zlacker

They could still show ads without all the invasiveness. For example: advertisers could pay to place ads in specific Facebook groups and they would show to people visiting those pages. Like it has been done for decades in magazines and other physical media. The internet did not invent advertising.

>>latexr+(OP)
exactly and even if they didn't take "personalized data" into account, they can still serve you ads based on pages/profiles you liked

>>latexr+(OP)
They don't work effectively if they aren't targeted on who you are. It would be like TV ads.

Biggest example is the IOS privacy which has hit whole industry in terms of marketing effectiveness and cost.

>>latexr+(OP)
There’s a reason why magazines ads are dying and being replaced by personalized ads. Advertising like that is widely inefficient.

It’s easy to show ads. Not that easy to make money from doing so. It’s as valid alternative as telling people to use horses instead of cars to reduce CO2 emissions. They both get from point A to B, right?

>>geek_a+sx1
That's exactly what's being banned. Pages and profiles you like (along with other personal data) is what drives "behavioral advertising."

>>latexr+(OP)
Magazines have context though. You buy an art magazine, you'll see a Mercedes ad because it's likely that people who're interested in art make more than average. Facebook without tracking has no context whatsoever, aside from Groups and that's debatable.

>>justap+Uz1
> There’s a reason why magazines ads are dying and being replaced by personalized ads. Advertising like that is widely inefficient.

Too bad, if your business model can’t make money without breaking laws and harming people’s rights, do you really deserve to stay in business?

> It’s as valid alternative as telling people to use horses instead of cars to reduce CO2 emissions. They both get from point A to B, right?

More like banning formula 1 cars from suburbs. People survived before without personalized ads, what will not survive is making 10-digits of profit every quarter and the associated butchery of our life and institutions in the pursuit of profit.

>>polyga+uD1
When you're debating the merits of the law in question, it doesn't seem like a valid defense to say "if they can't do business under the law then that's their fault".

If I say "car dealers can't sell cars that go faster than 10mph and if they go out of business then they shouldn't exist", it's clearly fallacious, and I don't see how this is any different.

>>foota+nF1
It is different. Rules and laws are supposed to make sense, but the one with 10 mph is not. There are limita to 250 kph in Europe and I dont see car dealers going down. Also, for years there are emissions regulators that make life hard for auto makers, but they obey and still sell cars.

>>kaftoy+TI1
A law limiting top speed to 10 mph would have a massive reduction in accidents and fatalities. That makes sense to me.

>>justap+Uz1
Magazine ads are dying because no one buys magazines anymore except when they are in an airport.

>>polyga+uD1
> Too bad, if your business model can’t make money without breaking laws and harming people’s rights, do you really deserve to stay in business?

That's not the argument I'm making nor the comment I'm responding to. OP presented non-personalized ads as a viable alternative for their business. It's not. Let's not pretend it is.

It's a totally different conversation from one you try to turn it into.

> More like banning formula 1 cars from suburbs.

It's not, unless there have been F1 cars in every suburb for last decade.

I get it, you hate ads. Great. But that's not what we're talking about.

>>kaftoy+TI1
> Rules and laws are supposed to make sense

Agreed. So why do none of the EU's moronic laws make sense?

Most normal people are happy when they come across a useful product or service as an ad in their Instagram feed. After these laws, that won't be possible anymore for an entire continent of people.

>>kaftoy+TI1
Anti-car folks will likely disagree with you that 10mph speed limit doesn't make sense.

>>justap+aO1
> It's not, unless there have been F1 cars in every suburb for last decade.

So like banning lead from paint? Wouldn’t someone think of the poor paint makers and landlords?

>>adrr+Iz1
Any reference proving this?

>>fsflov+BB3
FB earnings or any earnings from any company that is heavily dependent on performance marketing. And for small businesses.

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/08/small-businesses-cou...

>>adrr+Wi4
But did they compare their earning to those with non-tracking, contextual ads?

>>justap+Uz1
Magazines are dying due to a big wave of anti intellectualism, people not used to read, and people who are poor so they dont want to pay for media. Lots of young people think that the "free" (to read) "journalism" they get online is decent. When it is not. Because good writing and research costs a lot. Meanwhile some intern can write 5 crappy "articles" per day.

Also it has been written many times, but the facebook feed has became total crap: for me 99% are ads and it does not show me any updates from friends. Faster is to go to profiles of friends then scroll through the drip feed that is not even infinite. Also the feed does not show things that I can see in my friends' profiles. But hey, some product manager thinks it is good for longevity of thr product. I can as well enter facebook once per month and manually open their profiles.