It's unequivocal Google's dominance is partially built on surveillance outside its own properties. When are we going to talk about its engineers spreading propaganda in significant forums where the web's future is shaped? This 50-70% data point is entirely created by Google. /1
Recall it comes from Google's own study which it first released as a headline then pressed a 2 page piece of garbage then finally to a regulator but AFAIK we still don't even know the sites and it looked only at sites utilizing google's dominant adtech. /2
and it entirely ignores best study I know of using empirical ad log data from a significant number and diverse set of websites to examine how welfare will reallocate with changes to how data is shared horizontally for ad targeting (aka surveillance). /3 wsj.com/articles/behav…
Natasha @ Techcrunch also covered it fabulously well here. Again, this was from an actual independent academic and reviewed at major economics conferences. @riptari /4 techcrunch.com/2019/05/31/tar…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The internal “news group” (Google has one, too) ultimately serves to gauge where to spread $$$, love and spin to keep critics at bay and feint access to the company while it maximizes profits and waves a wrecking ball on democracy. nytimes.com/2018/04/21/tec…
And yes they also serve to use relationships to slap back when people like me are vocal. But if 4yrs later they still can’t solve the riddle of an algorithm providing velocity and reach to a conspiracy theorist over those four brands then I don’t think they’re trying hard enough.
important discovery of how Facebook is a surveillance ad company posing as a consumer product company leveraging monopoly. A few comments I would like to add to this thread which clearly got a lot of eyes because yet - even today - Facebook abuses its rock-bottom expectations. /1
All of this tracking is running into friction. Facebook was forced to reluctantly add a clear history tool (joke), Apple has started blocking it in Safari along w DuckDuckGo, Brave, Firefox in extensions/apps and Apple is about to kneecap Facebook’s app tracking on iOS. 🙏🏽 /2
Facebook likes to pretend that sites intentionally share the data with Facebook. I wrote about this in WSJ in 2014 and it’s a part of the antitrust reports, German Cartel Office case etc. Truth is Facebook misled publishers. I told them this. /3 blogs.wsj.com/cmo/2014/06/20…
😂 , Google, a company with more lawyers, lobbyists, communications people and money than anyone made a clerical error and leaked out sensitive information about its alleged collusion and bid rigging. /1 wsj.com/articles/googl…
This is consistent with the antitrust charges in the complaint and now appears to be confirmed by Google in its *supposed to be* redacted filing. Hard to understand how it’s not trading on inside information. There is a nice illustration why it’s problematic in the complaint. /2
WSJ also reports that Google confirmed the existence of the deal with Facebook. Signed by Sandberg and including how the two companies would act if investigated. This matching of audiences appears to be new and seems like privacy circumvention to me. /3
ps this is a very bad take including the fact it wasn't just a phone number alone but the name, Facebook ID and other information that goes with it. For over 1/2 a billion people.
this was the topic of the session ICYMI. I actually think this is a bigger deal than the current press attention. @galloway@karaswisher also discussed on their podcast this week, more shoes will drop on it. The inconsistent answers to Ireland DPC 👀 .
“The next five years is going to be a lot harder for Facebook than the last five years.” - @karaswisher
“I think Facebook is the most vulnerable of all of them because they don’t control the end consumer experience and they have the most people gunning for them.” - @profgalloway with a timely comment as Apple is about to kneecap a majority of Facebook’s data surveillance.
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.
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).