After yesterday’s announcement of the potential ban on ‘Surveillance Advertising,’ there was certain to be response.
And sure enough, both Google and the IAB had opinions on why this is a terrible idea.
But I guess my biggest problem with this all out ‘gloves off’ approach to throwing the first punch – introducing the bill under the premise of seemingly political platitudes…
“Disinformation, discrimination, voter suppression, privacy abuses,” were cited by California Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, the lead sponsor of the bill, as the reasoning behind the bill.
“The hoarding of people’s personal data not only abuses privacy, but also drives the spread of misinformation, domestic extremism, racial division, and violence,” Booker stated.
And the somewhat over the top defense of why this is a terrible idea, “
The bill would lower the quality of search results and reduce the accuracy of ad targeting. In a blog post, Google said the bill, if passed, would prevent the ability to serve up directions from Google Maps in search results; provide answers to urgent questions; prohibited from highlighting information gathered about hours of operation, contact information, and reviews.
The bill would also hurt small businesses and local retailers, as well as companies using Gmail, Calendar, and Docs if not allowed to integrate or work together — and customers.”
I feel like what needs to happen is that both sides actually understand what each other is saying, the people who report on these topics need to have this understanding too. And there needs to be smart, helpful conversations about these important topics. Just sayin’
