[Australia] Government to overhaul privacy laws, including opting out of advertising, a right to be forgotten, and new rules for small businesses

www.abc.net.au Opting out of targeted ads, and a 'right to be forgotten': Government agrees to sweeping privacy reforms

The government has agreed to proposals that would allow Australians to opt out of targeted advertising, require search engines to "de-index" certain information about them, and draw small businesses into Australia's privacy scheme.

cross-posted from: https://sopuli.xyz/post/4017115

Related material, not all as optimistic as the ABC news article:
Video interview with Dr Katharine Kemp.
Government response to the Privacy Act Review Report.
Govt kicks Privacy Act can down the road - Only commits to a handful of review recommendations..

Privacy @lemmy.ml

Australia

Government to overhaul privacy laws, including opting out of advertising, a right to be forgotten, and new rules for small businesses

www.abc.net.au /news/2023-09-28/government-agrees-to-sweeping-privacy-reforms/102912458

212 6

You're viewing a single thread.

35 comments

Ads should be opt in. You shouldn't have to jump through hoops to make them go the hell away.
- Not while we live in a capitalist system. Ad personalisation on the other hand...
- I think everyone would be surprised how many people would opt in.
  I installed a pihole and not being able to click on ads for 12 hours is the closest my wife has been to divorcing me.
  
  Say what ?
  Do you know what sort of ads she clicks on most often?
- And how do you propose sites pay for their hosting and staff?
  
  With any number of alternative business models.
  It's unfuriating that people actually believe ads can have some kind of positive impact by creating a revenue stream for content.
  
  And how many of those alternative business models:
  Ensure open access to content to anyone, rather than just those with enough disposable income?
  Enable support for content at a variety of different consumption patterns, including (a) niche but dedicated audience, (b) large moderately engaged audience, and (c) very large drive-by audience (i.e., audience of people who might not expect to access content from you ever again, but show up for this one particular popular thing)?
  Don't get me wrong. I'm all for the option of other revenue streams. Paywalled content has the right to exist, and I pay for some of it myself very happily. So does donation-based content like Patreon and at least some Lemmy instances (including the one I'm on). But advertising works very well, and I have never seen someone suggest an alternative that could ever come close to replacing advertising in terms of the volume and variety of content that is currently available on the Internet.
  
  You've pretty much answered your own question - the alternative model is simply no-fee, frictionless, convenient, secure, micro-payments.
  If everyone paid $0.001 to, say, read an article content producers would have a lot more revenue than they do presently. I'm truly loathe to say this as I despise everything about crypto, but this is a problem that crypto could address.
  The only reason this doesn't exist is because the advertising model is more lucrative for the corporations that built the modern web.
  
  You've pretty much answered your own question - the alternative model is simply no-fee, frictionless, convenient, secure, micro-payments.
  No, I've explained why such a system is unable to solve the problem better than advertising can. Or to be more precise, I've explained the criteria that a successful system would need to meet. Criteria no system I'm familiar with has met.
  I'm truly loathe to say this as I despise everything about crypto, but this is a problem that crypto could address.
  Crypto certainly could be used to deliver the system you propose. Such a system actually exists. The Basic Attention Token; perhaps other implementations of the same idea. I think it's a great idea in theory, but it's been around for over half a decade now and hasn't taken off. Because consumer interest isn't there; because the website interest isn't there; because it's impractical to make work in a way that actually improves user experience. It doesn't really matter what the reason is, the fact is it hasn't worked, and if you're proposing an alternative to advertising, it needs to be one that people can get on board with, and a proven failed system clearly isn't the answer, as much as I might like it to be.
  More to the point though, I worry that such a system, even with those low payments, would put an undue burden on the finances of those who can least afford it. The Internet has been an incredible democractising force, allowing people from all over the world and all walks of life to create content and share their experiences, and view that of others. To cut too many off entirely would be a great shame. And frankly I get a little uneasy even with the idea of some people being able to pay to remove ads. It would create two classes of people, those who must pay with their data, and those who can afford not to. I'm not necessarily saying it would be wrong to allow some people to pay to remove advertising fwiw, just noting that it's an uncomfortable issue that should be carefully considered, not necessarily just taken as a given.
  Also fwiw, I see no reason that it should need to be tied to crypto. Whatever software is needed to interpret that the token has been paid could just as easily ensure a centralised server has registered a microtransaction. From how you've described it I actually think I'm in principle less against crypto than you are (in the sense that I think the cast majority of its most publicised use has been as a tool for scams and grifts, but I don't believe it necessarily has to be that way, and I'm very open to the idea of legitimate uses, even if I don't yet think I've seen any), but I just don't see what advantages it would have for this purpose over centralised architecture.
  
  I think you're looking at this UN a "how can we fix things" way while my comments are more idealistic. If advertising never existed, then something like the micropsyment platform I mentioned would have coalesced to find content.
  As this are - there's probably no pathway from the current status quo to my proposed idealist utopia.
  
  Yeah that’s fair. I was being rather clumsy with my wording, and sort of doing a bit of both the pragmatic and idealistic approach, without clearly distinguishing when I was doing which. I think idealistically there’s a lot of good to be said for the micropayment system, but it’s not necessarily as much of a clear-cut good as you suggest. There are still equity issues at play as described above. There are also practical questions. Would every single site charge precisely the same amount? Would it be per page view or per user? Per page but with a cap on monthly spend per user? All this could be addressed of course, but would either create an equity issue distinct from the above-mentioned one, or would create awkward UX interactions for the user to manage their expenditure. Ads have the benefit of being both completely equitable and dead simple.
  
  You could click the link in the OP to find out
  
  The OP is talking about ad tracking. The comment I replied to suggested ads should be entirely removed.
  
  Yes, click the link and tell me how many ads you see.
  
  What, so you think all companies should be ad-free because they're funded entirely by the government? Can't possibly see how that would go wrong…
  
  It's how we run elections and generally it's the parties that receive more non-government funding that are the problem.
  
  You've completely lost the plot

35 comments