#DSA IMCO talks on targeted behavioural advertising (aka tracking-based advertising aka surveillance advertising) are unfortunately not going into the right direction. Let’s be clear. 1) Consent is already a requirement under GDPR. However, no valid consent can be given to 1/8
surveillance advertising as consent requires elements of transparency and control, made impossible by the opaque tracking industry and the multitude of parties receiving our data (≠informed consent). Thanks to @johnnyryan for also stressing this in last week’s IMCO hearing.2/8
2) Banning surveillance advertising ≠ banning online advertising. 3) Advertising can still be relevant without surveillance, e.g. when targeted based on the content of a visited page. People actually prefer contextual advertising and believe it is more credible.@BuggeErik 3/8
4) GDPR enforcement is not enough as discrimination and ad fraud will continue to exist. 5) Also a ban on using sensitive data is not enough as it can easily be circumvented by using proxies (e.g. instead of targeting based on religion, targeting based on “interest in Islam”).4/8
6) A ban on tracking ads for children is equally insufficient, does not protect other vulnerable users or solve broader societal issues related to the surveillance-based business model + age verification will only lead to more collection of personal data. 5/8
7) There are sufficient examples demonstrating companies don’t need to rely on surveillance to advertise and reach customers.
8) Those that benefit the most of surveillance advertising are not SMEs but companies like @Google and @Meta that make 80% ($147b in 2020) and 98% ($84b in 2020) of their revenues from advertising, which is why you see their lobbying ads on Politico and on Twitter every day. 7/8