eupolicy.social is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
This Mastodon server is a friendly and respectful discussion space for people working in areas related to EU policy. When you request to create an account, please tell us something about you.

Server stats:

238
active users

At a event in this morning about "-first online ". I am _very_ curious where this weirdest of things Mozilla does is going. 🤔

Speakers: Petra Wikström, policy person at , @rvaneijk, @eff's Svea Windwehr and Mozilla's own Martin Thompson.

Great opening by Svea pointing at how models make a privilege for those who can afford to pay.

She rightly slams as a risk on top of a violation and calls out the @EUCommission's push for "" that threatens achievements like .

Rob from the Future of Forum praises civil society for going after companies that violate and the Coalition in the European Parliament for pushing tracking limitations into the . 👏

But his conclusion is "not too optimistic about action, needs other tools."

's Petra Wikström claims her firm "really really cares about " and says " should not be reopened," works well as it is. 🫶

But she also emphasises " is never for free" and needs various sources of funding. For that, Schibsted uses 1st party data for segments, not individual targeting. Never shares with 3rd parties.

"Problem with GDPR is that it isn't enforced enough."

Wow so the engineer disagrees and claims " has done a great deal of harm" (I didn't understand his argument why) but now diverted to saying the should be the platform collect all the personal data and then provide it in aggregated form to advertisers.

This would "give control to people while also unlocking the data". 🥱

And all in a sudden, is not a issue any more but merely a question of "governance".

What a weird world in which the champions because and says it's harmful 🤯

also celebrates the for reining in 's power.

Other interesting point: they'd like under the instead of combined with a timid acknowledgement that publishers are forced to participate in a system (of ) they cannot control.

Jan Penfrat

Glad to see from brings up 's solution as a viable alternative to and .

Also makes a super important point about mandatory signals in browsers.

IMO this is what should be working towards, not making as a data collection platform.

argues they cannot rely on contextual ads "as long as advertisers don't pay the same money for them as they do for personalised ads."

Really, this is why banning is so powerful a solution because it would take the harmful business model off the market.

Super important from @eff's Svea Windwehr: we lack independent data about the effectiveness of various as targeting solutions and publishers had 25 years to figure out solutions independent of and they didn't, so onus is also on them.

Strong point by : we tried to move away from when came into force but lost so much money we had to go back. 🫣

And that's where the event ends. Lots to think about, not very convinced about what is doing.

@ilumium Thx for the summary. It's basically the same pitch from Mozilla as ten years ago. They claim to have a solution while their own income is dwindling.

@ilumium This is also why Tracking Ads won't be banned.