|
|
|
|
|
|
by jefftk
2130 days ago
|
|
|
I do think there's a problem where companies add ad network SDKs (or, on the web, ad tags) without considering the privacy or security risks, and instead think only "more ad networks will make us more money". On the other hand, the two main options to this are (a) people only install SDKs/tags from ad networks with strong reputations or (b) a system like AMP, where ad networks can choose between running in a sandbox (xdomain iframe) and submitting their code as an open source extension for review. Option (a) has the major downside of helping existing players and players with non-ads businesses that strengthen their reputation (like my employer). Option (b) is better, but still hard to do well. (Disclosure: I work for Google, on ads. Speaking only for myself.) |
|
|
If you are making a hardware device, decide to include a dodgy module from AliExpress and then the device starts catching fire and burning your customer's homes you will at least be subject to a lawsuit, so you won't even consider doing this.
This should be the same when it comes to third-party binaries and SDKs. Even if you respect the law (when it comes to privacy, GDPR, consumer rights, etc), you also need to do your due diligence and make sure any third-party code you embed also does respect it otherwise you should be subject to lawsuits.
The result would be that a lot of dodgy ad networks would go away (because no respectable app developer would do business with them), ad networks themselves would be more selective in what kind of ads they run (ad prices will go up to compensate for the cost of vetting them), and overall I think it'll be a win for everyone; customers are not only safer but also see higher quality ads because the "bottom of the barrel" stuff has been pushed out of the market.