[knuththetruth]

>The #1 complaint about ads is that they are not relevant, so this does nothing but increase that problem.

The #1 complaint about advertising is that in 2018, it has evolved into a shadowy, insecure brokerage of surveillance data that it obtains using all kinds of under-handed tactics. If the GDPR curbs this in the slightest, it will be a net positive for people of Europe.

[manigandham]

It will not curb it. Facebook and Google who control 90% of the ad industry will already have consent from billions of people by the end of the day, and the increased regulation will only increase their market share as the safe and reliable avenue for advertisers and further strengthen their monopolies and data activities.

[Tomte]

Facebook certainly doesn't have full consent under the GDPR.

They are playing games, and don't respect the requirements that the GDPR puts on "consent": focussed, freely given (non-punitive), fully informed.

[manigandham]

Sure, one of the most valuable companies on the planet with an army of lawyers doesn't know what it's doing.

Or maybe it's because the rules are confusing and messy and you have a different interpretation?

[hk__2]

> Sure, one of the most valuable companies on the planet with an army of lawyers doesn't know what it's doing.

This a fallacy, not an argument. [1]

> Or maybe it's because the rules are confusing and messy and you have a different interpretation?

Please point out which rules are confusing and/or messy. Virtualy every single blog post about GDPR points out how it’s well written compared to other juridictions on the same subject. The language is clear and the website provides a Q/A section as well as concrete example for every point.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

[manigandham]

Yes, a company worth over half a trillion dollars with access to the best legal teams around the world has authority on whether it has done what it can to be compliant or not. And authority is how the legal system works, not everyone can just practice law without going through the proper education and licensing.

> Please point out which rules are confusing and/or messy.

The comment thread you just replied to -- the one where you seem to saying that random HN commenter is more accurate than Facebook's entire legal team on regulation that is supposed to be unequivocal -- is a start.

[malka]

> Yes, a company worth over half a trillion dollars with access to the best legal teams around the world has authority on whether it is compliant or not.

No, it does not.

[Tomte]

They know exactly what they‘re doing. They are willfully breaking the law because it makes them money.

Maybe your playacting is simply because you‘re „Currently working on Instinctive, a B2B marketing technology company.“?

[manigandham]

You've made this personal twice now, signaling a lack of any real argument.

You do not know my history, and sadly you didn't even bother to do some basic research or you would recognize that I'm one of the few in our industry that has called for regulation and data protections for years. [1] Instinctive has been on the forefront of this as well with our most recent push for net neutrality. [2]

And surprisingly you seem to miss that B2B marketing is rather unaffected by GDPR since everything we do has always been contextually targeted, consent-based, and 1st-party relationships anyway. If you want to have a discussion, base it on the ideas and not the person.

1. https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&q=manigandham%20regulati...

2. https://www.newamerica.org/oti/press-releases/companies-urge...

--

As for Facebook breaking laws, I find that incredibly hard to believe given their resources, recent legal , 1st-party data and consumer connections in their walled garden, and the fact that consent is already given by billions of users who just want to use FB products and don't care about the rest. They have nothing to gain from skirting regulations that only serve to strength their relationship.