Meta To Seek User Consent for Targeted Ads in the EU

Meta intends to ask users in the European Union for their consent before allowing businesses to target advertising based on what they view on its services such as Facebook and Instagram, the social media giant said on Tuesday. From a report: Meta said the change is to address a number of evolving regulatory requirements in the region and stems from an order in January by Ireland's Data Protection Commissioner, Meta's lead EU regulator, to reassess the legal basis on how it targets ads.

Facebook and Instagram users had effectively agreed to allow their data to be used in targeted advertising when they signed up to the services' terms and conditions, until the regulator ruled it could not process personal information in that way. "Today, we are announcing our intention to change the legal basis that we use to process certain data for behavioural advertising for people in the EU, EEA (European Economic Area) and Switzerland from 'Legitimate Interests' to 'Consent'," Meta said in a blog post.

Re:

[ls671]

Anyway, the only thing I would consent into targeting me is Nathalie Portman.

Re:

[Opportunist]

That isn't news. That is some details in the politics of a country nobody cares about anymore.

And The Prevailing Answr Will Be

[NoWayNoShapeNoForm]

I hope EU citizens are smart and "Just Say No!" to any form of targeted advertising.

Then the EU can tell Meta "Well, you asked the users and they said 'No!' so that's the way things will be."

EU users might still get ads, but those ads might not correlate to their interests. Oh well.

Re:

[ls671]

That targeting crap is useless anyway because you fall into an echo chamber. What about discovering new things? When I get bored and go to YouTube, I have to browse in an anonymous window otherwise it will always show me the same topics, ridiculous!

They do

[rsilvergun]

Apple did this and it hit like the fist of a God when they did, costing Facebook and X billions.

Facebook makes a ton of money selling your data to marketers and politicians. They'll still be able to sell that aggregate data I think (in theory it's ben anonymized, even if you and me know that in practice it's not). They're not pulling out of Europe so I'm guessing they can still make money. But it'll be much harder.

X on the other hand doesn't have all that personal data like FB does. I don't think th

Both are destined for the bin

[Anonymous Cward]

The writing is on the wall for these types of companies, especially Google. The EU is not the only bloc throwing a spanner in the works now. The US has effectively banned data collection for surveillance advertising of under-18s and is seeking to ban targeting based upon any datapoints relating to immutable protected characteristics like race, sex and religion.

This would mean surveillance advertising can no longer target even the most basic of demographics with any certainty anymore, unlike traditional c

Re: They do

[drinkypoo]

Lololol you're calling it X?

Re:And The Prevailing Answr Will Be

[brunes69]

The incredible majority of the population vastly prefers targeted ads, as it provides a far better user experience. People do not want to see crap ads they have no interest in - that is exactly how old-school cable TV ads worked.

So, I am pretty sure you will be 100% wrong.

Re: And The Prevailing Answr Will Be

[gnasher719]

And you know that how? The sad fact is that lots of ads are targeted but either they completely miss the mark, or they are deeply disturbing. If I do a search and then get an advert that matches the search, that just demonstrates very clearly that you are being watched and people hate that.

Re:And The Prevailing Answr Will Be

[aepervius]

The incredible majority of the population vastly prefers targeted ads

The vast majority of the population want NO ads. Care to point to a study , not done by advertiser, showing the vast majority of the population want targeted ads ? The way I see it, speaking to my friend and colleague, NONE of us want targeted ads as they mostly break our privacy.

And here is why what you say is bullshit

[aepervius]

https://www.pewresearch.org/sh... [pewresearch.org]
68% don't want targeted ads

https://www.businessnewsdaily.... [businessnewsdaily.com]
"Back in 2017, a study designed to explore how consumers cope with online behavioral advertising, published in the International Journal of Advertising and shared by Taylor & Francis Online, found that many consumers are worried about the risks to their privacy that come with personalized ads. âoeThe perception of risk is much stronger than the perception of benefit,â the authorâ(TM)s study said in a statement."

"The vast majority want targeted ads" is quite refuted IMO. There are even more that way, and you can see the various article showing customer wariness and the ad agency trying to convince customer targeted ads is A-OK.

Re:

[AmiMoJo]

People I've talked to find it extremely creepy that they do something on one website and then other websites seem to know about it, and even worse the same ads follow them around the internet.

Any illusion that what they do online was at least somewhat private gets shattered by creepy targeted advertising.

Re:

[VeryFluffyBunny]

As far as I'm concerned, targeted advertising isn't the issue. It's that they collect my data about my web browsing via 3rd party cookies on websites that are not their own & build a profile about me. People got upset when J. Edgar Hoover did that to US elected officials. Why is it any different when a powerful global corporation (i.e. Meta) that does business with multiple governments with sketchy humans rights records (e.g. Saudi Arabia & Myanmar), builds profiles about people's social & polit

Re:

[suutar]

Maybe, maybe not. People dislike ads, but generally they dislike targeted ads less than they dislike random ads.

Targeted ads don't work anyway

[Opportunist]

So you shop around for a TV. You compare, you check the features, you read reviews, you eventually settle for a model and you buy it.

And then you're bombarded with ads for TVs.

Get a clue: I just bought one. I won't buy another one for a long, long time.

Unless they somehow manage to predict what I'll be looking for before I even know it, don't bother with that rubbish.

Political ones do

[rsilvergun]

Online advertising as a whole is highly ineffective. But propaganda works very well. Or political advertising if you're being charitable. But it only works if you can Target very specific individuals and very specific locations. Once you have that much data though you can expertly push the buttons of people and make them do exactly what you want to do at the polls

Re: Targeted ads don't work anyway

[gnasher719]

I once did a job in Australia for my company. Obviously did a search or two for restaurants close to my hotel near Sydney. It took over two years until Google stopped showing me restaurants in Sydney.

Re:

[tlhIngan]

So you shop around for a TV. You compare, you check the features, you read reviews, you eventually settle for a model and you buy it.

And then you're bombarded with ads for TVs.

Get a clue: I just bought one. I won't buy another one for a long, long time.

Unless they somehow manage to predict what I'll be looking for before I even know it, don't bother with that rubbish.

No, they're doing it wrong if they're trying to sell you what you bought. If the targeting system was working properly, they'd be advertising

Re:

[Opportunist]

Dude, this is Facebook. The person buying that damn TV already told everyone who wants, and even more so everyone who doesn't want, to know that he now has a new TV.

Facebook can use their power for much, but trying to extort people by saying you'd tell the world something about them isn't flying. They already did that themselves.

I can see it already

[a7sharp9]

Day 1: dismissable popup in the corner with "I consent"
Day 7: dismissable popup in the corner with "I consent" every time you start the app
Day 14: dismissable full-screen popup with "I consent" every time you start the app
Day 21: dismissable full-screen popup with "I consent" every 5 minutes
Day 30: undismissable full screen popup

Re:I can see it already

[VeryFluffyBunny]

Naah, what they're doing already is a pop-up with an "I consent" button on it & you have to search around & click through various panels & buttons to find the one that says something like, "Save settings" or "Save my preferences." Then you have to do that every time you visit the site.

Facebook already uses cookies that you can't easily delete, i.e. you stay logged in even when you've cleared your browser cache. Getting rid of their tracking is really, really hard to do, & yet they still harass users with those popups. That's the true nature of your cuddly, friendly, nice, oh so charming social media companies.

Re:

[AmiMoJo]

Naah, what they're doing already is a pop-up with an "I consent" button on it & you have to search around & click through various panels & buttons to find the one that says something like, "Save settings" or "Save my preferences." Then you have to do that every time you visit the site.

That's actually not compliant with GDPR. None of Your Business (NoYB) has been filing massive numbers of complaints about it, and so have I.

Re:

[VeryFluffyBunny]

It's often the same company that does it on multiple sites. I'm guessing there's a company that offers their convoluted, obfuscated consent popups to other marketing companies & website maintainers. Everyone's into personal information mugging, it seems.

Meta obeys laws?

[Miles_O'Toole]

Wouldn't it be nice if governments in North America had enough respect for their citizens to insist on similar standards?

Re:

[Alumoi]

Citizens don't elect governments, corporations do. So why would the government, especially the US one, care for the peons?

Re:

[Miles_O'Toole]

I assume that's a rhetorical question.

Re: Meta obeys laws?

[DNS-and-BIND]

Politics quiz: what's it called when corporations and government merge and you can't tell where one stops and the other begins? I'm sure I learned this in class. Can anyone help me out?

It just seems like there should be some kind of Antifa helping us fight this power. But instead they're on the side of power and censorship.

Re:

[Miles_O'Toole]

If Antifa is on the side of power and censorship, why do conservatives hate them so much? It seems like they should be allies.

No

[Growlley]

Next question.

Good

[gnite]

If that will make them stop constantly blasting me with ads for booze, even though I DO NOT drink and report every single one I see as offensive, then great. These personalized ads are ridiculous.