Facebook And Twitter Hope To Fix California's Troubled Privacy Law With...Misleading Ads?
from the you're-not-helping dept
With the federal government doing little to pass a real privacy law for the modern era, states have begun rushing into the void. That's unfortunately resulting in some state privacy laws that are a lacking in the...quality department. That's been particularly true in California, where the government recently passed the new California Consumer Privacy Act. While the law may be well intentioned, we've noted how the rushed bill has plenty of problems that need fixing if it's ever going to actually work. Murky definitions and drafting errors leave the bill a bit of a muddled mess, with the potential to even undermine other, existing laws.
While all sides of the debate have descended upon the California legislature in a bid to try and fix the bill's language, Silicon Valley lobbying giants have been busy running some highly misleading ads in a bid to try and soften the bill. Under the banner of "Keep the Internet Free," the Google, Twitter, Facebook, and Microsoft-backed Internet Association has been running ads trying to claim that the bill would result in users having to pay errant fees just to use the internet:
Here are the ads that lobbyists for FB, Google and other tech giants are running in California as they seek to rewrite the state's landmark privacy law. My latest from Sacramento: https://t.co/Jw43CUlmbu pic.twitter.com/sK95ydEEn7
— Tony Romm (@TonyRomm) September 3, 2019
"The FREE websites and apps you use every day could start costing you,” announced one such ad on Twitter.
“Using the internet shouldn’t hurt your wallet,” began another that predicted browsing the Web could someday seem like paying at the pump for gasoline."
And while California's proposal certainly has numerous problems, any claim it's going to result in the internet being turned into some kind of pay-to-play hellscape is just nonsense. Sacramento-area users who actually click on the ad are directed to a website that further tries to suggest the new bill will suddenly have users paying to access social media in much the same way they have to pay to buy gasoline:
This obviously isn't the Internet Association's first foray into misleading privacy lobbying. Silicon Valley worked hand in hand with the telecom sector early on to try and stall California's privacy law efforts, pushing ads and talking points claiming that a state-level privacy law would embolden extremists, endanger children, and litter the internet with annoying popups, none of which was actually true. This was after telecom and Silicon Valley worked hand in hand to kill some fairly modest (and far better written) FCC privacy rules back in 2017.
Granted, Silicon Valley giants have some very good reasons to oppose the California bill, given it's rushed and sloppy language could easily result in steeper additional operational costs and numerous unforseen headaches.
At the same time, it's oddly understated that these companies would much prefer it if no privacy law were passed at all, and if a bill is passed, they'd prefer it be loaded with so many loopholes as to be largely useless. Even if the bill lacked troubling language, no major company actually wants to suddenly face million/billion dollar losses due to restrictions on data monetization or behavioral ads, and the combined lobbying firepower of the telecom, tech, insurance, healthcare, and marketing industries makes passing any privacy law with teeth a steep uphill climb.
The problem in California is the bill is slated to go live (warts and all) on January 1, though actual enforcement isn't expected until at least next summer. Efforts by privacy advocates to strengthen the bill have stalled, so their focus now is simply keeping the tougher portions of the bill intact:
"After two failed bids to strengthen the 2018 law, data-privacy advocates say their goal for the year is simply to keep the Privacy Act intact.
"We’re basically looking to hold the line on everything." said Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco-based group that advocates for stronger consumer protections online. "We’re watching for gut-and-amends and the usual shenanigans on the floor."
In contrast, the tech sector's goal is to try and weaken the definitions of what's collected, how it can be shared, and who it can be sold to. And while the industry certainly has plenty of other of legitimate reasons to oppose the bill as currently written, further muddying the waters with additional layers of misleading advertising isn't likely to help their cause.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: ads, california, ccpa, lobbying, misleading ads, privacy
Companies: facebook, google, internet association
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
So, "If you don't let us do stuff you don't want, we'll start doing something you really don't want!" ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Did they learn astroturfing from AT&T?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now Karl...
Everyone keeps telling me that we only run pro-Google/Facebook stories (despite lots of our stories criticizing them), and now you run this. How are we going to keep the trolls screeching about how we only support Google and Facebook when you go and publish stories like this? Sheesh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Now Karl...
Channeling Karl: "Sorry boss, got my polar's crossed. I thought you said big tech was cruel not cool."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Now Karl...
you already said it..
(despite lots of our stories criticizing them)
And you consider this being Pro?? Without evidence of Facts, its better to STAY WITH FACTS.. we get anough BS from the TV channels. and its hard to be Fair or Balanced(FOB)..
WE could, you COULD, call them up and get Their side, then we could call up the state and get their side, which would only be the bill itself..
But how many agencies have done that already? and we HOPE others are sticking to FACTS also. Or everything is skew'd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Now Karl...
When has this ever stopped them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dont you love,,,
Lawyer speak, and how the best things to say...
"the rushed bill has plenty of problems that need fixing if it's ever going to actually work. "
Anyone here think we could do better? WHY not send in our own? To every State, then watch them edit it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How are ads spread online? Google. Is Google mentioned here? No. SHILL!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
<a href="https://www.acardonation.com/new-york-city-what-you-can-do-on-a-shoestring-budget/"&g t; new york on a shoestring budget </a> has involved five wards, each altogether different from the others, yet all associated through a coordinated transportation framework. The five wards are Brooklyn, The Bronx, Queens, Manhattan, and Staten Island.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]