Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by mrpg on Tuesday June 26 2018, @02:12AM   Printer-friendly
from the much-ado-about-nothing dept.

A month after the enforcement date of the General Data Protection Regulation – a law that businesses had two years to prepare for – many websites are still locking out users in the European Union as a method of compliance.

[...] Another retailer that failed to get its house in order is posh homeware store Pottery Barn, whose notice says that "due to technical challenges caused by new regulations in Europe" it can't accept orders from the EU.

"The pace of global regulations is hard to predict," the shop complains about the legislation, which was adopted on 14 April 2016. "But we have the ultimate goal of being able to offer our products everywhere."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Pino P on Tuesday June 26 2018, @01:31PM (4 children)

    by Pino P (4721) on Tuesday June 26 2018, @01:31PM (#698738) Journal

    The sites will see traffic decline in favor of sites that don't use cookies and don't have to deliver the click-through message.

    Without tracking (say) which ads have already been shown to a particular viewer, how might these sites find enough revenue to pay their writers and hosting? Other than ads, the only other options I can think of to fund a site are A. sites start putting up paywalls (which require a cookie upon login) or B. sites dramatically scale back their scope so as to be run as a hobby instead of as a business. Which fourth option did I fail to imagine?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by Aiwendil on Tuesday June 26 2018, @04:52PM (3 children)

    by Aiwendil (531) on Tuesday June 26 2018, @04:52PM (#698844) Journal

    Crowdsourcing and similar donations.
    Also there is an argument for sponsored content/product placement (kinda like how lots of sport teams function)

    And quite frankly, a lot of the sites online that are ad-financed could do with a bit of culling - if the site has more ads than content it usually would improve the web quite a bit if it went away (if nothing else to concentrate revenue on the sites that has a better ratio of signal:noise)

    • (Score: 2) by Pino P on Tuesday June 26 2018, @05:39PM (2 children)

      by Pino P (4721) on Tuesday June 26 2018, @05:39PM (#698865) Journal

      (For the avoidance of doubt, a "publisher" includes a person or organization operating a website.)

      Crowdsourcing and similar donations.

      What should the backup plan for a publisher be if and when "Crowdsourcing and similar donations" cease to suffice? Cessation of operations?

      Also there is an argument for sponsored content/product placement (kinda like how lots of sport teams function)

      If a site uses sponsored content and/or product placement, what steps should a publisher take to ensure that advertisers do not exert undue influence on a site's editorial policy through strings attached to sponsorship?

      And quite frankly, a lot of the sites online that are ad-financed could do with a bit of culling

      I don't see how that could be practical. A switch from interest-based ads to non-interest-based ads would increase the number of ads that a site has to carry because advertisers pay publishers substantially more for interest-based ads than for non-interest-based ads.

      • (Score: 2) by Aiwendil on Tuesday June 26 2018, @06:13PM (1 child)

        by Aiwendil (531) on Tuesday June 26 2018, @06:13PM (#698883) Journal

        What should the backup plan for a publisher be if and when "Crowdsourcing and similar donations" cease to suffice? Cessation of operations?

        It used to be that cessation of operations was what they did when publications didn't sell - don't really see why the web should be the exception.

        If a site uses sponsored content and/or product placement, what steps should a publisher take to ensure that advertisers do not exert undue influence on a site's editorial policy through strings attached to sponsorship?

        The same as that the owner doesn't - which is very close to nothing. (Quite frankly - today it is somewhat similar, if you make your ad-provider mad enough at you they you end up in roughly the same situation, so they do already exert a high degree of influence on the content)

        I don't see how that could be practical. A switch from interest-based ads to non-interest-based ads would increase the number of ads that a site has to carry because advertisers pay publishers substantially more for interest-based ads than for non-interest-based ads.

        Considering that the interest-based ads are about as good as just tailoring the ads towards what is being served in terms of content of a site that should correct itself sooner or later anyway (ie, it will align in terms of what they pay).
        And no, the sites wouldn't have to carry more, rather the less efficient sites will disappear first, and the more efficient sites would provide more content per ad.

        • (Score: 2) by Pino P on Wednesday July 25 2018, @05:50PM

          by Pino P (4721) on Wednesday July 25 2018, @05:50PM (#712520) Journal

          interest-based ads are about as good as just tailoring the ads towards what is being served in terms of content of a site

          I'd like to see some reliable source that backs up this claim.