Read on Twitter
Am reading CA Prop 24 in more detail and the opt-out provisions seem like they are a disaster for open web publishers. There is no carve-out for service providers, so if a user opts outs of data sale/sharing, the publisher can't do any targeting at all. 1/
For a publisher to collect and use "first-party data" about a user, they have to use third parties. A DMP, an ad server, exchanges, etc. The exchanges will then pass this data to DSPs and other companies. Those are all third parties/service providers... 2/
and since there isn't a carve-out for these purposes, if a user opts out, the publisher's first-party data is worthless since they can't activate it. This applies to any emails/identifiers the publisher collected, as well as any data the publisher could discern... 3/
about the user from their activity on the property, etc. It's all worthless. Walled gardens have no problem here as they can activate the user data entirely within their own corporate walls and therefore don't actually have to sell/share in order to monetize. 4/
It's even questionable if contextual targeting is allowed - if a user happens to be looking at a review of an office chair, is that personal information? Can that be used for targeting an opted-out user? That's pretty muddy in my mind, but it's hard to see the difference... 5/
between "office chair intender" first-party data (that cannot be used for an opted-out user) and "looking at office chair review content" first-party contextual data. Can a publisher even use the site they are on for targeting? Or is that user data and therefore off-limits? 6/
This all seems awful for publishers. Am I missing something? Or have the backers behind this proposition totally missed this use case? 7/7
