Category: social media news

The New Global Privacy Control – Internet Wide Consumer Privacy Protection

Source: https://globalprivacycontrol.org

Today privacy is a major concern due to the stolen data debacles of Cambridge Analytica.

The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) just launched the Global Privacy Standard to help protect consumer privacy rights across the entire internet.

The ISO is an international standard-setting body made of representatives from various national standards organizations and it's headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland.

Founded in the 1920s, the ISO has 164 national members from all over the globe, as this map of voting members of the ISO depicts:



There are many precedents for why taking a more active stance on protecting user data is taking center stage now. Violating consumer privacy rights has legal and financial consequences.

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission fined Facebook a stunning $5 billion in the same week that it fined Equifax $575 million due to these companies deceiving users about their ability to control the privacy of their personal information.

If you've ever run Facebook ads targeting consumers in England you've encountered warnings and had to agree to new terms.

As discussed in my blog about the Limited Data Use policy (LDU) for advertising in California, new laws have been passed in the US and the UK govern when and how companies can use your data.

Many businesses have started integrating privacy into their unique selling propositions like search engine provider DuckDuckGo.

Facebook still has to submit quarterly certifications that the company is in compliance with the privacy program mandated by the FTC’s new 20-year settlement order.

Social media companies are under a new level of scrutiny for how they capture data from users and use it in retargeting ad campaigns.

That's not to say social media marketing is going away anytime soon.

(Check out the last blog about top tips for how to use Instagram Reels for your business).

A coalition of tech companies, activist groups and publishers, which include Mozilla, DuckDuckGo and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, are supporting a new standard to allow internet users set their privacy settings for the entire web.

The Global Privacy Control, gives users a single setting in their browsers or through browser extensions instructing every website they visit not to sell or share their data.

This privacy control is already supported by The Washington Post, The New York Times, and the Financial Times. It's also backed by Automattic, which manages the blogging sites of Tumblr and wordpress.com.


While it's going to take some time to implement on this level,Peter Dolanjski, director of product at DuckDuckGo and other supporters of the privacy control think that this may offer legal protection for consumers whose data was sold without their permission going forward.

This is because using the Global Privacy Control, under the California Consumer Privacy Act, can potentially let users send a legally binding request to website owners to not sell their data.

Additionally, the privacy control setting may also be enforceable under Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation.

The ISO backers of the standard are making plans to communicate with European privacy regulators on the exact details of how that would work, according to Dolanjski.

Back in the day, Do Not Track offered a false sense of hope to consumers that they wouldn't be tracked across the web after clicking on one ad.

Do Not Track was a browser setting that was created after the FTC's 2003 Do Not Call registry launched.

But in reality Do Not Track may help ad networks “fingerprint” a browser, a technique used by tracking systems to kill ad blockers by identifying unique characteristics in a user’s browser configuration.

The Global Privacy Standard shows more promise for consumers to have a sweeping internet-wide protection of privacy and possibly with legally enforced support.

What's never mentioned in public forums, Senate meetings with heads of big tech, and publicized discussions about consumer privacy, is the impact of these new regulations on advertising companies.

While it is important to protect consumer privacy, the power of retargeting to sell products is huge. When it's done accurately, I don't mind being retargeted with ads that match my interests.

Marketers have families too. They support their families through running successful ad campaigns.

Being a marketer or owning a company with a social media marketing team doesn't automatically equal bad business ethics or stealing data.

Not every ad campaign that's run is based off of an illicit thieving of personal data. A lot of the hostile encounters between consumers and ad companies come from a simple lack of understanding for how ads work.

If you have any doubt of that, simply look at Mark Zuckerberg explaining the internet to Congress:


It isn't widely known what cookies are, how they are used, and how you can opt out of being tracked.

Simply using an internet browser you don't log into social media with or your email with for google searches can help you filter which ads you're retargeted with.

I know many marketers whether they run Chat bot marketing firms, or social media agencies or train people how to become a marketer who have a heart of gold.

When I took a course by Amy Porterfield I was surprised at her kindness and human approach. Some of the best people I know are heart-based marketers that also want to impact the world in a positive way.

At the same time, there are plenty of 'used-car-salesmen' vibe sales people who really don't care how they affect the world and use unethical methods of getting consumer data and targeting them with ads.

Overall, I still think it's worth asking:

"How do these new regulations, and settings affect the ad industry negatively? To what extent?"

"How many people who are now forced to move online due to covid regulations are going to have trouble making their rent or paying their bills due to more restrictions on advertising?"

These are valid questions to ask when an existing industry is turned on its head due to the mistakes of major players like Facebook, for not protecting massive amounts of users' privacy.

If we look at the last presidential election in 2016, and consider the impact of the Russian hackers with fake Facebook profiles, disinformation that influenced the election results, hate mongering to destabilize America and pit people of different races against each other - it's clear there needs to be oversight here.

There needs to be assurances and triple checks on not just consumer data, but the security of social media sites with large echo chambers of influence.

One of the biggest causes of some of the negative aspects of today’s internet experience is from filter bubbles and misinformation to discrimination based on people’s behavior and perceived demographics.

Which, just to say it plainly, is social media sites' algorithms saying essentially, "Oh you seem like you're saying some racist things, here are more racists who agree with you we'll show you on the News Feed to keep you more engaged and spend a longer amount of time on our website."

The draw back of this is that people just get a confirmation bias on steroids without being exposed to equally valid opposing views on the same topic.

“It’s all traced back to the same behavioral data profiles,” says Gabriel Weinberg, CEO of DuckDuckGo.

On one hand, we definitely need to re-tool how everyday people are fed the same type of info on social media and definitely not steal data from consumers who have opted out.

On the other hand, we also would benefit from taking into account where the balance is for restrictions on advertising and keeping the industry from suffering the same sort of economic depression that hit so many businesses after covid regulations went into play.

What is your opinion about consumer privacy rights? Do you think we should also consider the ability of advertisers to make a living when creating new restrictions on running ads?

 

               .  .  .

New Solution to Facebook Ad Policy Violations

After years of working at Facebook, I understand exactly what ad copy in your funnel is triggering the automations and how to get compliant. I'm a Facebook ad policy specialist and can audit your funnel, and share what to say that Facebook wants to see instead - but just isn't telling you.

Want to book a call to talk to Facebook and get results? Get solid answers directly from the source instead of guessing, googling and playing roulette? Schedule a call with me and I can easily tell you proven reasons why the automations flag you and how to become compliant.

You'll be swapping out walking in a minefield of ad flags, to have a sure path to having your Facebook ad accounts protected from being disabled. My clients have included social media marketing agencies of Tony Robbins, Harv Eker and Dean Graziosi. I'm featured on the Queen of Facebook Mari Smith's Marketing Essentials Course.

Save energy and money - how much is it costing you to not know why Facebook is shutting you down? My calendar is here.

Tony Robbins

I get 100s of emails a week from businesses and advertisers asking for help when their facebook ad account keeps getting disabled, so my calendar gets booked fast. But if you want to get to the front, you can pre-pay for a consulting session here: Book a call

facebook ad account keeps getting disabled

If you want to skip the line before this offer ends, immediately secure an expert-level Facebook consulting call from someone at Facebook. Book a call with me now! If you're ok with waiting a bit longer, and entering the waitlist to see if you're eligible - Schedule a call or contact me via email.

Mari Smith and Trevor W Goodchild

Congress Challenges Big Tech Monopolies

Credit: AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais, Evan Vucci, Jeff Chiu, Jens Meyer


Wednesday, July 29th, the 4 companies that make up Big Tech, Amazon, Apple, Google and Facebook faced off with Congress on allegations that their business's monopolistic practices stifle competition unfairly, breaking antitrust laws.

Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, Google’s Sundar Pichai, and Apple’s Tim Cook testified (remotely) on the anti-competitive behavior of their companies.

The House Judiciary Committee began this investigation over a year ago and collected over 1.3 million documents about these business practices.

This marks the 1st time that Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, whose net worth is 181 BILLION dollars, has ever faced Congress.

PHOTO BY MICHAEL PRINCE/FORBES COLLECTION


Big Tech CEOs appeared virtually before Congress for 5 hours facing relentless criticism of their business practices. Amazon's CEO Jeff Bezos' opening statement was:

“Just like the world needs small companies, it also needs large ones,”

The Committee Chairman Rep. David Cicilline likened the CEOs to kings and said Congress wasn’t going to bow down to them.

Graeme Jennings | Credit: AP


‘Your ability to dictate terms, call the shots, upend entire sectors, inspire FEAR resemble the powers of a private government. Our founders would not bow before a king, nor should we bow before the emperors of the online economy.”

Then the lawmakers cited details on the executives emails and internal documents they’d acquired, and pressuring Big Tech CEOs to explain how they got their market dollars.

Amazon’s antitrust investigation was considered less in depth as questions asked of Google and Facebook but there were some pointed questions asked.

These included how Amazon treats and handles 3rd party sellers on its website to whether or not the company properly regulates knock offs and counterfeit products.

Credit: Bloomberg


Rep. Hank Johnson asked:

“Why isn’t Amazon responsible for keeping all counterfeit products off of its platform?”

Jeff Bezos replied:

“We do a lot to prevent counterfeiting. We have uh, a team of more than a thousand people that does this.”

Lawmakers cited a Wall Street Journal report from April this year that stated Amazon.com Inc. employees have used data about independent sellers on Amazon to develop competing products, at odds with their own stated policies.

Rep. Pramila Jayapal asked:

“Does Amazon ever access and use 3rd party seller data when making business decisions? And a yes or no will suffice sir.”

Amazon CEO Bezos replied:

“I can’t answer that question ‘yes’ or ‘no’ what I can tell you is we have a policy against using seller-specific data to aid our private label business but I can’t guarantee you that that policy hasn’t been violated.”

Which essentially means, yes, Amazon has data mined independent sellers’ data to compete against them but, will assign blame later to a scape goat. Maybe a few contract employees will get fired.

When your company gets big, it's good to remember why we do this, so humanity doesn't get lost just crunching numbers.

What do consumers in America actually feel about Big Tech’s dominance of the market?

72% of U.S. adults believe big tech companies have too much “power and influence” in politics, per a Pew Research survey conducted in June, while an Accountable Tech/GQR Research poll in July found 85% of respondents believe they have too much power in general. [Source: Forbes]

Google was playing for higher stakes because of how advanced the anti trust investigation is against them. The other 3 companies aren’t facing as serious of a monopoly charge as Google is facing.

It’s highly likely there will be a new law suit filed against Google in the coming months.

Congress asked questions relevant to their ongoing investigation against Google. One of which was how often does Google tailor search results to keep people on Google instead objective data, and info other websites provide?

Committee chairman Rep. David Cicilline asked:

“Did Google ever use its surveillance over web traffic to identify competitive threats?”

Google CEO Sundar Pichai responded:

“Congressman, just like other businesses, we try to understand trends from uh you know data we can see.We use it to improve products for our users,”

Almost the entire rest of Google’s time at the hearing was defending itself against charges that its search results don’t favor republicans.

Apple’s CEO Tim Cook didn’t get as many questions.

Most of the questions Apple got related to the App Store, and whether when a consumer is searching for apps if the search results favor apps Apple engineers over competitor apps.

Rep. Hank Johnson asked:

“Does Apple not treat all app developers equally?”

Cook replied,

“Sir we treat every developer the same. We have open uhhhh and transparent rules. It’s a rigorous process. Because we care so deeply about privacy, security and quality, we do look at every app before it goes on…”

Cook said that Apple acts fairly, pointing to the diversity of apps on the app store, as well as the benefits to consumers in having a wide selection instead of just Apple-made apps.

Facebook’s CEO Zuckerberg got many questions on misinformation and perceived political bias on the many social media companies they own.

Zuck replied:

“We do not want to become the arbiters of truth. I think that would be a bad position for us to be in.”

Speaking to the charges of monopolizing social media sectors, there were questions about social media companies Facebook has bought such as Instagram.

Ant-trust investigations into this exposed internal Facebook emails Mark Zuckerberg sent around the time of these acquisitions.



Rep. Joe Neguse said:

“Facebook also tried to buy other competitive startups…in fact you did tell one of Facebook’s senior engineers in 2012 that you can quote:

‘Likely just buy any competitive startup but it will be a while before we can buy Google.’

Do you recall writing that email?”


Facebook CEO Zuckerberg replied:

“Uh Congressman, I don’t specifically but it sounds like a joke.”


Zuckerberg pointed out that his acquisition of Instagram was approved at the time by regulators.

A key takeaway is that Congress did their research this time to actually understand more of how these Big Tech companies work and had better questions.

Top down view shows that these companies will continue to be under the microscope from both sides of the aisle.

The House antitrust subcommittee is going to release a report in the aftermath of this hearing with recommendations on changes to antitrust laws - in regards to Big Tech’s monopoly.

Federal Trade Commission investigations in the states are going to use some of the information revealed in this hearing to further their cases.

What's concerning is that if Google is filtering results from your Google searches to reveal less than the truth - this manipulates your perception of reality.

If Google search results only cater to their advertisers and things that support their platform - this is literally creating life choices for billions of people who view the same data as objective.

It wouldn't be an issue if there was a real space for other search engines to compete, but Bing is dead, Duck Duck Go is used by only a small minority and Yahoo search is a joke.

With Google being used by everybody...this is where being a monopoly causes issues:


How do you think antitrust laws should change in regards to Big Tech?

               .  .  .

Enjoyed this blog?
Signup here to get updates on new startup blogs.
Is Facebook not explaining why the disapproved an ad?
I worked at FB for years and offer FB Policy Consulting here

Available for freelance writing and guest posting on your blog: [email protected]

Trevor W. Goodchild