[konschubert]

I don't think that the public is very good at paying attention to two things at the same time.

I think that the "ad targeting privacy" discussion is a borderline red herring that is focusing the debate away from what matters. Giving the public a feeling that they achieved something, while violating privacy through the backdoor.

[capableweb]

Or, a more hopeful view, is that "ad targeting privacy" makes "privacy" be a topic at all in society, and that could be leveraged to acquire more privacy in more areas, as people start to realize what it actually means.

Problem is that "evil marketing companies" is a lot easier for people to believe in, compared to "evil government", especially in places like in the Nordics where people generally have a much more favorably view of their governments than in other countries (for better or worse).

[JumpCrisscross]

> don't think that the public is very good at paying attention to two things at the same time

This is a regulatory proceeding. The public isn’t involved.

It’s bad strategy to go all in at one point on the front; you’ll be flanked. Focus entirely on government collection, as the U.S. did, and you’ll find companies not only running free but then turning around and selling their data to the government you thought you were on top of.

[windexh8er]

Who's to say they're not the same? We know for a fact that the government uses the "ad targeting privacy" to ingest data on civilians. There's countless articles on resale of those data via data brokers. Conflating the two doesn't minimize the argument IMO. As a counter perspective I would surmise that it would piss people off more if and when a government uses that data against its own citizens. People seem to be grasping the concept that having all of this data in someone else's hands is a bad thing. And while I don't feel the urgency is where it should be, I do feel as though we've made some progress.