That ad you see on your screen trying to entice you to click it? In the milliseconds prior to that showing, tech and advertising companies play a lightning-fast commercial game in which they try to match exactly the right ad to the right interest profile. They could go about their business for years, resulting in profiteering.
But the sentiment has changed. A company like Meta, as Facebook’s parent company is now called, has already lost a lot of money as a result of a major change in privacy policy by tech rival Apple. Since last year, iPhone owners have been asked whether they are fine with advertising parties wanting to track their online behavior via apps. No, of course: the vast majority of consumers click ‘no’.
Meta, which grew up collecting consumer data in order to subsequently deliver detailed profiles to advertising companies, suffers from this. Suddenly that big bin with data is a lot less full. Last month, Meta announced how extensive the damage is expected to be this year: no less than 10 billion dollars in lost sales† That is huge, even for a company like Meta. But it could be worse.
After all, the world of mobile phones does not consist of one, but of two parties that make up the service when it comes to operating systems. In addition to Apple’s iOS, that is Android from Google. And this same Google had more potentially disastrous news for Mark Zuckerberg’s company a few weeks after Meta’s doom: Android is also becoming privacy-friendly.
‘Privacy sandbox’
Google will provide Android with a so-called ‘privacy sandbox† This term and the idea behind it are not new; previously, Google came up with the same thing for its Chrome browser. The idea is that users will no longer be tracked at a granular level for advertising purposes. Yes, there are still personal ads, but without all kinds of personal usage data leaking out.
Of course, this will not happen by simply serving up random advertisements in the future (Google speaks of a multi-year plan). The interests of the advertising industry are far too great for that. With Google leading the way, by the way, which last year generated more than 190 billion euros in advertising trade. It is not without reason that the tech giant constantly tries to emphasize both interests: privacy for the user and a healthy online advertising system in which it is still lucrative to keep free apps and sites up and running.
But how do you combine that? Lotje Beek, policy advisor to civil rights organization Bits of Freedom, has a bit of a laugh at Google’s roaring announcement: ‘Personalized advertising is by definition not privacy-friendly. That claim alone is funny. If a company like Google, which has data sales as its revenue model, announces that something is data-friendly, all alarm bells go off for me anyway.’
Beek emphasizes that few details are known and that it will take at least two years before that privacy sandbox comes into effect, but: ‘Based on what we know now, it is mainly a matter of replacing one technology to display personal advertisements. deliver by the other.’ The fact that the advertiser no longer receives the usage data from visitors in the new model does not matter so much: ‘It mainly strengthens Google’s dominant position. The result for consumers is that they are still being manipulated by offering them tailor-made advertisements.’
‘There is still a lot of information missing’
Frederik Zuiderveen Borgesius, professor of ICT and law at Radboud University, also takes the promises with a large grain of salt. ‘The first tests are not until next year; there is still a lot of information missing.’ In theory, according to Zuiderveen Borgesius, it is possible to deliver personalized advertisements without personal data from users ending up with advertisers or even with Google: ‘In a nutshell: Google then sends large numbers of advertisements to the consumer’s mobile phone, after which the device receives the correct information. ad based on owner behavior. This consumer behavior is then only stored on the mobile and not on Google’s own computers.’ One then gets an ad for hockey sticks, another pie recipes and a third an address for Viagra pills.
It will be a challenge to build such a system, Zuiderveen Borgesius suspects. After all, advertisers will want to know how often their advertisements have been shown, so one way or another, that kind of information will have to leave the mobile again.
Even if Google succeeds in building such a system, it will not solve all the problems associated with personalized advertisements, warns the professor. “The more filter-bubble-like problems associated with personal ads just persist.”
According to him, Google’s announcement cannot be seen in isolation from Apple’s recent efforts to curtail user tracking via their mobile phones and from public and political pressure on Big Tech to satisfy the data hunger. Meanwhile, the advertising industry fears that Google will only become more powerful with the announced measures. Unlike Facebook, for example, Google can also obtain a lot of information about its users via its Android operating system.
Zuiderveen Borgesius sees another problem: ‘Apple mainly earns its money by selling products, not with advertisements, such as Google. And as a result, it can afford to make stricter privacy choices. But iPhones are not available to everyone. It’s a shame that only wealthy consumers can buy privacy-friendly stuff.’
New laws
But as far as he’s concerned, it’s not just cynicism that counts: ‘For years it was impossible to have a discussion about a ban on personalized advertisements. Now it’s all of a sudden salonfähig.’ Not only is advertising juggernaut Google going on the privacy tour, targeted advertisements are also high on the agenda for politicians. Europe is finalizing a number of new laws, including the Digital Services Act. This also covers advertisements. It will not come to a total ban of personalized advertisements, but many politicians in Brussels do want to restrict them.
Perhaps by mandating a pop-up screen, much like Apple already does: “Do you want custom ads?” Lotje Beek calls this the best option after a total ban: ‘Almost no one will click ‘yes’. Why would you?’