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& #39;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& #39;t a carve-out for these purposes, if a user opts out, the publisher& #39;s first-party data is worthless since they can& #39;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& #39;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& #39;t actually have to sell/share in order to monetize. 4/
It& #39;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& #39;s pretty muddy in my mind, but it& #39;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
@robinberjon @Chronotope @Pedigo_Chris curious for your thoughts on this and hopefully I& #39;m wrong.
