ok Eric, I follow to be certain we’re not missing anything, listened to this session (and Kara’s). I couldn’t disagree more with your arguments - I could glean. Noteworthy, like Facebook’s campaign, you’re wrongly applying terms “targeted” and “personalized” ads as impaired.
https://twitter.com/eric_seufert/status/1379879332974374916
After Apple rolls out ATT, which limits tracking, an easily good development for consumers (Cook did a masterful job and doesn’t need to present empirical research on a NYT podcast), targeting can still happen. Ads can be targeted without tracking or surveillance of users.
Towards end you make point 1st party data collection/use is no worse for users than tracking by 3rd parties - an odd point I often hear from adtech lobby. I can choose not to use an app if I don’t like its data practices (putting aside monopoly concerns for a minute).
Having my data collected/used by an app I am choosing to interact is within consumer expectations. Having my data collected/used by a company I’m not choosing to interact for some other purpose downstream is outside consumer expectations. This is easily backed up by research.
Lastly, there is solid empirical research on economics showing that limiting horizontal data sharing (across companies and apps) without user consent won’t reduce welfare but instead reallocate it. Apple should be full speed ahead. I’ve seen your estimates how this may hurt FB.
I’m not sure how they became so widely cited without others out there but do agree, and FB CFO has warned for years, this is bad for Facebook and surveillance advertising. And that’s a good thing for consumers. If it’s not, Apple will suffer. Hence their strategy. Cheers.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
