.
I'd love to not play the advertising game, but marketing seems to be one of the most important parts of running a business, if not the most important part, and it'll get its grimy hands on anything to acquire users. I'd prefer to avoid the world where they pay people to post rave reviews in HN comments to hype products.
Advertising doesn't necessarily make a product more expensive except where something like cost plus pricing is used.
> people tend to forget that advertising covers a real need
I don't buy it. Advertising is not going to provide me with the service that is the most suited to my need, or with the best value. In fact, quite the opposite: the advertisement that's the most likely to reach me comes from the company with the largest budget for advertisement. That budget eats into either the profit of the company or into the quality of service delivered.
I don't buy it. Advertising is not going to provide me with the service that is the most suited to my need, or with the best value. In fact, quite the opposite: the advertisement that's the most likely to reach me comes from the company with the largest budget for advertisement. That budget eats into either the profit of the company or into the quality of service delivered.
It is short-sited to say advertising eats into the profit of the company. When done successfully, it allows for more goods to be sold which increases profits and in turn allows for more research and development and thus better products.
Advertising covers a real need for businesses, (you and I aren't the customer, we are the product). The math works out pretty simply: what is the total profit with 0 advertising vs the total profit with advertising? If you had a magical machine where you could insert a dollar and get $1.05 out, you should be putting your money in there as fast as possible.
[deleted]
People have shown an impressive ability to figure that kind of advertising out. A lot of native advertising on sites like Reddit is outed almost immediately, and then the discussion turns on the advertiser. We could also add protections as they are in the UK requiring “sponsored content” to display clearly that it’s an advertisement.
In short, there’s nothing inevitable about advertising models as they exist today, and people who try to convince of you that they are inevitable are peobsbly trying to sow apathy.
In short, there’s nothing inevitable about advertising models as they exist today, and people who try to convince of you that they are inevitable are peobsbly trying to sow apathy.
>People have shown an impressive ability to figure that kind of advertising out
This is of course selection buas.
This is of course selection buas.
I really don't have any objection to affiliate links. If you're talking about something and link to it on Amazon with your affiliate link, rather than a bare link, what difference does that make to me, as the user? You get paid a smidgeon, on something that I would have either bought or not bought anyway, for the same price to me either way.
I think general affiliate links are pretty safe, maybe they might incentivize content creators to hype up products that are more expensive (so they get a bigger cut) though.
Unless handled very carefully, using affiliate links damages my perception of the writer's integrity. When money's on the line, maybe their motivation for writing wasn't to share their experience of finding the best product for the lowest price.
In rare cases, like the AppliedScience youtube channel, the quality of content is so high that the affiliate links in descriptions don't tarnish my esteem for the guy.
On the bright side, I think product placement manipulates people in less problematic ways than companies like Cambridge Analytica have been able to do with precision-targeted advertisements. At least product placement needs to involve actual products, and if you try to go beyond that it'll be pretty obvious. Although I guess there's a cross-section here: one of the really sinister details of Facebook's advertising is it gets presented in the same context as pictures of your friend's puppy, so our filters don't engage like they would looking at something that resembles an ad container.
I strongly disagree that Cambridge Analytica has done more damage than advertising. The leading causes of death in the US are preventable. Companies are pumping out disinformation to get people to consume things that are killing them, as well, to spend money on non essential items they can't afford.
Who is “we”? You and I might decide it was the right thing to do but you and I are probably also in the top X% of the world in terms of wage.
Here’s my hunch on what would happen: we would realize that it’s really messed up that the only options for people to get basic services we once took for granted is to pay for it; and those that can’t afford it must give up their privacy or start rationing a budget to access news, email etc. for a fee.
On Maslows hierarchy, privacy in the sense of ad targeting is a pretty privileged need. The business model works for the overwhelming majority of the world; it’s only broken for people who think it’s no big deal to have to shell a few bucks extra a month for either more privacy or access to services (that would no longer exist for free to the extent they do today.)
Here’s my hunch on what would happen: we would realize that it’s really messed up that the only options for people to get basic services we once took for granted is to pay for it; and those that can’t afford it must give up their privacy or start rationing a budget to access news, email etc. for a fee.
On Maslows hierarchy, privacy in the sense of ad targeting is a pretty privileged need. The business model works for the overwhelming majority of the world; it’s only broken for people who think it’s no big deal to have to shell a few bucks extra a month for either more privacy or access to services (that would no longer exist for free to the extent they do today.)
My expectation would be, even if you paid for an ad-free Facebook, that they’d still collect and monetize your data.
Yep, there seems to be a great deal of magical thinking revolving around the idea of if you pay companies they wont keep on exploiting your data.
You still get ads on very expensive cable TV packages.
Your bank still data mines and sells off your purchase history, dispite a large monthly fee.
You still get ads on very expensive cable TV packages.
Your bank still data mines and sells off your purchase history, dispite a large monthly fee.
[deleted]
Do the user agreements in the two examples cited have any provisions that prohibit collecting data that will be exploited for advertising or marketing purposes?
What if the social network user agreement contained "privacy" provisions prohibiting collecting data if the user pays a fee but no such "privacy" provisions if the user pays nothing.
What if the social network user agreement contained "privacy" provisions prohibiting collecting data if the user pays a fee but no such "privacy" provisions if the user pays nothing.
To do what? Facebook uses user data to, run Facebook, do research (train machine learning which uses de personalized data), and show ads. If they aren’t showing ads what other things are you expecting them to do that you find problematic.
> currently Facebook offers no option for users to pay not to receive any ads at all. The still unasked question is, "Why not?"
Because it's not the showing of ads that's the real problem, it's the harvesting of demographic/interest/PII from the graph that's the problem. So they "can't" offer a way to opt out of that because for the part of your network that doesn't opt out, advertisers would have much less good data (ergo FB's value prop to advertisers is much less good) since it wouldn't have the data from the graph to augment the user's own data.
Because it's not the showing of ads that's the real problem, it's the harvesting of demographic/interest/PII from the graph that's the problem. So they "can't" offer a way to opt out of that because for the part of your network that doesn't opt out, advertisers would have much less good data (ergo FB's value prop to advertisers is much less good) since it wouldn't have the data from the graph to augment the user's own data.
I think the argument is that more affluent users would be more likely to opt-out, leaving behind less affluent, and therefore less-valuable users, making advertisers desire less and less to advertise at all.
Facebook would be faced with trying to get as much revenue out of the 5% of their users who pay as out of the currently-100% of users who don't, and that would be a very hard thing to do.
Facebook would be faced with trying to get as much revenue out of the 5% of their users who pay as out of the currently-100% of users who don't, and that would be a very hard thing to do.
i m kind of surprised that they have not asked these questions to google. Also:
- Making ads relevant means less ads overall for the user
- It would cost $20 / year and no studies show that users would pay anywhere near that. It reasonable to assume its impractical
- Subscription-premium services rely on a small number of fans to pony up (usually significantly) for the rest of users. afaik facebook does not have such a mass of hardcore, passionate fans.
- More generally there is no evidence that subscription users are happier.
- Making ads relevant means less ads overall for the user
- It would cost $20 / year and no studies show that users would pay anywhere near that. It reasonable to assume its impractical
- Subscription-premium services rely on a small number of fans to pony up (usually significantly) for the rest of users. afaik facebook does not have such a mass of hardcore, passionate fans.
- More generally there is no evidence that subscription users are happier.
But even with the current less targeted option Facebook offers, or say your option of paying:
Would other Facebook apps still have as wide an array of data on users that we've seen? And if apps can see it then Facebook itself is still gathering it... even if ads aren't targeted.
Would other Facebook apps still have as wide an array of data on users that we've seen? And if apps can see it then Facebook itself is still gathering it... even if ads aren't targeted.
I had a sudden moment of clarity:
What's the point of advertising to people who can't afford to pay a few bucks for a social networking site? If they're broke they aren't going to buy anything anyway.
I think this whole train of thought is a logical fallacy. You need people who have more money than sense to believe that not paying is a better option than paying. It's a con.
What's the point of advertising to people who can't afford to pay a few bucks for a social networking site? If they're broke they aren't going to buy anything anyway.
I think this whole train of thought is a logical fallacy. You need people who have more money than sense to believe that not paying is a better option than paying. It's a con.
"What's the point of advertising to people who can't afford to pay a few bucks for a social networking site?"
It depends on what is being "advertised". To give one example, it might be an "issue ad", not for a commercial product/service. The "ad" can be thought of as a general form of persuasion to adopt some mode of thinking and consequently some specific action or inaction.
According to the whistleblower testimony, these were the type of ads being shown in certain third world countries by the companies who utilised the Facebook user data.
It depends on what is being "advertised". To give one example, it might be an "issue ad", not for a commercial product/service. The "ad" can be thought of as a general form of persuasion to adopt some mode of thinking and consequently some specific action or inaction.
According to the whistleblower testimony, these were the type of ads being shown in certain third world countries by the companies who utilised the Facebook user data.
aka "Buying a presidency"...
You distribute the advertising cost & display across a very large number of users (varying on if we're talking about CPM or CPC), some of which can afford to buy things. Some users can afford to buy things at one point in time but not another, or vice versa. The users that do click and buy, subsidize the 3/4 of users that either could never afford to pay $5 or $10 per month for Facebook (a billion people or more), or would never want to (ie are perfectly fine with advertising). You advertise to a larger group than perfectly ideal (including guaranteed non-buyers) precisely because you don't know every person's exact financial condition and never will.
The minority of people on Facebook that click on ads and buy things, are making it possible for the other 2 billion people to use the service without paying a monthly fee.
This distribution is identical to advertising pretty much everywhere else throughout history.
Everyone that drives by a billboard can't afford to buy what the billboard is selling. That doesn't make it a con. The buyers you do derive, out of the very large number of people that have no interest or can't afford what you're selling, pay for your billboard (hopefully).
Everyone that watches an ad on TV - the past half century - can't afford to buy the thing being sold (a $1,000 workout machine), that doesn't mean the advertising is a con.
The sole difference is the heightened targeting based on information that Facebook or Google know about your habits or interests. In the past, it was far more difficult. A TV advertiser for example, might discover through research and trial & error that TV watchers are more likely to buy that $1,000 workout machine at 1am via an hour long infomercial. The experimentation loop was dramatically slower.
The minority of people on Facebook that click on ads and buy things, are making it possible for the other 2 billion people to use the service without paying a monthly fee.
This distribution is identical to advertising pretty much everywhere else throughout history.
Everyone that drives by a billboard can't afford to buy what the billboard is selling. That doesn't make it a con. The buyers you do derive, out of the very large number of people that have no interest or can't afford what you're selling, pay for your billboard (hopefully).
Everyone that watches an ad on TV - the past half century - can't afford to buy the thing being sold (a $1,000 workout machine), that doesn't mean the advertising is a con.
The sole difference is the heightened targeting based on information that Facebook or Google know about your habits or interests. In the past, it was far more difficult. A TV advertiser for example, might discover through research and trial & error that TV watchers are more likely to buy that $1,000 workout machine at 1am via an hour long infomercial. The experimentation loop was dramatically slower.
Right.
There's also a very very "fat head" in front of the long tail of what customers pay FB et al for their ads.
https://www.wordstream.com/articles/most-expensive-keywords
Suggests the 10 most expensive categories to advertise in are dominated by insurance, financial, and legal services.
I suspect when that curve is overlaid with the similar long tail curve of the disposable income of FB's 2 billion users - I suspect it'd be obvious that the vast majority of FBs income comes from super expensive PPC ads shown to people with a (globally) super high disposable income.
If you let the bay area tech crowd who're struggling to find a place to rent on their own because they're "only" making $160k all opt out of getting profiles and shown advertising for $25 or $50 per month, you'd probably make a existential dent in FB's profitability - much more so than if they just turned advertising off altogether for the lowest earning billion and a half people on their platform.
There's also a very very "fat head" in front of the long tail of what customers pay FB et al for their ads.
https://www.wordstream.com/articles/most-expensive-keywords
Suggests the 10 most expensive categories to advertise in are dominated by insurance, financial, and legal services.
I suspect when that curve is overlaid with the similar long tail curve of the disposable income of FB's 2 billion users - I suspect it'd be obvious that the vast majority of FBs income comes from super expensive PPC ads shown to people with a (globally) super high disposable income.
If you let the bay area tech crowd who're struggling to find a place to rent on their own because they're "only" making $160k all opt out of getting profiles and shown advertising for $25 or $50 per month, you'd probably make a existential dent in FB's profitability - much more so than if they just turned advertising off altogether for the lowest earning billion and a half people on their platform.
The first part of your point makes sense, the second less so. If you have a pay for no ads model, you would get wealthy users willing to pay for it, and poor users unwilling. Meaning you could ONLY advertise to people without money to buy your products. This is a less than ideal scenario for an advertiser.
Payday lenders, cash for gold, rent to own and many, many other businesses would disagree. Poverty is quite profitable to exploit because your customers often have no choice.
"can't afford" is not equivilent to "won't pay"
"can't afford" is equivalent to "won't pay".
this totally nullifies the purpose of a advertising based business model.
TV channels i pay for them and still they show advertisement.
i can afford and i pay for them and am ok with negligible nonsense here and there, and am only going to switch to other channels when an advertisement seems to begin.
i am sure 70% ppl are capable of going and finding wat they want. and the rest of them wont buy stuff any ways just because they saw an ad.
May b this whole advertisement caters to those 2 or 3 percent of entire population who are cat on the wall.
this totally nullifies the purpose of a advertising based business model.
TV channels i pay for them and still they show advertisement.
i can afford and i pay for them and am ok with negligible nonsense here and there, and am only going to switch to other channels when an advertisement seems to begin.
i am sure 70% ppl are capable of going and finding wat they want. and the rest of them wont buy stuff any ways just because they saw an ad.
May b this whole advertisement caters to those 2 or 3 percent of entire population who are cat on the wall.
If a significant portion of the FB userbase opt-in to not get any ads, then that makes the number of persons that an ad can target smaller, meaning ads would have less ROI for advertizers, driving the ads price down. So, in fact, the more users opt-in to not get any ads, the more the subscription would have to cost.
I suspect the incentives are all wrong for that to work.
The people most able and likely to pay for Facebook are _exactly_ the people Facebooks advertising customers want most access to.
The people most able and likely to pay for Facebook are _exactly_ the people Facebooks advertising customers want most access to.
I just wanna say one thing about this, when I found out that FB was looking to find healthcare data from hospitals and other providers to like to peoples profile it sent the chills up my spine. that is seriously creepy. if something like is available then probability of it being abused is almost 1. right now my facebook usage is fairly low but I'll delete my account for sure if there is any truth to that.
That sounds like an explicit HIPA violation and is very much against the law for both the hospital to share the data and Facebook to do that linking. It sounds tin foil hat conspiracy to me.
its most definitely not a tin foil hat conspiracy, refer [1]. a quick google will yield many more.
regarding the HIPAA violations it is true that hospitals cant share the data, that may be the only saving grace for now but are you certain there is no loophole that can be exploited? or may be introduced in next budget? Also its definitely not illegal for FB to do the linking should they come across such data. I'd accuse you of naivety if you assume that not the direction they want to head into.
there are many scenarios I can think of that make the problems exponentially worse especially for people in countries without a well functioning justice system. IMHO the best course of action is to starve the beast.
1. https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/5/17203262/facebook-medical-...
regarding the HIPAA violations it is true that hospitals cant share the data, that may be the only saving grace for now but are you certain there is no loophole that can be exploited? or may be introduced in next budget? Also its definitely not illegal for FB to do the linking should they come across such data. I'd accuse you of naivety if you assume that not the direction they want to head into.
there are many scenarios I can think of that make the problems exponentially worse especially for people in countries without a well functioning justice system. IMHO the best course of action is to starve the beast.
1. https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/5/17203262/facebook-medical-...
There is no evidence that any hospitals agreed, but it is no fantasy or conspiracy that Facebook tried.
https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/5/17203262/facebook-medical-...
https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/5/17203262/facebook-medical-...
Facebook isn't a healthcare provider, so they're not bound by HIPAA.
I think this op-ed is very relevant to this [1]. There's no doubt the internet companies will aggressively oppose any attempt to pass privacy legislation in the US, but there's no reason why that needs to be all tech companies. Apple, Microsoft, IBM, etc could play a major role in balancing their influence.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/11/opinion/silicon-valley-lo...
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/11/opinion/silicon-valley-lo...
A more accurate title would be: the government revenue model is the privacy violation.
Governments cannot be genuine allies of the people against corporate surveillance, and for example, encourage privacy technology like public key cryptography, and client-side encryption, when their primary sources of revenue: the income and sales tax, depend on rampant and overt criminalization of privacy (KYC laws, income disclosure laws, record keeping mandates on the private activity of private citizens, etc).
Governments cannot be genuine allies of the people against corporate surveillance, and for example, encourage privacy technology like public key cryptography, and client-side encryption, when their primary sources of revenue: the income and sales tax, depend on rampant and overt criminalization of privacy (KYC laws, income disclosure laws, record keeping mandates on the private activity of private citizens, etc).
Spyware and adware 10 years ago were considered extremely shady and unacceptable and certainly not in the mainstream like now with Google and Facebook.
Who would have thought then it would take these shady practices a mere 5 years to transition into the mainstream.
Advertising via textual context and immediate location is ok. Everything else is a dark pattern and incentivizes uncontrolled surveillance, profiling and data hoarding and should automatically be disallowed in a civilized society.
Who would have thought then it would take these shady practices a mere 5 years to transition into the mainstream.
Advertising via textual context and immediate location is ok. Everything else is a dark pattern and incentivizes uncontrolled surveillance, profiling and data hoarding and should automatically be disallowed in a civilized society.
Is it fair to say that privacy violation as the business model is generally more profitable than privacy as the business model?
If information is power, then that is like asking if having more power is more profitable than having less power.
Funny story, i have never seen any ad anywhere in the internet or never clicked on any one for sure. i wonder why product makers pay so much for advertisement to google n fb.
i have seen advertisement in tv when i used to watch tv a lot and am sure i have never bought those stuff jus because they advertised them, most of time we will just swap channels for few mins and advertisement wud b gone away.
And in internet it is very effortless to jus scroll past stuff that we are not paying attention to, i guess i most of the time ended up scrolling thru ads, thats y i dont remember buying anything because i saw some ad.
i have seen advertisement in tv when i used to watch tv a lot and am sure i have never bought those stuff jus because they advertised them, most of time we will just swap channels for few mins and advertisement wud b gone away.
And in internet it is very effortless to jus scroll past stuff that we are not paying attention to, i guess i most of the time ended up scrolling thru ads, thats y i dont remember buying anything because i saw some ad.
> Thus, hashing completely fails to address the underlying privacy concerns
I don't understand their argument against pseudonomous identifiers (well, part of the problem is they present it without a lot of argument). Are they arguing that companies will reverse the hash, or that they will de-anonymise it using additional data? Otherwise it seems harmful to me to tell people that using a different identifier per web site is useless (a bit like telling everybody that locking your car is useless because a determined thief would break in anyway...)
I don't understand their argument against pseudonomous identifiers (well, part of the problem is they present it without a lot of argument). Are they arguing that companies will reverse the hash, or that they will de-anonymise it using additional data? Otherwise it seems harmful to me to tell people that using a different identifier per web site is useless (a bit like telling everybody that locking your car is useless because a determined thief would break in anyway...)
My Google DoubleClick Mozilla essay talks about this exact topic:
http://yuhongbao.blogspot.ca/2018/04/google-doubleclick-mozi...
An interesting if rather long read. However I’m not sure if your solutions of voluntary donations and cryptocurincies have viability. Voluntary donations have high friction to get a user to start donating (You don’t want to donate to a site you only visit twice and who knows if you will visit the site in the future). Cryptocurincies are unproven at this point.
You also don’t mention how targeted advertising is critical to many small business. If you have niche or specalized product it can be very difficult to find people that want to buy it, you are limited to only places where those people are in high concentrations, it is quite reasonable to expect that the elimination of targeted advertising would quietly erase these business as they are no longer able to find their consumers. Diffrent payment models don’t address this.
You also don’t mention how targeted advertising is critical to many small business. If you have niche or specalized product it can be very difficult to find people that want to buy it, you are limited to only places where those people are in high concentrations, it is quite reasonable to expect that the elimination of targeted advertising would quietly erase these business as they are no longer able to find their consumers. Diffrent payment models don’t address this.
It is unfortunate that it is not more famous. I did mention that there are sites that depends on targeted advertising that would be affected in the final version of the essay, though there is not much detail about it. Feel free to come up with other solutions BTW. I have a Google Group you can join: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/google-mozilla-probl...
I think every website should comply with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payment_Card_Industry_Data_Sec...
With new regulations like GDPR coming online FB's business model is basically kaput. They're going to need to rethink their whole stance if the world follows EU's lead. Given that Zuckerberg was called to testify in front of congress, I think we're probably going to see much more action.
On the contrary, the GDPR helps Facebook. As background, I am a product manager dealing with GDPR issues right now. The requirements are quite onerous, but they are not intractable. I am sure that Facebook, with their army of engineers and lawyers will be able to find a way.
Facebook already has traction, and if push comes to shove can anonymize their data so it is at least still somewhat valuable.
However, the window is closing for any new social networks to get started, because the startup costs are simply too high and you can't growth hack like you used to.
What I am saying is that it is quite reasonable to assume that Facebook will be the last social network out there, that they will survive and no new competitors can emerge. If any hope of competition gets removed, then that benefits FB.
Facebook already has traction, and if push comes to shove can anonymize their data so it is at least still somewhat valuable.
However, the window is closing for any new social networks to get started, because the startup costs are simply too high and you can't growth hack like you used to.
What I am saying is that it is quite reasonable to assume that Facebook will be the last social network out there, that they will survive and no new competitors can emerge. If any hope of competition gets removed, then that benefits FB.
100% to this. I’m an enginer also working on GDPR and you sound exactly like my product manager. GDPR is likelly to result in the number of advertising technology companies going from thousands to dozens. One of the requirements is that you inform users who you are sharing the data with. If you have a list of ~10 companies is allowed under GDPR, but a constantly change it list of 500 companies is not. The result massive consolidation.
This is very ironic because one the the complaints of the EU against companies like Facebook or Google is that they are monopolies in the advertising space, and then they passed a law that will have the effect of force it their competion out of the market place.
It’s a real shame that no one is really covering this aspect of GDPR.
This is very ironic because one the the complaints of the EU against companies like Facebook or Google is that they are monopolies in the advertising space, and then they passed a law that will have the effect of force it their competion out of the market place.
It’s a real shame that no one is really covering this aspect of GDPR.
> One of the requirements is that you inform users who you are sharing the data with. If you have a list of ~10 companies is allowed under GDPR, but a constantly change it list of 500 companies is not. The result massive consolidation.
Are you saying that GDPR puts a limit of between 10 and 500 on the number of companies you share data with, or are you saying that it's impractical to share a constantly changing list of 500 companies with the user?
The latter seems easy to do: Just create a webpage and keep adding the names of new companies. Email a link or the list to the user as needed. Do I misunderstand?
Are you saying that GDPR puts a limit of between 10 and 500 on the number of companies you share data with, or are you saying that it's impractical to share a constantly changing list of 500 companies with the user?
The latter seems easy to do: Just create a webpage and keep adding the names of new companies. Email a link or the list to the user as needed. Do I misunderstand?
As the adtech data sharing usually doesn't fall under any other legal reasons that would allow you to use that data, you need to get consent for the new companies. If the user ignores your email and takes no action (doesn't opt in), you don't have their consent, and can't share their data with the new companies.
But IMHO that's the whole point, the legislation is a response to users saying that they don't really want such companies to exist - the business practice of taking my private data and sharing it to the world 500 companies will now require my explicit opt-in freely given consent (i.e no "we'll refuse service if you don't consent"). The expectation and intent of this law is that I and pretty much every one else will simply not provide that consent, and that business practice will become impractical and die out, as it should.
But IMHO that's the whole point, the legislation is a response to users saying that they don't really want such companies to exist - the business practice of taking my private data and sharing it to the world 500 companies will now require my explicit opt-in freely given consent (i.e no "we'll refuse service if you don't consent"). The expectation and intent of this law is that I and pretty much every one else will simply not provide that consent, and that business practice will become impractical and die out, as it should.
I wish you were right, however, just because a Congress called a hearing doesn't mean a sea-change in laws and practices. Congress looked into personal information collected by the NSA (post Snowden) and consumer credit reporting agencies (after numerous hacks and leaks). Did their business models go kaput? Did anything change in a big way?
AFAICT, there's nothing in the GDPR that technically prevents Facebook from existing. At worst I'd imagine that the GDPR will just kill the Facebook developer platform (or more likely, neuter it beyond usability). All the GDPR does is prevent companies from being fast and loose with user personal information without their awareness - they are still free to monetize it, and I bet the vast majority of the world will still be happy to use Facebook despite what warnings the EU gets to put on FB.
I'd imagine most new social networks (if any, the last large social network I can think of Snapchat is 6 years old), will simply try and prove out their network in US first, then hire regulators to figure out GDPR, if the US pass their own GDPR.
Honestly, despite the good intentions of these laws, which I think are good, I think they will just further cement the Google/FB digital advertising duopoly. If you are starting a new social network today, I'd imagine your business model is "capture $demographic that fb poorly serves and get acquired into fb before you become viral in the EU"
I'd imagine most new social networks (if any, the last large social network I can think of Snapchat is 6 years old), will simply try and prove out their network in US first, then hire regulators to figure out GDPR, if the US pass their own GDPR.
Honestly, despite the good intentions of these laws, which I think are good, I think they will just further cement the Google/FB digital advertising duopoly. If you are starting a new social network today, I'd imagine your business model is "capture $demographic that fb poorly serves and get acquired into fb before you become viral in the EU"
People are bound to be disappointed by the effects of GDPR. FB can reasonably claim that its tracking is necessary for its function , because it is. The stuff they ll have to get rid of is marginally profitable anyway. GDPR is not hurting facebook, instead it's legitimizing its model in the eyes of the consumer by giving it the "stamp of EU approval".
I agree with your assertion that if GDPR expectations are high, they will be disappointed, however the "legitimate interest" claim doesn't trump the data subject's right to privacy in GDPR. As I understand it, you can only really claim legitimate interest if you're not doing any kind of direct marketing and are able to show that there is not undue impact on the data subject. There's a lot of conflicting information about this on the web but the actual language of the directive is pretty straightforward.
“The legitimate interests of a controller, including those of a controller to which the personal data may be disclosed, or of a third party, may provide a legal basis for processing, provided that the interests or the fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject are not overriding, taking into consideration the reasonable expectations of data subjects based on their relationship with the controller. Such legitimate interest could exist for example where there is a relevant and appropriate relationship between the data subject and the controller in situations such as where the data subject is a client or in the service of the controller."
If you don't have a facebook account for example, you don't have a relationship with them and therefore have a reasonable expectation that they would not be tracking you.
Edit: Granted, the language is somewhat ambiguous and we won't really know how this shakes out until there is established case law later in the year.
“The legitimate interests of a controller, including those of a controller to which the personal data may be disclosed, or of a third party, may provide a legal basis for processing, provided that the interests or the fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject are not overriding, taking into consideration the reasonable expectations of data subjects based on their relationship with the controller. Such legitimate interest could exist for example where there is a relevant and appropriate relationship between the data subject and the controller in situations such as where the data subject is a client or in the service of the controller."
If you don't have a facebook account for example, you don't have a relationship with them and therefore have a reasonable expectation that they would not be tracking you.
Edit: Granted, the language is somewhat ambiguous and we won't really know how this shakes out until there is established case law later in the year.
Congress essentially spent two days begging Zuck to do their jobs for them, asking the fox to design the henhouse.
His testimony is not required for passing privacy legislation.
His testimony is not required for passing privacy legislation.
Several of them also were asking what chickens where and why one would desire to own chickens in the first place. The whole thing is very sad the point of this is for each congress person to get to feel special by getting to look down and act tough against Zuckerberg. They didn’t even spend the effort to do basic research so they didn’t waste time answering questions that could be answered by using facebook.
However, that is an argument favoring the customer, i.e., the advertiser, not the product, i.e., the user.
During the Senate hearing, he was asked about Ms. Sandberg's comment that if there were no ads then users would have to pay. Mr. Zuckerberg pointed out that users can opt-out of ad targeting/data collection,[1] making the ads they receive more generic and less "relevant", but currently Facebook offers no option for users to pay not to receive any ads at all.
The still unasked question is, "Why not?"
If some users could not afford to pay, as Mr. Zuckerberg suggested in both hearings, then they could opt-in to advertising. How would this affect the business model?
Further, if those users were disappointed at how the ads they were being shown were not "relevant", then they could opt-in to ad targeting/data collection.
1. The default setting is opt-in. As we know, most users do not change default settings.