Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Democrats Privacy United States

Democrats Unveil Bill To Ban Online 'Surveillance Advertising' (theverge.com) 146

Posted by msmash from the up-next dept.
Democrats introduced a new bill that would ban nearly all use of digital advertising targeting on ad markets hosted by platforms like Facebook, Google, and other data brokers. From a report: The Banning Surveillance Advertising Act -- sponsored by Reps. Anna Eshoo (D-CA), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), and Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) -- prohibits digital advertisers from targeting any ads to users. It makes some small exceptions, like allowing for "broad" location-based targeting. Contextual advertising, like ads that are specifically matched to online content, would be allowed. "The 'surveillance advertising' business model is premised on the unseemly collection and hoarding of personal data to enable ad targeting," Eshoo, the bill's lead sponsor, said in a Tuesday statement. "This pernicious practice allows online platforms to chase user engagement at great cost to our society, and it fuels disinformation, discrimination, voter suppression, privacy abuses, and so many other harms. The surveillance advertising business model is broken."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Democrats Unveil Bill To Ban Online 'Surveillance Advertising' More

Democrats Unveil Bill To Ban Online 'Surveillance Advertising'

Comments Filter:

  • Pipedream Legislation (Score:5, Funny)

    by organgtool ( 966989 ) on Tuesday January 18, 2022 @03:57PM (#62185627)
    Most of us would love for this to become reality and most of us are also realistic enough to know it will never pass. Is there a name for bills that are complete pipedreams that the authors know will never pass, but they propose them anyway to make it look like they're trying?

    • Re: Pipedream Legislation (Score:5, Insightful)

      by satcomjimmy ( 1228562 ) on Tuesday January 18, 2022 @04:02PM (#62185651)
      Election year advertising

      • Don't worry, they'll figure out a way to exempt ads from politicians.

        In the meantime, people can suffer from even worse targeted online advertising, because how dare someone try to serve customers better by showing them ads they might actually be interested in...

        • I grew up in the 70s/80s. Back then we got 3 channels and all of them had commercials. Im not sure ads actually work on my generation. My brain just completely blacks out the commercials when they play. I cant even tell you what ads played 3min after they aired. Even with online ad driven streaming that often plays the same ads every segment I can barely remember something about an emu selling car insurance. Not that that helps sine I like my home/auto insurance. The only kind of ads that get my attention a

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by whitroth ( 9367 )

            What you forgot is back then, there were, by regulation, no more than about 7? 5? min of advertising per hour.

            Yes, kiddies, this is the fact.

            Now? The last time I tried to record an hour tv show - and that was maybe 15 years ago, there were 22 min of ads.

            Meanwhile, I'm so old, I remember when cable companies were telling you to buy cable, and you'd never have to watch ads agaijn.

            • The first time I ever tracked commercial times was when I was downloading captured episodes on usenet in multipart RAR to burn to VCDs. A 1hr show (like babylon 5) had 43min of actual content. That put ads around 17min of every hour. Recently I went back to some old shows from the 60s/70s after Betty White died. Hot in Cleveland had an epside with Carol Burnette, which started yet another rabbit hole of watching Carols old show. They were 23min for a half hour episode, putting the ad space at 7min for the h

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by jmccue ( 834797 )
      True, to me it looks like a fund raiser for the upcoming mid-terms. ie: get more $ from the corporate lobby.
      • It could be more. It could be a tool to draw those who will most vehemently oppose this bill (Republicans) out into the open and exposed to public scrutiny. Just in time for mid-term elections. But our so called leaders would never be that sneaky, would they?
        • Dude, nobody is vehemently opposed to eliminating targeted ads. The only disagreement you will find is the best method to end them. Targeted ads are used by extremists of every political spectrum in order to sell conspiracy theories which then sell more ads. Its pouring gasoline on a smoldering brush fire. It doesnt matter if your a Qanon extremist, a BLM extremist, or a Antifa extemist, the purpose is to target people to grow your ranks while selling ads that make you a rich 'influencer' IMO inf

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by whitroth ( 9367 )

            Bullshit. All the ads are wrong-wing extremists. There's no one on the left to *pay* for those ads... and they have the ethics not to.

            • Knock knock. Jim Jones called, he wants his Kool-Aid back. If you think this shit is a one-sided affair Ive got a bridge to sell you. The leader of the BLM got outed by New York Times of all publications for owning six mansions paid for by donations paying a crazy salary. Dont try to pretend like theres no money. This isnt 1993. This is not a one party problem. This is an every party problem. I just saw a statistic the other day that said something like the top 100 TickTock influencers made salaries higher

      • True, to me it looks like a fund raiser for the upcoming mid-terms. ie: get more $ from the corporate lobby.

        How will this get $ from corporations for Democrats?

        It seems to me to be the opposite: An incentive for big tech to fund Republicans.

        • It only has 3 sponsors. Thats plenty of people within both parties to get campaign contributions to ensure it never gets a floor vote. You have any idea how many bills die in comittee with more sponsors than 3? Some bills die with 50+ sponsors.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by MobyDisk ( 75490 )

      You know democracy is in bad shape if good ideas have no chance of passing.

      If you ever work in a job like that, where everyone says "This is a great idea that will save us time, money, and make us happier" and the bosses say "No" - it's time to quit and move on.

    • In the next cycle easily. Give or take. Register as a Democrat and vote in the primary election. Especially if you're in Joe Manchin or Kirsten Sinema's districts. Your vote in the primary election goes a lot further.

      Oh and show up for the general election while you're at it.

      This isn't just about differences between the parties. Give the Democrats enough votes to overcome the filibuster and enough progressives to pass legislation like this (or heck even moderates as opposed to the right wingers and D
      • Like any of that mattered. Since 2000 both parties have had control of the House, Senate, AND Whitehouse multiple times. IMO if you cant get 2/3rd majority it was probably a bad idea. There is a reason why constitutional amendments required 2/3rd majority plus 75% of the states to ratify. You cant just shoehorn everything through on a 50/50 split and then expect the EXECUTIVE branch to ram it through because the VP casts a vote thereby compromising separation of powers. If you want change, the filibuster is

        • Like any of that mattered. Since 2000 both parties have had control of the House, Senate, AND Whitehouse multiple times. IMO if you cant get 2/3rd majority it was probably a bad idea. There is a reason why constitutional amendments required 2/3rd majority plus 75% of the states to ratify. You cant just shoehorn everything through on a 50/50 split and then expect the EXECUTIVE branch to ram it through because the VP casts a vote thereby compromising separation of powers. If you want change, the filibuster is

          • The house might be mob rule but the Senate is NOT what it appears to be. Republicans trail in the senate by a tiny margin but they represent MANY less people. They represent a tyrannical minority.

            • The house might be mob rule but the Senate is NOT what it appears to be. Republicans trail in the senate by a tiny margin but they represent MANY less people. They represent a tyrannical minority.

              But remember, the senate represents STATES, not numbers of people...it was designed that way.

              And in the US, you are a citizen of your state first and a citizen of the United States second.

              If you did not have this philosophy, you'd have 2-3 of the most populous states running roughshod over the smaller states. Al

              • And in the US, you are a citizen of your state first and a citizen of the United States second.

                Oh right, that's why schoolkids in my state pledge allegiance to California, Uber Alles. I forgot all about that.

              • I might also add that this nation's government was designed to preserve power for wrinkly old white men, which is shit. Fuck that sideways. We've changed the rules many times before to respond to injustice in the system, let's do it again. 41 Senate Republicans representing 21% of the country are blocking voting rights legislation supported by nearly 70% of Americans. That makes sense to you? And if so, why do you love fascism?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by nmb3000 ( 741169 )

          IMO if you cant get 2/3rd majority it was probably a bad idea. You need to stop the bill bundlings. I shouldnt go to a floor vote on fossil fuels and have to accept some bill on abortion, gun control, unisex bathrooms, and spending to research sea turtle sexlife at the same time. THAT is the real reason why nothing passes.

          Unrelated amendments and coattail legislation are a problem, but they've been around since the beginning. The complete lack of legislative progress in the last 15 years is unrelated to that. The real cause is Mitch McConnell and "McConnelism", which can be summarized in two parts:

          "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." - McConnell, 2010

          And GOP refusal to compromise [politico.com], taking a position of strict unilateralism and stonewalling instead.

          As for the filibuster, I can take it or leave it, but in it's current state it's nothing but an obstruction mechanism. It needs to

          • If you unbundle the bills more would get passed. There a plenty of stuff everyone can agree on. Absolutely no reason to hold up progress over bundling in unpopular bills. Hell theres a chance some are SO unpopular it couldnt get 40%. When the VP has to cast a tie breaking vote it undermines the entire separation of powers in the first place. It gives the appearance of unpopularity. Sure its in the constitution, but nobody ever envisioned years of non stop 50/50 splits with the executive branch shoehorning p

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by uncqual ( 836337 )

        Register as a Democrat and vote in the primary election. Especially if you're in Joe Manchin or Kirsten Sinema's districts. Your vote in the primary election goes a lot further.

        When I read this my initial reaction was "It's legal for Republicans to do that to insure that Democrats lose their US Senate seat in West Virginia -- but it's kind of sleazy".

        Reading further I realized it was an effort to increase the power of "true" Democrats in Congress -- and, in that context, it's a ridiculous plan that would ac

    • Virtue signaling will do.

  • Exactly! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by GoTeam ( 5042081 ) on Tuesday January 18, 2022 @03:58PM (#62185637)
    It's the government's job to secretly track us, not advertisers!(?)

  • Good idea although I haven't seen the text of the legislation yet. Regardless, Republicans will fight against it regardless of whether they think it is a good idea or not because Biden must be denied any win no matter what. For them it is all about regaining power full stop.

    Although I am not sure why. We are pretty much ruled by the Republican minority anyway in this country.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Train0987 ( 1059246 )

      Oh, forgot. What Republican minority? Biden fixed that!

      https://thehill.com/blogs/blog... [thehill.com]

      I think you'll be surprised by how many R's support this and which party actually kills it...

      • Re:U.S. Politics (Score:5, Interesting)

        by NateFromMich ( 6359610 ) on Tuesday January 18, 2022 @04:16PM (#62185713)

        Oh, forgot. What Republican minority? Biden fixed that!

        https://thehill.com/blogs/blog... [thehill.com]

        I think you'll be surprised by how many R's support this and which party actually kills it...

        It seems like this bill would mostly hurt huge left wing companies that fund the Democrats.

        • Re:U.S. Politics (Score:5, Insightful)

          by youngone ( 975102 ) on Tuesday January 18, 2022 @05:29PM (#62185947)
          It is hilarious that you think there are "left wing companies".

        • Re:U.S. Politics (Score:5, Interesting)

          by gtall ( 79522 ) on Tuesday January 18, 2022 @05:52PM (#62186025)

          Companies aren't left or right wing unless you count the Evangelical nutjob companies (Chick-Fil-A, etc.) They'll fund anyone to get congressional votes. Just look at what the drug companies have done for their pet from Arizona, Sinema. Or the coal companies for their pet, Manchin. After Jan. 6, many companies honked loudly about not supporting insurrection and Republicans whitewashing Dear Leader's involvement. That didn't even last a year before they were bellying up to the bar again.

          • And politicians aren't left wing or right wing. Not in America, and not if they want money from their party for elections.

            Sure they use left/right rhetoric to shape public opinion, but none of that has anything to do with the laws they pass.

            It merely there to keep the people from comparing notes on what the elected officials are actually doing.

            And every person who falls for it is making a conscious choice to do it. Make no mistake. When anyone disagrees with the statements I just made, it is solely becau

        • What in the name of all its holy (Score:4, Insightful)

          by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Tuesday January 18, 2022 @10:39PM (#62186685)
          Makes you think any of these companies are left wing? Even ignoring Facebook's very clear right-wing bias there's no such thing as a left-wing corporation. They only care about money and that decidedly lends them to the right wing since they're going to want minimum regulation, lower corporate taxes and higher personal taxes (got to pay for those bailouts and subsidies somehow) and if they can really get it and end to minimum wage and labor law.

          You might be confusing neoliberals like the clintons with the left wing. I don't know when this silliness started that people took Fox News seriously when they called Hillary Clinton and her ilk liberals but you think folks here on this site would know better.

          • Even ignoring Facebook's very clear right-wing bias there's no such thing as a left-wing corporation.

            Excuse me???

            There isn't a single even slightly center right company in the Social Media game.

            Pretty much ALL media, shy of Fox News is firmly in the left and some FAR left of center's pockets.

            And while the Clintons will do whatever it takes for power and money, if they had their druthers, they'd leaven very much Left.

            • Dude that is stupid horse shit. Facebook has been proven to crack down harder on liberal speech AND to do more to ACTIVELY AMPLIFY conservative talking points.

            • Or consistently from right-wing pundits. Both Facebook and Twitter avoid using algorithmic methods to detect racism in an effort to protect Republican politicians from being flagged by those algorithms.

              But you're not interested in facts. You keep seeing right wingers banned and you don't see the left wingers also being banned. The reason is the right wingers are propped up by billionaires who they spread propaganda on behalf so there are a thousand times more noticeable. When YouTuber cult of Dusty got

              • Once again I've got to ask as a right winger don't you ever get tired of being lied to?

                I'm not a right winger by any stretch of the imagination.

                I only sometimes appear that way, because the left has moved SO much further left in the past few years it makes anyone traditionally just right of center to look farther right than they are.

                I've always been about the same way....fiscally a bit right, socially a bit left on many if not most things.

                A lot of live and let live and keep the govt out of my life for t

          • Well stop calling them neoliberals then, since they are not liberals.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Ksevio ( 865461 )

        Republicans won't actually vote for anything that hinders corporations, especially something that Democrats support

        • We'll see soon enough. Midterms are just 9 months away and the D's are going to be absolutely slaughtered.

          • We'll see soon enough. Midterms are just 9 months away and the D's are going to be absolutely slaughtered.

            Social media companies may hate the Republicans, but the GOP loves them as a media source. All they have to do is run pictures of those Union Pacific tracks littered with the looted remains of everyone's Amazon orders, and video of thug bands swarming mall stores.

            • All they have to do is run pictures of those Union Pacific tracks littered with the looted remains of everyone's Amazon orders, and video of thug bands swarming mall stores.

              Geez, you'd think ALL sides would be aghast at seeing that horrible mass of remains of currently tolerated criminal behavior.

              But hey, CA is a Dem state....they own this one with their policies full blown.

          • We'll see soon enough. Midterms are just 9 months away and the D's are going to be absolutely slaughtered.

            Ironically, I think the Supreme Court is going to bail out Democrats in the mid-terms. The Dobbs decision will likely come out in June, and very likely entirely overturn Roe and Casey. While it was always a theoretical threat, right up until they docketed Dobbs you had people writing articles about how even this court wouldn't touch the underlying holdings protecting abortions, at worst just nibble around the edges. The full overturn actually happening and total bans on abortion sweeping across every red st

          • Yes, but that isn't here yet. There is plenty of time for this bill to die first, making the midterms irrelevant.

    • The Republican minority rule is by design and in collusion with the Democrats. It's just a game of good cop, bad cop.
      • You guys should reform the whole thing, because it doesn't work.

        • You guys should reform the whole thing, because it doesn't work.

          Absolutely not.

          Gridlock, in general is a GOOD thing for the US.

          And if an idea isn't good enough that 2/3 can vote for it...then, it is either a BAD idea for a lot of these legislators continuance (that's who they are there to represent after all)...then it needs to be debated and amended till it is a compromise that enough fo them can get onboard with to vote for.

          We're not set up for a mob rule democracy.

          Having 2-4 more representatives in

          • We're not set up for a mob rule democracy.

            That's not your only other option.

            That goes for BOTH sides.

            Oh, wait, there's your problem. A country of more than 300 million people and you only have two political parties. How awful.

    • If it ever made it out of comittee they would bundle it with some other hot topic must vote against bill. It will never pass. There are certain topics that are a guarantee stalemate. They always bundle this shit with it just so it makes for political optics with mo chance of passing. Dont bundle a good bill with other bills related to religion, abortion, or gun control. It is an instant recipe for failure. There should be a rule against bundling bills at all. Each and every bill should get voted on individu
  • Aren't we letting perfection be the enemy of good? Not sure why targeted ads are so terrible. I normally side the Democrats, but I am not seeing the fuss here. You have 2 choices: pay monthly fees for content or watch ads. No one wants to make you content for free.

    I like video games, cameras, and woodworking, for example. I hate cars, fast food and booze. Google knows this about me.

    I also like websites that are free and the content providers make a living by selling me ads. If they can get high

    • Slashdot existed long before targeted ads and will likely exist after. We'll see a return to advertising curated by the publisher, and only highest-bid generic ads (think TV-style advertising) in ads coming from exchanges. Basically will make it nearly impossible for small companies to buy online ads (though I have no opinion on whether that's a net good or bad at this point).

    • Re:So how much are you going to pay to read /.? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by SoftwareArtist ( 1472499 ) on Tuesday January 18, 2022 @09:01PM (#62186485)

      You have 2 choices: pay monthly fees for content or watch ads. No one wants to make you content for free.

      That's got nothing to do with the bill. It doesn't ban ads, just ads that are targeted by building profiles of individual people. We had advertising long before internet tracking. Broadcast TV was supported by ads decades before the internet existed. So was broadcast radio long before TV existed.

      The surveillance industry wants you to believe you can't have ad supported services without surveillance. It's a lie.

    • You have 2 choices: pay monthly fees for content or watch ads. No one wants to make you content for free.

      I like video games, cameras, and woodworking, for example. I hate cars, fast food and booze. Google knows this about me.

      I also like websites that are free and the content providers make a living by selling me ads. If they can get higher revenue by selling me ads to my interests, like ads from Canon, Microsoft (XBox), or Rockler (which I am seeing on Slashdot right now), why do I care again?

      Yeah, I

  • So instead of *possibly* relevant ads... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mark-t ( 151149 ) <markt@ner[ ]at.com ['dfl' in gap]> on Tuesday January 18, 2022 @05:39PM (#62185991) Journal

    ... I'm going to get ads for even more things that I am entirely outside of the target demographic for.

    I might be in the minority here, but if I'm going to confronted with an advertisement, I'd rather it be something that might actually be relevant to me than something I would never have any interest in or appreciation for.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Isn't that better? Makes it easier to ignore them, and ensures that they won't leak sensitive information to others who happen to see your screen.

      In any case, ad blocking is the way to go, but it is still very helpful if there is some legal protection from the worst of it. That helps limit advertiser "innovation".

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mark-t ( 151149 )
        So instead of taking responsibility for your lack of impulse control to get things you don't actually want that much, you want legislation to do it for you?
    • Like some political action committee ad that makes false statements and get you all riled up? Then once youre riled up, youre gonna go click on more links about that subject and hear more propaganda of whatever happens to be the subject. This is designed to get you all riled up, because the longer you watch that shit, the more ads they can serve you, and the more money they make. They dont give a shit that after six hours youre ready to tear somebodys fucking head off, or storm a capitol building. I would

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mark-t ( 151149 )

        Just spitballing here, but maybe I could just take responsibility for my own choices and actions instead of blaming them on other people who might have been trying to get under my skin.

        But that's just crazy talk, right?

        • In small doses sure. But everyone has *something* that gets you riled up. It doesnt matter if its people that chew with their mouth open, say words like irregardless, spend every waking moment trying to whittle away all your civil rights, everyone has at least one if not more. These algorithms are designed to figure out what those are and make sure they target you with them. Welcome to 1984, The book. One day you turn on the news, and Omicron is going to wipe out all life on this planet. The next day it is

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by mark-t ( 151149 )

            One day you turn on the news, and Omicron is going to wipe out all life on this planet. The next day it is the savior thatÃ(TM)s going to end the pandemic forever because its going to give everybody immunity and its not so deadly. The next day Israel announces that even for booster shots cannot stop it and we are all gonna die. The next day booster shots prevent death. Every day flip-flop flip-flop

            What you are describing here is how easily some people's attention can get diverted from the facts becaus

    • No problem - allow for opting in to surveillance. Just don't make detailed surveillance of users the default.

  • This would then block the future as depicted in Minority Report.

    "Hi there! Would you like to buy another [highly personal and embarrassing item]?"

    There's a relief.

  • with loopholes to be exploited by the corporations that hired the lawyers (Senators?) in the first place. These laws are 1000s of pages long to hide the clauses that make them useless to their intended purpose, but effective at screwing over average Joes. Buyer beware.

  • How convenient, because that's how I got bombarded with ads from "Chuckie" Schumer pleading for cash.

    Ironically some would come while clicking on a Jimmy Dore video at YouTube, where I don't block ads because content providers gotta eat, as Dore loves doing his bit with impersonator Mike MacRae, who'd "call in to the show" while being Chuckie Schumer, aka "The Master of the Senate".

    I can't wait to get a Hillary Clinton or Kamala Harris ad while watching a Tulsi Gabbard video, that would be surreal enough to

  • I am all for abolishing tracking and all but I hardly ever see ads because of the adblocker I use.
    • Arent your ad blockers limited to just browsers? Do you not use your TV to watch streaming channels or YouTube? Are there even ad blockers for those social media apps? 90% of the young generation is watching that stupid ass tick-tock app all day long.

  • Changes What You See (Score:3)

    by drkshadow ( 6277460 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2022 @07:12AM (#62187349)

    This would change only what you see. All of the surveillance would still be there. They list many examples in the summary: "disinformation, discrimination, voter suppression, privacy abuses, and so many other harms".

    They're only trying to get rid of the advertising, not the surveillance. You'll still be documented and recorded, and everything about you will still be sold to the highest (any) bidder. The politicians just want to *look* like they're doing something, and hide it better.

    I'm not sure this is a net-positive.

Slashdot Top Deals

The unfacts, did we have them, are too imprecisely few to warrant our certitude.

Close