Facebook is Developing a 'Privacy-Safe' Ad Product, Report Says (businessinsider.com) 36
Facebook is in the early stages of developing a product that wouldn't rely on any anonymized personal info from users, two ad buyers from different ad agencies told Insider. From a report: "Basic ads," as Facebook engineers have been calling it, is aimed at brand advertisers that are trying to build awareness and shape perception of products. One of the buyers, who are known to Insider but spoke anonymously to preserve their relationship with Facebook, said it would be measured by basic metrics including engagement and video views. Vice reported in April that Meta was working on this product and planned to have it ready to test by January in Europe, home to the strict General Data Protection Regulation; the ad buyers said it hasn't been rolled out yet and that they're unclear when it will. It's expected to be tested in the US after an EU launch. The product would seem antithetical to the targeting tools that advertisers use Facebook for. "Their 'basic ads' does contrast one of the biggest attributes of Facebook's ad platform: the granular of targeting," the first ad buyer said. "But ads that can still deliver scale while also able to usurp data regulations like CCPA and GDPR would still get dollars invested into Facebook."
Nope (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
"Safe" from others but not from them and their highest bidder
Re: (Score:2)
Privacy is anathema to their business model. 'Privacy-Safe' here is surely appallingly disingenuous.
Re: (Score:2)
They are under investigation by multiple regulators. This better work as advertised because the game is up on their old business model.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a dangerous product for Facebook, because there's a lot of evidence that targeted advertising isn't actually very effective. By creating a product that allows advertisers to do a direct comparison, they're inviting the chance for someone to calculate exactly what targeting is worth. No one should trust Facebook, but least of all the advertisers. I'd wager Facebook might secretly target these 'Privacy-Safe' to make them
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. it's just another marketing ploy, like "privacy controls" are.
Facebook knows the truth - people will refuse to share their deepest thoughts if anyone on the internet can read them. So they offer "privacy controls" that pretend that you can protect your thoughts from the internet. Which it can't - anything you post online can be made public either deliberately or by accident. If you don't want it revealed, then don't po
Arsonist produces non-flammable paper (Score:2)
HAHAHAHAHA. (Score:3)
Hahaha Hah Hahahah. Hahaha. Hah.
LOL! (Score:2)
Facebook is Developing a 'Privacy-Safe' Ad Product
LOL! A privacy rapist "developing" a "privacy-safe" product is the best example of an oxymoron, EVER!
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Kind of a "rape-safe" condom.
No. They are just lying about what it is (Score:2)
With absolute certainty, this is a "privacy faking" product. The question is how well they fake it. The GDPR, for example, not only protects direct personal information. As soon as some data allows you to infer things about some users, it is protected.
wat (Score:2)
Facebook is in the early stages of developing a product that wouldn't rely on any anonymized personal info from users
So then it only relies on non-anonymized personal info?
An advertising product which doesn't rely on any personal info is trivial. Instead of displaying ads based on user-related tags, you display them based on content-related tags.
Rapists offering a "No Rape List". (Score:2)
I mean really. This will work as well as the "no-call" list we use for telemarketers.
Re: (Score:2)
Tele-what? I think I have had one in the last 20 years. Of course, their call-center was raided and everybody got arrested a few days later. Gave me a big smile. You can do privacy laws so that they work. Requires non-corrupt or low-corruption politicians and, I guess, that is what makes this impossible in the US.
Re: (Score:1)
I get a call or more per day. Started back when I bought one trip through price line. Also ruined my email address.
Lately it's calls from California but yesterday it was from Texas. Said it was from "Chris" with an english sounding last name. I answered-- it was more like Aditi Anand clearly calling from a big call center.
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine that is a real pest. But as I said, in Europe the problem is basically non-existent and that is not because we have superior phone-tech or something. That is because enough people considered it important enough to make it a factor in how they vote. For example, in Germany, the "Bundesnetzagentur" can fine a cold-call operation up to 50'000 EUR per call (!). And phone providers can get similar fines if they do not block the numbers such calls come from fast if they come from abroad.
"Privacy" (Score:2)
"You keep using that word, Facebook... I do not think it means what you think it means. [youtube.com]"
"Honest, honey, I've changed!" (Score:3)
How about this 'business model' for you: You charge a subscription fee, for which you get NO ads and NO 'data collection'. The 'free' version HAS ads and HAS data collection, and you be 100% up-front about that. Otherwise, die in a fire, Facebook, and likewise die in a fire, Zuck.
F-O (Score:2)
F&$% Off Facebook. You can’t fix what you broke
Facebook can go fuck itself (Score:2)
Their "ad products" are not desired nor needed by anyone, regardless of how privacy-friendly they appear to be.
The most privacy-friendly ad is no ad.
Usurp? (Score:2)
How does an ad usurp a regulation?
Alternative directions to explore (Score:3)
In the early days of the web advertisements were shown based on the content of the page, not the content of your character. I feel like we should re-explore that idea, but with current technical capabilities, such as deep learning. Here in the Netherlands there is spinoff from the public broadcasting organisation's advertising arm (STER) which is doing exactly that, creating new, more advanced ways to match advertisisements to the page/video content. They won a Dutch privacy award last year.
For some perspective: back in the days of content based advertising the click though rate was about one percent. Then we created an entire dystopian surveillance industry. The result? Now two percent of people click on adds...
Another option: Sheryl Sandberg once whispered that Facebook was looking into a subscription business model, where people could pay to use the service. I still wish they would have developer that option. I'm not against the idea of Facebook ("a place to discover my aunt's kinda racist"), I'm against the surveillance nightmare the current business model implies. The cost of "free" is just too damn high.
Re: (Score:3)
Another option: Sheryl Sandberg once whispered that Facebook was looking into a subscription business model, where people could pay to use the service.
Sadly, at this point, while I'd be willing to pay some nominal amount for a data-mining-free Facebook account ($30-$60/year is probably what I'd value it at), but the reality is that the trust is so heavily eroded that I'd have trouble believing they weren't taking my money and doing all the same things they do now.
Re: (Score:1)
Sadly, at this point, while I'd be willing to pay some nominal amount for a data-mining-free Facebook account ($30-$60/year is probably what I'd value it at), but the reality is that the trust is so heavily eroded that I'd have trouble believing they weren't taking my money and doing all the same things they do now.
I think I saw a study somewhere that valued the data they were collecting at some ridiculous amount, like on the order of $230/mo. Way beyond what most people would be willing to pay for it...
For a data-mining-free Facebook to be feasible, we as a society need to either value privacy more or reduce the value of the data their mining. The later is most feasible via regulation, but won't happen until we can ween the congresscritters off of PAC money.
Overturning Citizens vs. United should be the first
Not that I'm skeptical, but... (Score:1)
unsubscribe (Score:2)
unsubscribe
My 3 year old son (Score:2)
"I have idea" he said once - "How about we put advertisements on TV! Let's measure them by basic KPIs, such as views!"
Facebook's AI makes their 'product' worthless (Score:2)
Right now, Zuck's pet AI will randomly lock your account for using the word "shoot", even in an expression like "shoot the moon" or "shoot straight", and their worthless (possibly fictional?) human reviewers get literally ever decision wrong, so... I really don't know why any company spends ad money with a supplier who is that dysfunctional.
I actively avoid brands that advertise on FB, and I know a bunch of other people who do the same thing. Hopefully they crash sooner rather than later.
and when it 'accidentally' slurps up data (Score:1)
O RLY (Score:2)
I put greater stock in Russia's claims that Ukraine's leadership are Nazis, and that's really saying something.
They may be saying it but probably not doing it. (Score:1)
They've lied so many times, and been caught lying so many times, and had leaks showing they completely disrespect their customers. I stopped using them back in 2012... never went back. Creepy company run by a sociopath.
"Privacy safe" means safe from privacy blockers (Score:2)
In related news (Score:2)
Arsonist is Developing a Combustion Safe Fire, Report Says.