I read this, tapped my chest twice, and raised two fingers Sammy Sosa style. Thank you, European Commission (EC).
+++
The EC is a kind of legislative think take union of European countries. They think up new ideas of laws. In October 2022, the EC published a set of dos and don’ts for “gatekeepers.” They think of large digital platforms that provide search engines, app stores, and messenger services as gatekeepers.
A quick aside, I’m sincerely impressed with the simplicity of language they use to explain some pretty complex stuff. More on that one of these days.
You can’t just grab people’s data. People had to consent. Like explicitly. Meta had to say we want your data and the person needs to say, “Um, sure. You’re not giving me anything for it. But you seem like good folk and you asked nicely, so here you go.”
Show of hands, how many of you would explicitly hand over your data? Yeah, that’s what Meta thought would happen. The spigot to their lifeblood was going to get stuck in the locked and upright position.
The law known as the Digital Marketers Act went into effect this March. And, seconds later, Meta the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp set out to circumvent it.
An army of smart lawyers thought up an ask that went something like this… You can either: (a) give us your data; or (b) start paying to use Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp. Apparently, the Commission found “pay or consent” a little more blackmaily than they would have liked.
So, the EC did was commissions do. They insisted that Meta allow users to use their services for free AND not hand over their data. Then, they took two more steps. One, Meta couldn’t offer opt-outers a lesser service. Two, Meta could face a £10 billion fine.
Blah blah blah… like the new California news law, the regulators go to great lengths to only tar and feather Google and Meta. Other outlets that do the same things don’t get whacked because people don’t hate the networks of news sites or the likes of ESPN… blah blah blah
Tech and media analyst, Benedict Evans, took this to a rarified corner of the extremescape.
“How,” he asked, “can Meta offer me the same service when they don’t know who am I?” Hmmm. I see where you’re going here Benedict.
“The ads,” he said, “won’t be relevant. I’d see irrelevant ads.” Which he believes would make my experience worse. It follows for this logic that Meta can’t possibly offer me the same experience because he believes… I value targeted ads.
Wait. What? Forget that Facebook’s algorithms can’t work anywhere near as well without data that tells it who I am. That it can’t find me pictures of cats hazing cheezburgers or memes about people spewing random strings of phrases. The thing that will diminish Facebook for me is seeing ads I don’t care about.
He takes the position that EC law forces Facebook to show me irrelevant ads which is a worse service. Ergo, Catch-22.
Nope. I don’t buy it. Let’s look at it this way. Say I have diabetes and the ad choices are relevant ad for gym equipment or an irrelevant or worse ad for Coke. Neither would make MY experience on the social platform better – or worse. They’re both awful. Because they’re ads. Ads diminish my experience on all platforms. It’s not a function of ad relevance. All ads make all my experiences worse.
I could ask 100 people and I believe 93 would feel the same way. See. Here, data and relevance won't make this point a better experience.
He said I want to ban ads.
Honestly, I don’t care enough about ads to want to ban them. I see them as a necessary evil.
Today’s ads are sitting in a rocking chair crocheting in an old age home. A decades-old idea, long passed its prime, built on top of a visual internet.
The eyeball economy that began in the late 90s is played out. As Google’s search gives way to OpenAI’s ‘splaining summaries and Facebook feeds give way to chatting with characters in Character AI, a new ad system will emerge. It will be conversational and unique.
Yes, it will still require data. But, no, it doesn’t have to be visual. I don’t need to see banner ads. Which doesn’t bother me. Because I don’t care about banner ads. I care even less about more annoying video ads.
Relevance will come from a service that knows who I am because it talks to me. Engages me – in a real way – not for liking pictures or sharing videos.
The quid pro quo won’t be “consent or pay” it will be “consent or I can’t talk to you” and, when I consent, I’m going to get subtly nudged in all sorts of directions.
I’m not saying it’s better. In fact, it’s probably worse. And a whole lot scarier. But it’s compliant with the EC. Hey, yeah, maybe I do want to ban ads.
I thought the story was about experiences. Benedict thought it was about ads. Here’s the kicker, we glossed over the real story. The £10 billion fine. That’s about $12B. That’s based on 10% of global revenues.
In the last twelve months, Meta had revenues of $142B. 23% of that came from Europe. They showed a net income (before taxes) of $45.76B. If 23% of that came from Europe, the fine would be equal to all of Meta’s profit in Europe. And, that’s based on selling premium relevant data-infused ads.
Forget experiences and ads. Why would Meta do business in Europe? It may cost them more than they make.