Twitter’s Big Ad Plan: Violate FTC Consent Decree, California Privacy Law & EU Privacy Laws To Force Users To Hand Over Info For Ad Targeting

from the trashing-your-privacy-for-profit dept

The good folks over at Platformer broke the news that Twitter is experimenting with Elon’s desperate attempt to make money: forcing people to “opt-in” to share personal info so they can better target ads. And, yes, there’s a contradiction between “force” and “opt-in.”

As everyone already knows, Elon is desperate for revenue, seeing as he took on $13 billion in debt and has massive interest payments to make. Yet his own actions have caused many advertisers to abandon the platform, likely driving him further into a hole. And, so far, his only big product idea has been the disastrous rollout of the new Twitter Blue program, for which he’s charging $8/month ($11 if you buy via iOS to cover Apple’s vig), whose main selling point is that you get a blue checkmark… causing people to mock you for “paying for Twitter.”

One of the other big selling points is “half the ads.” Which… first of all, it’s not at all clear how they would measure this. Many people are asking for no ads at all, and Musk has said that maybe in the future they’ll offer a higher tier with no ads. But it’s tricky. Because, at least in the US, the company was making in the range of $10 – $14/month per user on advertising. So, if you get them to pay $8 (minus transaction fees) and you take out half the ads, then you might actually be decreasing rather than increasing actual revenue.

That takes us to the new report from Platformer, which makes it clear that Elon’s Twitter is trying to figure out how to increase the amount of money they make per ad, and wants to do that with better targeting of those ads. Of course, right now, that’s… trickier than it might have been at any time in the past. Between EU data protection laws, California’s privacy laws, and other crackdowns on tracking (such as Apple completely kneecapping Meta’s access to private info for ad tracking) it seems that traditionally targeted ads are on the way out.

It appears that Musk’s solution to this is to force people to cough up their private info.

Twitter’s solution: require users to opt in to personalized ads and share their location information, or risk losing access to the service. The company is developing plans to prompt existing users to opt in to personalized ads and will make it the default for new users, according to plans shared with Platformer.

Once users have agreed, they won’t ever be able to opt out, sources said.

So… that seems like the kind of thing that EU and California privacy law enforcers are not going to like. It also seems like the kind of thing that users aren’t going to like and may drive even more away from the service. Remember how AT&T once tried to charge users for privacy? That doesn’t fly any more. If you don’t have a clear need for this info, you don’t get to force users to hand over the data. And I don’t think “helping the world’s second richest man have less regret for his stupidly impulsive purchase” qualifies as a need.

And there’s more. According to Platformer, Twitter is also planning on using phone numbers that people provided for two factor authentication for marketing purposes.

The company is also considering forcing users to share their location, let Twitter share their data with its business partners, and use contact data phone numbers used in two-factor authentication for ad targeting purposes.

Except, um, as we’ve been saying, it was just back in May of this year that Twitter was fined $150 million by the FTC for… doing exactly this. And using 2FA phone numbers for marketing was a big part of the FTC’s $5 billion fine against Meta. We already wondered if Twitter folks remembered the consent decree that it had with the FTC, but it’s worth noting that the company signed that new consent decree in May specifically around this kind of thing, and I don’t think the FTC will look too kindly on Twitter turning around and doing the same thing after forcing people to “opt-in.”

According to the new consent decree, Twitter has to provide multi-factor authentication tools that do not require providing a phone number. It sounds like Musk’s plans go against that. There is also a big long list of requirements for launching any new program like this to avoid the data being misused, and I don’t see how Twitter is going to make that work, when the whole point of this seems to be to abuse this data.

And none of that is even getting to how this almost certainly violates California’s new privacy laws, which put limits on the purpose for which an internet company collects private information from users.

Perhaps Musk thinks Twitter can just ignore all the laws and somehow push through, but that seems like a pretty big task. And while I’m sure plenty of users won’t realize that the company is demanding they hand over their private info and just click “okay” and move forward, it seems that at least a decent segment of the more informed populace will opt-out the only way they can: by no longer using Twitter.

Filed Under: , , , , , ,
Companies: twitter

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Twitter’s Big Ad Plan: Violate FTC Consent Decree, California Privacy Law & EU Privacy Laws To Force Users To Hand Over Info For Ad Targeting”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
62 Comments

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

sabroni says:

Re: Re: yeah, not really

that is the location that the phone network uses to keep you tied to a mast, but your phone doesn’t normally have access to that location info, you need to call an api on the network providers end to get a location from the cell towers.
The browser in your phone uses a location api that the phone provides. The phone uses gps (possibly augmented with an external map of wifi hotspot positions) to decide where it is and that’s what could be spoofed.
Essentially Twitter ask your device to tell them where it is. They could use a cell to check that but it’s a completely separate process and your phone wouldn’t provide that directly.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

jt says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Yeah they do!

Most phones do indeed contain GPS receivers… “they” being law enforcement, use triangulation because THEY don’t have access to your phone, and because cell phone service providers don’t get access to your GPS data, but they do have access to the towers your phone has attempted to connect to. That is why they use Triangulation.

Dianne Hackborn (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Basically every phone has GPS. If you can do maps navigation with it, it has GPS.

Location services on phones these days are however very complicated, using a fusion of data beyond GPS: cell towers, WIFI access points, etc. When apps use the platform’s APIs, it will use a mix of these to provide location with the best power and accuracy trade-off it can do.

Also in some cases some of these can be more accurate than GPS, in particular when you are in a building and can’t get a good GPS fix.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

“So, if you get them to pay $8 (minus transaction fees) and you take out half the ads, then you might actually be decreasing rather than increasing actual revenue.”

Galaxy Brain: Double the ad load.

And no offense but I think the wording that they could share any data you gave them with “partners” existed before Elmo, which was another reason if I had a cell number I wouldn’t have ever given it to Twitter.

Because making people cough up a phone number not for 2FA but to be given the chance to delete and offending tweet means they didn’t violate any agreements.

Antone Johnson (profile) says:

Re:

Nah, the option to share with “partners” is there — as an option.

Settings -> Privacy and safety -> Data sharing with business partners -> Allow additional information sharing with business partners

I have it unchecked. Sounds like QElon wants to make it mandatory, which would probably require amending the Privacy Policy (giving notice to users) and violate various laws, but Mike already covered that.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

You hate Musk because he supports free speech and you don't.

Every Twitter files release proves you were more and more wrong. Your continued attempts to gaslight on the subject don’t change any of these facts.

Yes, they were shadow-banning. (no it doesn’t matter if they call it “visibility filtering” and redfine “shadowbanning” as something else, they don’t control the definition)

Yes, they shadow banning based upon politics and nothing else. Yes, in theory it’s legal but that doesn’t make it right.

Yes, it IS a first amendment violation if the government directs that, and there is lots and lots of evidence suggesting that happened. (and actual Direct evidence might well have been deleted by Jim Baker, who fundamentally is a government agent)

They knew Trump hadn’t violated any TOS, decided to and made up a justification to ban him anyway.

No, this isn’t anything like Russiagate, it’s basically the direct inverse.

No, censorship is not freespeech.

If you are too much of a coward to write an apology just never write about twitter again, you fraud.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

I have had to mark your comment “funny”, because it is so mistaken.

they don’t control the definition [of shadowbanning]

… but you do, somehow? Mind, Dorsey testified to congress about what they did, and what they did not do.

That you label it as “shadowbanning” and then say he lied about it to congress lacks all credibility based on public data.

Yes, they shadow banning based upon politics and nothing else.

How is it, then, that the bias is in favor of “the right wing” and against misinformaion? Please, cite your sources.

Yes, it IS a first amendment violation if the government directs [censorship]…

True

and there is lots and lots of evidence suggesting that happened.

… and false. Or, false in the sense that if you look at that evidence with a critical eye, you see it as not suggestive. If you look at it with the eye of a fanboi, you come to a different conclusion based solely upon your priors. Please see also the Techdirt podcast on the “Twitter Files”.

No, censorship is not freespeech.

Since you’re determined to make up your own vocabulary, I expect the argument that “governments censor; social media platforms moderate” falls on deaf ears. So let’s use your vocabulary, and see if “freespeech” is honored by the new twitter administration, shall we? Hmm… not so great.

So…asking for an apology? For what? Reporting accurately? Embarassing the Twitter Führer? Please feel free to present your evidence in a believable fashion.

But thanks for the amusement in the mean time.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re:

….except they don’t. The word is slang that was invented by users ABOUT twitter and other social media networks (but mnostly Twitter).

That’s exactly it, he perjured himself. You don’t get to invent your own definition that is different than everyone else’s definition, you’re still lying.

This is definition when searched on google: https://www.google.com/search?q=shadowbanning+meaning&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS889US889&oq=shadowbanning+&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0i512l6j69i60.5399j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

If you’re going to correct someone, first, be right.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Bergman (profile) says:

Re:

Everything you just said is at least half wrong, most is misleadingly phrased and/or betrays your lack of understanding of what you are talking about. Just about all of it has already been debunked multiple times on this very site.

1a) Musk doesn’t support free speech anymore. He used to claim to, often still does claim it, but he has been proven to be lying about supporting free speech at least when it comes to Twitter. Just look at his policies on parody and the ElonJet account.

1b) Opposing a hypocrite who lies about his support for freedom of speech is not opposing free speech, nor is laughing at the guy for shooting himself in the foot with a machine gun repeatedly.

2) The Twitter files are the act of gaslighting here, as the spin being placed on the reporting of them is highly misleading – they present even the most innocent actions as nefarious, twist facts to look bad, etc. Twitter has been very open about ahadow-banning, or at least they were pre-Musk. The fact such things exist isn’t secret, Twitter actually held a press conference explaining exactly how their visibility rating system worked and exactly what it did. The fact your preferred media outlet didn’t cover it fairly doesn’t mean it never happened. Musk himself has used that tool against Twitter accounts he disliked for them exercising free speech rights in ways that weren’t to his personal advantage – of using it is anti-free speech, then Musk is anti-free speech.

3) Twitter wasn’t shadow-banning based on politics, unless you consider defamation and threats of violence that both cross the threshold to where they can result in civil or even criminal penalties to be politics – and if those ARE protected politics, you have no grounds to complain about things like BLM protesters rioting without becoming a hypocrite.

4) You are closest to being right in your parade of wrongness, when you say the government cannot direct Twitter to censor protected speech, but close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. There are categories of speech the first amendment does not protect and never has – immediate credible threats of violence, inciting others to actually go out and commit violence and libel/slander are three excellent examples of things Twitter has censored people for WITHOUT violating the first amendment even if the government told them to do it.

5) Trump violates TOS on most sites regularly, since most social media writes those aforementioned exceptions to the first amendment into their TOS for civil liability reasons, even if they don’t ban toxic people for being toxic.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re:

Almost all of that is (very warped) opinion but the only two facts you asserted completely wrong.

3) They shadowbanned, based on politics, it’s there in black and white. There is actual definitive proof of that. Why would you even claim that they didn’t?

4) Actually, no, it’s basically just credible imminent threats. “inciting violence” isn’t really a speech issue, it’s being involved in the resulting violence. But why bring that up? Trump didn’t incite any violence and the Twitter employees even admit that and choose to ban him anyway.

Libel/slander isn’t even illegal, it’s just something that you can get civil redress for.

5) Didn’t even make sense, what the fuck are smoking?

It is common to see a lot ignorance from someone looking to “correct” someone on the internet but damn, that was some wild shit.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Per wikipedia and about 30 seconds of searching

“Criminal libel is rarely prosecuted but exists on the books in many states,”

You done goofed.

“It is common to see a lot ignorance from someone looking to “correct” someone on the internet but damn, that was some wild shit.”

Why is it always always projection with you people?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
JMT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

They shadowbanned, based on politics, it’s there in black and white. There is actual definitive proof of that.

Please do share the actual words that you think are actual definitive proof of that. Because there are very few serious people making that claim.

Trump didn’t incite any violence…

Just a “normal tourist visit” right?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Btw, flagging

Have you noticed that anything disagreeing with you or from a conservative viewpoint gets “flagged” and hidden within only a few minutes, even if there’s nothing offensive in there? Meanwhile the guy going around calling people terrorists for disagreeing, nothing, his comments are always fully visible.

It’s almost like a twitter mob in miniature. That’s some nice free speech you have there.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

You are not disagreeing, terrorist.

There’s at least one conservative that isn’t flagged despite being a conservative.

You, however, are throwing insults and harassing Mike because he dared to criticize your beliefs and your idol Elon Musk.

And I refuse to call you guys trolls because I am not gonna associate myself with people who harass, gaslight and/or otherwise try to silence actual speech.

And guess what? You probably ARE a white supremacist anyway. Who are actual fucking terrorists and a threat to America. Taking straight from the FBI there.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

I’ll wear that insult from you with pride.

And if you haven’t noticed, terrorist

You, however, are throwing insults and harassing Mike because he dared to criticize your beliefs and your idol Elon Musk. And I refuse to call you guys trolls because I am not gonna associate myself with people who harass, gaslight and/or otherwise try to silence actual speech.

Calling you a troll would imply you have a sense of humor and that you know when to stop and leave.

You and your ilk don’t fucking have either. And it’s a safe bet you also are like Elon, ie, a white supremacist, ie, an active and credible threat to America according to the FBI.

I only bust this out for the usual assholes and not conservatives in general, who, despite having dumb opinions at times, tend to, you know, not harass, gaslight and/or otherwise try to silence actual speech.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re:

Have you noticed that anything disagreeing with you or from a conservative viewpoint gets “flagged” and hidden within only a few minutes, even if there’s nothing offensive in there?

Have you noticed that you expect your posts, full of factual inaccuracies and bad faith arguments as they are, to be taken seriously?

You’re not getting flagged because you’re a conservative. You’re getting flagged because all you post is bullshit.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re:

You’re not getting flagged because you’re a conservative. You’re getting flagged because all you post is bullshit.

I can see where the confusion could be coming from though as these days conservative(in the US at least) seems to mean ‘asshole in one form or another, whether bigoted and/or otherwise toxic’, and under that definition flagging someone for posting bullshit is flagging them for being ‘conservative’.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Kaleberg says:

Musk's history

Musk has a long history of criminal behavior. It’s no surprise that he hopes that ignoring laws about user privacy and paying one’s rent only apply to the little people. Like many criminals, he respects strength. One never hears a whimper when the CCP grinds its boot on him in China. This is no time to go soft on crime.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re:

What a strange and minor detail to focus on in an attempt to undermine the rest of the article without having to actually do that.

That line was based upon another article(hence the blue text), if you’ve got a problem with it take it up with them, and if you’re got a problem with this article maybe deal with what’s in it directly.

Rocky says:

Re: Re:

And the reality is that part of the financing of buying Twitter is a bunch of unsecured debt to the tune of $3 billion with an interest rate of 11.75%. The bank group who helped Musk finance the deal are now looking at replacing those unsecured debts with margin loans instead.

The specifics aren’t really important (unsecured debts vs margin loans) except for the fact that Musk & Twitter have very high interest rates on some parts of the financing.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...