Google has updated its privacy policy to allow personal information from Gmail, Google Photos, and Drive to potentially be used for targeted advertising, raising new questions about how the company handles users’ private data.

The change, which took effect on October 16, introduces a significant exception to Google’s previous promise that it would not use content from these services to personalize advertisements.

As first spotted by Android Authority, the updated policy specifically affects users who connect their personal information to Google’s AI-powered services, including Search and Gemini.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 28 points 3 hours ago* (6 children)

Targeted advertising should be illegal. Solves a lot of problems. You can pick an ad based on its location (sports.example.com can have sports ads and astrology.example.com star ads), but not based on who's viewing it. Now there's less motivation to read all your personal information.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 58 minutes ago

    Yes! Or even just any limits on targeting granularity. Like "show ads for my nail salon to all the women in a 3 mile radius" seems fine. But "show this ad to women aged 33 who have 3 cats and who have been to Kohl's twice in the last month and have watched at least 30 seconds of videos about Charlie Kirk" is just fucking insane, and they go even farther than that.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 hour ago (4 children)

    I mean yeah it’s the old way to serve ads but it’s incredibly inefficient. Even an example as broad as sports.com, ESPN+ might want to advertise but they only offer their service in the US. They don’t want to pay for impressions from users in France, so a minimum would be geo targeting based on IP.

    When you get down to medium and small business, I could have some watches to sell to sports dudes, but my campaign budget is $10,000 so I would only target men 40+ because 20 year old college football fans can’t afford the product.

    I don’t like the ad ecosystem but people generally don’t want to pay subscriptions for websites but like the publisher’s content. Publishers gotta get paid somehow.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 hour ago (1 child)

    I mean yeah it’s the old way to serve ads but it’s incredibly inefficient.

    Why do we have to make advertising efficient?

    Personally I think advertising needs a LOT more regulation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 37 minutes ago

    The entities paying for the advertising demand it. It could be untargeted but the conversion rate falls so the ROI of paying ads is less, leading to less to spend per campaign.

    Publishers can show the untargeted ads but they get paid less per impression.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 1 hour ago (1 child)

    TV and radio managed just fine for years without targeted ads. They targeted the ads based on the content. Saturday morning cartoons advertised toys and ceral. Daytime TV advertises medicare advantage plans for retirees. Country radio advertises white hoods or whatever.

    Meanwhile, subscription services without ads also made money.

    Targeted ads were never necessary. Outlaw them and the internet and media companies won't disappear.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 41 minutes ago

    TV and Radio ads are somewhat targeted because at a minimum your location is known, either within the radio tower reach or the channels you have access to and/or geolocation your TV provider has access to.

    Monday Night Football does not show the same ads in every region. Some are national and others are local, there is still some programattic at play. If you watch through a smart TV you’ll get CTV ads for sure.

  • source
  • parent