Advertising

[Commentary] On its face, the BROWSER Act seems like pro-consumer privacy legislation. But it’s actually an awful deal for Americans who’ve come to depend on free online content and services.

The BROWSER Act would disallow interest-based ads by default. In doing so, the act would erase $340 billion in advertising revenue from American websites over the next five years. That’s because the Act requires users to opt-in to interest-based advertising and studies have shown that such an opt-in regime reduces online ads’ effectiveness by 65 percent. Some might initially celebrate this change. But celebration will change to mourning when they realize the price we’ll be paying when websites lose all this ad revenue.

[Carl Szabo is senior policy counsel for NetChoice, a trade association of eCommerce businesses including AOL, Facebook, and 21st Century Fox.]

It is called ringless voice mail, the latest attempt by telemarketers and debt collectors to reach the masses. The calls are quietly deposited through a back door, directly into a voice mail box — to the surprise and (presumably) irritation of the recipient, who cannot do anything to block them. Regulators are considering whether to ban these messages.

They have been hearing from ringless voice mail providers and pro-business groups, which argue that these messages should not qualify as calls and, therefore, should be exempt from consumer protection laws that ban similar types of telephone marketing. But consumer advocates, technology experts, people who have been inundated with these calls and the lawyers representing them say such an exemption would open the floodgates. Consumers’ voice mail boxes would be clogged with automated messages, they say, making it challenging to unearth important calls, whether they are from an elderly mother’s nursing home or a child’s school.

News that Google intends to install an ad-blocker in its Chrome browser shocked the tech and publishing world in April. Now, details of how the program will work are starting to become clear. The Google ad-blocker will block all advertising on sites that have a certain number of "unacceptable ads." That includes ads that have pop-ups, auto-playing video, and "prestitial" count-down ads that delay the display of content. Google, which refers to the ad-blocker as an ad "filter," is using a list of unacceptable ad types provided by the Coalition for Better Ads, an advertising industry trade group. Google has already discussed its plans with publishers, who will get at least six months to prepare for the change coming sometime in 2018. Publishers will get a tool called "Ad Experience Reports," which "will alert them to offending ads on their sites and explain how to fix the issues."

Data, data, data. Who’s got it? Tech giants like Google and Facebook, who provide a service directly to their users, and then use that data for ad targeting. It’s why they are dominating online advertising today. Who doesn’t? A traditional media giant like Time Warner, which owns brands like HBO and CNN, but which doesn’t have a direct connection with viewers because it sells its channels through a cable provider. That, in essence, is why Time Warner has agreed to sell itself to AT&T — a company that has a direct link with consumers — Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes said.

[Commentary] The BROWSER Act would establish affirmative consent (“opt in”) requirements for the collection and use of certain data, such as location and web browsing histories. In addition, the bill would restrict companies from conditioning access to their services on whether users choose to share their data. If adopted, these policies would be a disaster for Internet users and companies. First, obtaining consent is expensive. Second, requiring companies to obtain affirmative consent would make digital services less user-friendly without increasing privacy. Third, the bill requires providers to allow users to remove their data whenever they wish. Finally, the bill prohibits service providers from refusing to provide service as a “direct or indirect consequence of the refusal of a user to waive any such privacy rights.” Congress should reject this legislation, or any similar proposal that attempts to impose opt-in requirements on the digital economy.