The s-word is slowly seeping into government parlance as a way to illustrate the effects of data collection as the source of revenue for digital businesses. When Rep. Anna Eshoo, a Democrat representing the Silicon Valley region, admonished the CEOs of Facebook, Google and Twitter during a March congressional hearing on disinformation, she said she planned to introduce “a bill that is going to ban this business model of surveillance advertising.” She didn’t provide any more detail on the bill and has yet to introduce it.
Leaders of 14 privacy-oriented businesses, including the companies behind web browser Vivaldi, encrypted email service ProtonMail and search engine DuckDuckGo, are joining more than 50 transatlantic civil society groups in calling for a ban on surveillance-based advertising and urging the U.S. to enact federal privacy legislation.
An international coalition of consumer protection, digital and civil rights organizations and data protection experts has added its voice to growing calls for a ban on what’s been billed as “surveillance-based advertising”.
In many circles, the targeted ads debate has moved from opt in or out to serious debate over banning ‘surveillance advertising’. Those who see a role for responsible uses of data for marketing should recognize the major efforts needed to respond to concerns.
Though Facebook does not offer advertisers categories that explicitly identify people’s health conditions, The Markup identified dozens of ads for prescription pharmaceuticals targeted at people with “interests” in topics like “bourbon,” “oxygen,” and “Diabetes mellitus awareness.”
In advance of Apple’s software update requiring apps to ask users for permission to track their behavior across other apps and websites, the Ban Surveillance Advertising coalition is launching a grassroots education and mobilization campaign urging consumers to opt out of this immoral practice.
Prosecutors allege, he bought a $15 device that converts AR-15 semiautomatic rifles into fully automatic machine guns, making the purchase through a website that advertised to Boogaloo Facebook groups and promised to donate some of its profits to the family of Duncan Lemp, who became a Boogaloo martyr after he was killed in a police raid.
For months after it banned violent extremist groups, Facebook's advertising preference system, which lets advertisers deliver targeted ads, continued to identify and categorize some people as interested in militias.
Democratic lawmakers are readying a bill to ban “surveillance advertising,” Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-California) said Thursday at a House hearing. “Your algorithms use unseemly amounts of data to keep users on your platform, because that leads to more ad revenue,” Eshoo told Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg at the hearing, “Disinformation Nation: Social Media's Role in Promoting Extremism and Disinformation.”
Thirty-eight different advocacy organizations have come together to Ban Surveillance Advertising. They argue that as long as social media platforms profit from collecting more user data—so they can use it to target ads—then they will do whatever possible to hook and keep users on their sites, amplifying “echo chambers, radicalization, and viral lies.”
When the CEOs of Facebook, Twitter, and Google testify later this week at a House hearing, a number of familiar policy reforms will be on the table. Antitrust. Section 230. Privacy legislation. A new campaign wants to add another bold idea into the mix: “Ban Surveillance Advertising.”
Ahead of another big tech vs Congress ‘grab your popcorn’ grilling session, scheduled for March 25 — when US lawmakers will once again question the CEOs of Facebook, Google and Twitter on the unlovely topic of misinformation — a coalition of organizations across the privacy, antitrust, consumer protection and civil rights spaces has called for a ban on “surveillance advertising”, further amplifying the argument that “big tech’s toxic business model is undermining democracy”.
Dozens of progressive groups said Monday they were banding together in a new coalition to counter the influence of Big Tech — and they will first aim at the targeted advertising that’s the lifeblood of Facebook and Google.
NewsGuard reported that in most cases, the advertisements were likely inadvertent, placed by algorithms on programmatic ad-buying platforms like Google’s DV360 rather than intentionally by the brands involved... NewsGuard said the data demonstrate the vast scale at which programmatic advertising supports the online misinformation ecosystem.
The lawsuit claims that Facebook knowingly overestimated its 'potential reach' metric for advertisers, largely by failing to correct for fake and duplicate accounts. The filing states that Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg acknowledged problems with the metric in 2017, and product manager Yaron Fidler proposed a fix that would correct the numbers. But the company allegedly refused to make the changes, arguing that it would produce a 'significant' impact on revenue.
Shareholders in Home Depot and the advertising giant Omnicom have filed resolutions asking the companies to investigate whether the money they spent on advertisements may have helped spread hate speech and misinformation.
‘Facebook has spent years facilitating fringe voices who use the platform to organize and amplify calls for violence,’ said TTP Director Katie Paul. ‘As if that weren't enough, Facebook's advertising microtargeting is directing domestic extremists toward weapons accessories and armor that can make their militarized efforts more effective, all while Facebook profits.’