This response to my tweet is a common objection to targeted advertising.

@KevinCoates correct me if I'm wrong, but basic point seems to be that banning targeted ads will lower platform profits, but will mostly be beneficial for consumers.

Some counterpoints 👇

1) This assumes that consumers prefer contextual ads to targeted ones.

This does not seem self-evident to me 👇
https://t.co/zWXWGc1E54
Research also finds that firms choose between ad. targeting vs. obtrusiveness 👇

If true, the right question is not whether consumers prefer contextual ads to targeted ones. But whether they prefer *more* contextual ads vs *fewer* targeted ones.

https://t.co/lfYl95l3Nx
2) True, many inframarginal platforms might simply shift to contextual ads.

But some might already be almost indifferent between direct & indirect monetization.

Hard to imagine that *none* of them will respond to reduced ad revenue with actual fees.
3) Policy debate seems to be moving from:

"Consumers are insufficiently informed to decide how they share their data."

To

"No one in their right mind would agree to highly targeted ads (e.g., those that mix data from multiple sources)."

IMO the latter statement is incorrect.
Privacy advocates & enforcers fail to consider that they might be witnessing the revealed preferences of consumers.

Maybe this is because enforcers & advocates are an atypically privacy conscious group -- their preferences might be very different to those of median consumer.
To me, this is epitomized by @vestager argument that she would rather pay for Facebook. Pretty tone-deaf from someone that earns roughly 10x Brussels median salary.

https://t.co/tBYb27ZjJy
4) Important to consider the supply side. Systematically favoring consumer v. producer surplus is bound to affect investment in tech markets.

Will this undermine EU tech industry?

As @andashleysays has pointed out:

https://t.co/rp4GNg5dEb
With all that said, I do agree with @KevinCoates that we should avoid hyperbole: banning targeted ads will not suddenly cause all or most internet services to be directly monetized.

Though I still think it would be a very misguided move.

More from For later read

I should mention, this is why I keep talking about this. Because I know so many people who legally CAN'T.

How do I know they have NDAs, if they can't talk legally about them? Because they trusted me with their secrets... after I said something. That's how they knew I was safe.


Some of the people who have reached out to me privately have been sitting with the pain of what happened to them and the regret that they signed for YEARS. But at the time, it didn't seem like they had any other option BUT to sign.

I do not blame *anyone* for signing an NDA, especially when it's attached to a financial lifeline. When you feel like your family's wellbeing is at stake, you'll do anything -- even sign away your own voice -- to provide for them. That's not a "choice"; that's survival.

And yes, many of the people whose stories I now know were pressured into signing an NDA by my husband's ex-employer. Some of whom I *never* would have guessed. People I thought "left well." Turns out, they've just been *very* good at abiding by the terms of their NDA.

(And others who have reached out had similar experiences with other Christian orgs. Turns out abuse, and the use of NDAs to cover up that abuse, is rampant in a LOT of places.)

You May Also Like