Darshan
Hey everyone, welcome to the DarshanTalks podcast. I'm your host Darshan Kulkarni. It's my mission to help patients trust the products they depend on. As you may know, I'm an attorney. I'm a pharmacist, I advise companies with FDA regulated products. So if you ever think about drugs, you ever wonder about medical devices, you consider cannabis or obsess over pharmacy. This is a podcast for you. I do these podcasts because there are a lot of fun. And I find myself talking to really smart people like today's guest. And I find myself learning something new each time. So it wouldn't be nice. However, if I knew that someone else was listening. If you like what you hear, please like, leave a comment, please subscribe, you can find me and reach out to me on DarshanTalks on Twitter, or just go to our website at DarshanTalks calm. Our guest today, our podcast today, our podcast is gonna be amazing. We are actually going to end up talking with Well, we're going to talk about privacy, we're going to talk about AD tech, which is a term that I've heard before, but it's one of those things that it's so industry specifics, I'm excited to actually see how that word is starting to shape what we're going to talk about, which is the public policy around advertising about technology around it, and specifically around privacy today. So I'm really excited to have with us the VP of public policy at the network advertising initiative and AI and that is Mr. Devaney, Duke. David, pleasure to have you on how are you?
David
I'm great. Thanks for having me Darshan, I think this is a this is a fun talk. I'm looking forward to it as well.
Darshan
So this is gonna be really fun, because what I want to find out about is, but let's actually start about start with your role. Tell us a little bit about what you do and what that means at an AI.
David
Yeah, well, so the AI the network advertising initiative is a it's a self regulatory and trade association for digital advertising companies, particularly those that are in what we call the third party ad tech space. But we're actually a two pronged organization. We've been around for 20 years, believe it or not in the self reg game for digital advertising, pretty much since the beginning, the beginning of digital advertising. And over the last five or so years, as public policy has become more focused on privacy and consumer privacy. And digital advertising DNI expanded its mission and became more engaged in public policy. And as the VP for public policy at the ending, I came on, I guess, almost two years ago, and really with the goal of helping to educate policymakers about the industry, because it's such a complex thing and you know, normal person knows a darn thing about digital advertising, really, they just kind of get ads and wonder why they're getting them, you know, where they're coming from, etc. So, you know, a huge part of what what we do and in keeping the space effective, we feel like is, is educating and engaging on public policy, promoting a federal law that can provide for a national privacy standard, rather than having a patchwork of state laws, which, unfortunately, we're beginning to see. So that that's my, my ballgame is really that part of the organization is the, you know, the the educating and advocacy and engagement with with policymakers.
Darshan
So what I'm hearing, David, for lack of a better term is the idea that you find yourself at this moment, really talking to a bunch of different states and going, here's what you guys should be considering if you're already considering your privacy bill, here's what you should be considering what I kind of feel like I just put words in your mouth when I said that, in that view, reach out to them when they've already started, or do you reach out to them to begin putting something in place? How does that how does that process work for you? Well, that's
David
a good question. In terms of legislative advocacy, especially at the state level, there's really it's really done in two ways. I mean, if you're proactively trying to get laws in a certain area, you know, you might proactively go to states that hadn't even thought about something and start planting seeds, you know, engaging with them. I mean, that's how the legislative process works, right? We're more in a reactive position, to be honest, which is, I mean, I don't know if many, many of your your viewers know, but everyone in our space knows that it's just a really hot area to state you know, and state legislatures is to focus on consumer privacy. And so we're more reactive where we're spending time monitoring, figuring out which states are the most serious and engaging with them. I mean, we don't have a lot of resources and you know, so we do what we can do educate as many states and we tend to it's kind of like triage you know, we tend to focus on the ones that need you know, our brothers are most most serious about moving something, you know, Do we do spend a lot of time encouraging them not to act? Because we'd like, as I mentioned, when we'd rather see a federal bill, not many people think that I don't know if anyone really thinks this. But the notion that if you have a handful of state laws that are different, pretty significantly different on an issue, such as consumer privacy, that's a good approach. I mean, so so not many people. I mean, most policymakers don't really think that's a good approach. Most consumers when you talk to people, they're like, Well, that doesn't sound like a right approach. Businesses hate it, because it's a compliance nightmare. But disparate laws. I think that a it's I think, I think, intellectually, almost everybody agrees, like, yeah, that's not a great idea, you know, but we have this bigger problem, to some extent, even bigger than us in this country, which is Congress's ability to legislate. Right? I mean, that's not a secret. So in the absence of that, I think as many people know, that, that the focus really shifts to state legislators and state legislators pick up the ball in many areas. This has been you know, I mean, this has been the case and regulation across industry in California, is, is quite often the leader, whether it's, what is it around fuel efficiency and pollution, environmental regulations, you know, state like California being very progressive tends to lead and they they lead several years ago with the California consumer Privacy Act known as the ccpa. And that pretty much kicked it off. And now a whole bunch of states are looking at privacy, legislation, copycats, but mutated versions, many states are looking at new hybrid versions, that kind of blend in components from the European data privacy law, the general data privacy regulation, so it's like a big Canvas out there in the states to do a bunch of different laws. And so our primary message is like, you know, thanks. But it's not a great idea. And while at the same time while we're pushing Congress to actually do something, and hopefully making progress.
Darshan
So that's kind of interesting to me on multiple fronts. So the first front, I think that's interesting is the idea that you're telling states not to do anything. And on one hand, I 100% get where you're coming from, which is, if states are doing it, a congress is going to pump back as long as they possibly can, because then they don't have to make a decision on something. On the other hand, what I'm also seeing is someone might argue, if you say, don't do it, it means I go with that protections for longer. Which, how does that that thought process play in how you decided which direction to go? Because what I'm hearing you say is, you're not saying we don't need these laws, you're saying we don't need them at a patchwork level, we need them at a cohesive, comprehensive level. But but I imagine that it must bring a certain amount of bad press or at least a bad pushback from people saying, but what about right now? What about my needs as a consumer? So?
David
Yeah, no, it is. And it's a fair one. And to be honest, the notion of saying, No, you shouldn't try to advance anything falls on deaf ears, you know, so I mean, that that's our perspective. But we frankly, don't even say that very much. Because legislators say we're gonna do this, you know, and they want to do it, the people we're talking to, are pretty committed to do it. And it's not terribly effective to to signal the feds, they got this in Congress, don't worry about it, because you're exactly right. Because they'll say, those guys, those guys can't do anything, you know. So that's just silly. So we, you know, we frankly, don't even trot that out all that much. Because we know they're, you know, they're committed and it ends up being engagement with them saying, Okay, well, here's, here's what you got. here's, here's what we have in the other states, as you know, here's how it impacts various companies, here's how it impacts us. This is what good in those other laws, this is what's bad and other laws. To the extent you can align yourself with these other laws, that's good, that provides for consistency, to the extent that you're going to go in a different direction, inactive, totally different statutes with different definitions, that's not so good. You know, and so it's really just a matter of that at this point. And in some cases, it's particularly frustrating because you know, we're asking them in some cases to align with statutes that we don't really like and don't agree with, but they're, they're, you know, like they're not like the ccpa isn't a great model. It focuses on the sale of data and not not the use of it or the outcomes or the harms just the sale, you know, and gives gives consumers a punitive tap out of the sale, you know, which we suppose is that like, that's the bad thing. They're like a company gets data, they say settle in, and it really need to find way. And that's what's bad. Like, that's what consumers should be afraid about it, you know, and that says this false notion that will, first party company that actually collects your data like Facebook or someone else's, great, you know, they don't have to sell your data at all, they just kept gobs of it on their own, and you just use it and, you know, do different things with it, and that's fine. But you know, for, for smaller companies, publishers, you know, news publishers, others on the web that work with our members and collect data, and ultimately, in what is a sharing ecosystem, are caught up in in a lot of the protections and stuff. So it makes, it makes for a sticky environment and, and like, like what happens so often it ends and we're, we're in a situation now where these laws end up benefiting the biggest companies. Some of the companies that policymakers really don't like for right or wrong, you know, company, most policymakers don't like Facebook, as we see in the news, you know, like, and it's just job, but they end up because it's so difficult. And it's not really a criticism of, you know, of any of them, it's really difficult to craft laws, in ways that don't provide for any incumbent advantage for giant corporations that have, you know, certain business models. So that's kind of where we're at. And we do a lot of educating about that, and trying to inform them how, you know, and that's where, you know, my role is really important in trying to help explain how, how ad tech works, you know, what are the benefits of digital advertising, and the ways that it's done it but you know, at the same time, I mean, we are celebrating, and we're, you know, we're the highest, we're the strongest privacy advocates, within the industry. You know, how we can, how they can enact laws that will be strong. But but but more balanced?
Darshan
It's funny, you talk about the two different things that really popped out at me as you were talking, but the first one was this idea that you dropped the distinction between first party and third party advertising laws and privacy laws a few well, but it to me, is exactly reflective, the argument that's still going on, I believe, in California, especially around Facebook versus apple. And the idea that Apple is basically saying, I protect your privacy. And everyone's sort of hailing Apple for that wonderful thing of saying, We protect your privacy, ignoring the fact that what Apple's really saying is, only we have access to your data, we'll do whatever we want with it. But we just won't sell it to Facebook, and they want it which don't get me wrong, I have issues with that anyways, but but the idea that it's framed so that Apple is the hero is is an interesting argument to me, at least that's how it's been positioned for me. What is your take on something like that? I? I don't necessarily, I just want to be clear. today's talk is really represents your opinions. It doesn't necessarily represent what any AI's take on anything is. Is that fair?
David
Is that? Yeah, yeah, that's definitely fair. Yeah. Yeah.
Darshan
But, but yeah, what is what is your take on the apple versus Facebook argument? And, and I they is Apple more, right? If that's, if that's the correct term?
David
Um, yeah, you know, it's a tricky, it's a tricky question. You know, I think, I think it's fair, it's fair to have competition on privacy, right? I mean, and that's something policymakers want, it's something consumers want a company, we all want companies to be able to differentiate themselves in the marketplace by doing things that benefit their customers and to achieve good outcomes, you know, so starting with that, okay, you know, so Apple wants to go down that path. They want to protect privacy, you know, as defined in privacy is a different thing. It means different things for people
Darshan
actually protecting privacy. There are they're just saying that we want to control your privacy, not protect your privacy. Right. Yeah,
David
I know. And that's what we're seeing. You know, I think a lot of what Apple does, you know, in Apple does a whole bunch of different things. I think what's been in the news most recently has been the, you know, the opt in for tracking across across apps. And you know, and we're not even concerned about that, in terms of, if you want to have an opt in, you know, for apps to access the identifier, to you know, we're not, we're not overly concerned with that. Actually, we think we think that that could be an acceptable model, you know, opt in isn't, although it's not ideal for consumers. And we don't really believe that it's an effective framework. I don't think many people think that consumers actually want to see notices everywhere and then have to, you know, accept or deny them. But, you know, I think the notion of having that Isn't isn't a bad thing? You know, particularly is am I still here? My my computer's
Darshan
broke up there for a second for me I'm sorry. That's probably my internet connection, but not sure why I'm good internet connection, but it always seems to freeze. I mean, whenever I'm doing these talks, I apologize. So could you repeat the last sentence or so for me?
David
Yeah, so without, but I mean, we're not, we're not inherently opposed to opt in and think that it can be done in the right way, you know, and for the right types of data. In this case, it's not not a bad thing, necessarily. But the way that they've labeled everything is tracking, you know, making it sound worse than it is in many cases. And then having a terms of service that's even more broad, that most people don't know it is. But it's unfortunate, effectively, creating Terms of Service policy for all the apps in their in their ecosystem, that you can't even if a person has not accepted to be tracked, a company like the New York Times can't even know that. It's that because I'm a subscriber, right? So they know who David Luke is, because I'm authenticated. And I've logged in, and I've signed up for their terms, you know, I'm a subscriber, they can't even use what they know about me or use the fact you know, they know my email address, they know where I live, they can even target regional ads or ads to my interest, based on, you know, what I'm reading or any of that. So outside of anything, iOS unique, they can't even do any of those things because of Apple's rules. So these rules on tracking that are intended that are well intended at some level to prevent possibly, to prevent collection of people's data broadly across the ecosystem, ends up being a lot more onerous, and we think really runs into and potentially conflicts with their role in the marketplace being being a dualist. The notion that the end do our best who benefits from apps being sold, or in app purchases, right. And so apps are monetized in three ways really, they're primarily monetize through the data collection and use it for our ecosystem, the digital advertising industry, helps to monetize and it helps publishers actually pay for those apps, because they don't usually charge for them. And there's not usually in app purchases. But and those are the two places where Apple makes money. So the fact that they're they're extending policies, somewhat invisibly to policymakers and people. In most consumers. They're spending these policies in ways that essentially limit invaluable advertising and even responsible invaluable uses of data. In some cases that have been consented isn't good for any business domain, any drives, it's likely to drive the ecosystem towards being you know, for a fee fee based apps, and in app purchases, and then price wise, Apple gets a 30 point cut on all those things. So that's why I think, you know, we're looking at Apple saying like, hmm, you know, I mean, if they weren't, if they weren't a do Apple list, and had had a lot of skin in the game, you know, in the competing business models, people wouldn't really think anything of it. But but the fact they still did make a tremendous amount of revenue. And then, you know, they were just asked in a recent hearing how much Tim Cook was asked how much money they make from the App Store. And he didn't know, like he said, I don't know, you know, which is just crazy that Apple doesn't know how much money makes sense App Store. You know, we sell phones, and we don't really know, if we're making money over years. No one really buys that. But But the point being, I mean, competition on privacy is a good thing, if it's done in it done in the right way. But it's tricky, you know, because it's a tricky thing to do. To do well, and it's tricky to set any rules or practices. Assume that the consumers feel the same way and want the same things because, you know, people are different and have different wants and needs.
Darshan
So So here's a question that I haven't fully understood what Apple took a position. And Facebook took a position. Google tried to stay out of it for the most part. Why is that?
David
Um, well, Google, I mean, Google's in, you know, they're they they're a big ad tech player. You know, Apple has not significantly made money. in advertising. They've tried a number of times, they don't even you know, they dove in headfirst and didn't succeed in the past. And so they their history is a little inconsistent with saying, we love privacy, you know, going back to Steve Jobs, and we don't want to collect your data. And but they've done it various times. They've kind of they've ventured into that. You know, Google is Google is unabashedly a data driven innovation company. You know, I mean, think in their fiber, Google Admittedly says that we believe in the value of data collection and use and responsible use, and, you know, and they're going to still be in that business. So I think they're just, they're inherently very different companies, you know, and the most people don't realize that either like, that's where Google makes all their money is in advertising, you know, and not all of it. But the lion's share, you know, most of its in search advertising, but then after that substantial amount is in other types of digital advertising and monetizing data. And that's a good thing. And that's why all these products are free, right? Like, I mean, all these, everyone gets Gmail, and everyone, you know, gets all these great things, and Google Maps, and it's all free, you know, and that's why it's a little frustrating is when people say, you know, we should get paid for using our data. And I just want to say, like, well, you wake up, like, everything you get, it's free, like, everyone has so much great free stuff. And it's unbelievable, the parking apps and everything, it's like, everybody's lives have been made so much better over the last 10 years, unless they're lying to themselves, they're getting all these new, cool benefits. And they're all those totally free. And they're driven by data, you know, and then so it's frustrating to us. And, you know, we want the data to be used responsibly. And that's where we come in. And that's one of our primary objectives. But the notion that we just need to stop this, and the consumers are, somehow there's not a fair trade, I mean, I, to be honest, I think our industry hasn't done a good job with respect to informing about the value exchange, right? Like, when you're sharing your data, you're getting free products and services, you know, you're getting for your low cost news across the web, and all these great apps you have with all this information, the you know, the various different services and the free, more processing and the email, and you know, all this is long, there's a trade off. And you know, and those things are monetized with data driven advertising, and marketing. And the better we can do with educating people, and letting them know that the more they say, Oh, well, okay, because then when you ask them, and we've done this, and surveys, if you ask them, would you rather do this and you know, have danger with advertising? Where would you rather pay, you know, like, a couple bucks a month, you know, and the widget ended up being a lot of money, when you add it up, across everything people are getting, they, you know, they, by and large, say yeah, I'd much rather get for free, you know, and then all of a sudden, it's like, well, it's not really concerned, you know, but it's when they're confused, and they just hear like, Oh, my data is being collected in use. I don't know about that. I don't know why that's happening. So some of that's on us, you know, as an industry, and that's, you know, partially my, my job to at least educate policymakers and other thought leaders about how how the ecosystem works, the value that we provide the value that advertising digital advertising provides to to help reset that, you know, frame of mind. And so so Google on a meandering bid engineer question, Google, you know, it comes from a different place, and ultimately, but we expect that they will quite possibly follow apple in the, in the app tracking policy business, by probably differently, you know, Google tends to take a more thoughtful approach on these things. You know, they, they announced a little over a year ago about the deprecation of third party cookies, we call it the notion that in their Chrome browser, which has the lion's share of a user base,
David
they won't, they won't support third party cookies any longer, which are the technology we use to track people from site to site and help gather data about your browsing data. And that's fair to you know, that's another thing that we haven't said, hey, that's crazy, you know, you should keep cookies, third party cookies. And, you know, I think many of us believe that third party cookies have been unfortunately a bit opaque and hard to control. And, you know, there's a lot of companies out there that can use them. And so it's not crazy to, to stop honoring and supporting third party cookies, and to move away from them that that's something we support, but we want to be able to replace it with something that can help provide the value and provide for effective data driven advertising that can do that broadly, rarely, and just, you know, what we don't want as a shift show that only three, four or five companies have all the data and can make all the money and then and then the small guys, you know, less less of the money will drip down to the small guys, small ad tech companies, business publishers and advertisers. Advertisers start paying more because they've only got less channels, you know, to go through and the end of the day publishers and creators make less you know, so that's that's the balance that I think most people understand when they think about and we don't want to have we don't want to have just a couple of companies doing all this stuff.
Darshan
So just by the way, we I just got a comment from Lydia green. Hey Lydia, how are you? She agrees with you consumers do not understand the value of access to free apps in search. So 100% we already have people listening live and agreeing with you so. So yeah, so the question that I have that goes along with this is the idea that as consumers, as you said, according to surveys, we're okay with being tracked as long as it doesn't cost us money. From the AI's perspective, and again, you're not speaking that necessarily officially in that position. But the thought process is what I'm more curious about. Where does the end of advertise? When does advertising stop? And when does behavioral science begin? And what I mean by that is, advertising is almost a reminder, do this, or we think you should do that. On the other nudging? Using behavioral science really takes it to that next level, which is, this is the right moment to sort of change your perspective and make and suggest you act. Does any I even get into regulating something like that? Is there any organization that does? And what is? How do you do that responsibly? Does that question?
David
Yeah. Does it make sense? I think it's a bit. It's not crazy. I think it's a bit futuristic. You know, but it's totally fair. And it's the way that some people are thinking already, you know, the notion of when advertising becomes too good, and the term for this is there's a term for this called loss of autonomy. You know, the notion that people will lose their autonomy, because the other entities that know so much about them will become so smart that they'll essentially just be drones and just be pushed around and have their experience be dictated to them. And they lose control of their of their life. A loss of egalitarianism. And I don't let's that is a real thing. I don't want to be dismissive of that. Because it's, it's, it's conceivable at, you know, at some level, I mean, it's definitely conceivable, it's, but at the same time, I don't think it should be overstated. I don't think we're, we're in a place if that's really an Orwellian vision, and I would never suggest that we could never get to an environment where there are harms, and a place where we wouldn't want to live right, and practices we wouldn't want I would never say that. That's inconceivable. But we're not. I don't think we're there now. I don't think we're that close to getting there. I don't think we can lose sight of people's abilities to make decisions for themselves. You know, I mean, and part of this comes down on how different people would govern, you know, and it almost becomes a political thing, like, how much responsibility do you leave to individuals? And how much do you place the governments to, you know, to try to make everything fair, right, and everybody's experience equal, but it's never been that way to be honest. I mean, the world has never been a fair place. And that's one of the things that's a bit challenging and, and kind of unfair, you know, the notion that like, oh, with technology, we'll just start making everything fair, you know, things were never fair. Unfortunately, things haven't been fair in this country, and they never will be, you know, so the notion that they just became unfair now with data collection is is misguided, you know, I mean, the depending on where you were born, and how much money you had in were born with and the people around you and your school system and your influences. And those of us who have studied a lot of policy and sociology and psychology recognize that life hasn't been inherently fair. And it can't be it's inconceivable, you know. But that said, we don't want it wouldn't be good to have entities that have governments or private sector, entities that have too much knowledge, and knowingly prey on people
David
who are in a bad position. And we know in our code, actually, we we have a fundamental element of our code that we added years back gets to this, we have a flat out prohibition for an AI members to use data that they collect for advertising purposes, to make eligibility decisions, this is a part of neither these are decisions that are impactful for, for instance, lending or housing, or education or healthcare, you know, insurance, those very important decisions that are made there really impact people's lives. Our members are not allowed it's a higher bar, they're not allowed to use this data in a way that could could impact those decisions. You know, so I mean, and that's been our approach all along. So getting to your question and the notion of loss of autonomy. Well, if if you're using data to market black handbags versus brown handbags, or men's shoes versus women's shoes, or even a even an ethnic product, or you know a food type or something that someone may like so you're collecting data or you're making assumptions you don't usually collecting the data But making assumptions that this person likes this, they might like that, that's not inherently bad thing, you know, but but if you were to take certain data and determine people that have have lower income, and you know, and, and then market payday loans to them, that's not great, you know, but but that's gonna happen anyway because those people are gonna have billboards, you know near their house anyway and they're gonna have payday lending just near their house, you know, so it's not like to be clear, you know, we're already doing what we can to prevent those bad practices, there's always going to be some bad actors and bad practices. And you know, even when you take the data and the technology out of it, but but so we're mindful of that, and we've been focused on that. And we've had that prohibition for a long time. And it's one of the reasons we're proud, we've impacted a lot, we've really worked and we really raised the bar. So now we're all focused on okay, how do we, you know, how do we keep raising the bar, and, you know, so there's this term that you may or may not have heard of, called dark patterns, which is a recent term, only a couple of years old, really, that pertains to manipulative user interfaces, that kind of CO worse, or, you know, mislead individuals, and ultimately get them to make decisions or do things that they wouldn't otherwise do. So it's a bit tricky to define. You know, I think it's, it's very much akin to the ftzs authority under section five of the FTC act around deceptive and unfair practices, deceptions, you know, not not allowed under under Section five, and then the FTC can enforce around that, but dark patterns are a little bit more about it, the unfairness prong of the FTC act is is, you know, not quite as easy to to, to enforce, you know, they, they ultimately have to have a deception claim, in most cases to be able to bring, bring an unfairness. And they do struggle a little bit, but but they have a lot of, they have a lot of current authority. And, and frankly, most of the stuff that that that we're seeing in the marketplace is is deceptive and unfair, you know, and the FTC has has brought a number of claims, and it's doing a pretty darn good job. And it's and they've had recently had a recent workshop on this topic and exploring it. And it's something that we're focused on and are working on some some best practices, and we're going to be trying to educate our companies about their practice. I mean, most of this is, most of the dark patterns, discussion is around things that are again, a little outside of our space that are more harmful, you know, preying on people by kind of coercing them into make purchases, they wouldn't have made or putting extra stuff in the shopping cart, tricking them into signing up for a subscription that they didn't know about and paying in perpetuity. And, you know, most of the practices are along those lines. And, you know, they're kind of like digital swindling your trickery, you know. But there's also a focus on on our industry, and how data is collected. And notice and choice models that consumers do anything. So that's an area where we feel like we can be really helpful in helping companies make sure they're not, you know, actively seeking to trick people into giving their data. But ultimately, more importantly, though, if the data is used responsibly, and there are parameters around the data use, and they're responsible companies, the faculty that is collected isn't harmful, in and of itself. And that's something that, you know, we don't ever want anyone to lose sight of. So it's not like, I mean, some people just think like, oh, all data collection is bad, bad, bad, bad. And if you believe that, then almost everything that's going on the internet is bad, and it's a you know, in Excel on it, and it should stop. And there's nothing we can do about people who feel that way. And are just they some people inherently believe that it's just unsafe, and bad and scary, and data shouldn't be collected and just needs to be, you know, kind of locked down. But that's not the, you know, that's not the future of the world. That's not the present. And I don't think there's many people that kind of view a future like that, especially when they learn more about it as something they want. I mean, there's so many of these products and services we have are driven on data in so many ways, and they're monetized by data driven advertising, as I mentioned. So I think the vast majority of people will policymakers, businesses want to be on leveraging the data and the key is to enable that in a responsible way, you know, and to be able to confront bad actors and punish them you know, and and, you know, so that's, that's kind of where that's where our focus is. And you know, ideally we'd have a federal piece of federal legislation to do that to make these parameters to provide for a stronger regulator giving the FTC more resources and authority because they've got like, nothing You know, they have like they're super sore, the FTC He is credibly smart on this. People, the staff there know their tech and they know what's going on. There. She's wrapping up many of them for further, you know, for the scale of data collection and Sergeant potential and actual privacy harms. So for them to kind of sift through everything, they're a bit overwhelmed. And I think there's broad agreement that we need a strong federal regulator. So and is it a little bit more of these conversations around dark patterns and kind of, you know, the technology interfaces that really do matter.
Darshan
So it's funny you say that I've been wanting to talk to you about dark patterns for a while, I had no idea what they were. So it's interesting, and we sort of walked into it, or I stumbled into it, and got a little brief understanding of what it is, we have to bring you back for a larger conversation around dark patterns, because it sounds fascinating to me. And just as a concept, it's fine. The reason I actually raised the question I did was because I just interviewed Alan McKay, who's actually a ethicist in Sydney. And he's working with a group in Colombia, right now. And they're looking at neuroscience, essentially, what they're noticing, apparently, in Colombia, they've managed to do this, they've managed to get a mouse to see something that is in there. So they're injecting thoughts into mice at this moment. So I compare that sort of to inception. And the idea that you can plant a thought, most people would know what that thought is. But inception, obviously, the point was that they didn't. But if we can get that, to that point, with mice, How far away are we really with planting thoughts in humans around advertising, look how great you'd look with this new pair of shoes, or whatever it is that we're going to do. So I just thought it was an interesting concept to play with. But as you pointed out, it's not something we're looking at the next year, or a year and a half, two years, in five years, 10 years, but we have the initial germ of a concept there. And I just didn't know if anyone had even begun thinking about it. Apparently, Chile and Spain are in the very, very early stages of conceptualizing the stock, but we'll sort of stay in touch see what happens. But I had promised that I was going to keep you on here for only about 15 to 20 minutes or so we're already at nearly double that. So I want to be very respectful of your time. This was incredible. So thank you so much for coming on. Do you mind if we ask a couple of questions? Sure. Okay, first question based on what we talked about what is the question you'd like to ask the audience
David
I would just love to know from them how they you know how they feel about digital advertising and whether or not they they actually get any benefits from it is there I mean they they I think they do but whether or not they recognize that and whether or not they actually like it because some people do like advertising that's more relevant some Our research shows that consumers are sometimes quite pleased when they see something like wow that's a great product I you know, I was looking for a cooler It's so hot out and I needed like a really good cooler and I just found this one you know so that's great and you know that that's something that I you know, I think is out there we think is out there it shows up in some research so I'd love to love to know that and you know, I'd love to get any feedback from from any of the viewers about you know, learn more about the concerns and you know, do they do they do they feel better, you know, understanding that their data is driving this advertising which is paying for these products and that they're getting here so it's it's great to be able to hear feedback on that if consumers kind of recognize that and how they feel about it.
Darshan
So I usually take if I take a chance to at least answered the way I would if I was asked that question so I'll answer that question. I think I I enjoy when when an ad is very very specifically targeted to me based on almost a like I wouldn't have been able to piece it together but somehow somehow someone knew that that's the direction I want to go oddly that that's super creepy. But I find that to be really valuable because it's it's something that tells me what my next thought process should be. The ones that are I went to this website and you saw this ad and now here's another one that I find unnecessary and sort of pushing the boundary like I already know where I want to go I'm not sure that's helping me. But the the one that the one that I get it really I enjoy the ads that are completely miss targeted at me. So those those give me a secret thrill because it tells me that the algorithm hasn't completely figured me out. So if it shows me, I don't know, bikini for whatever, and you're going, that can't be targeted to me like, that's just wrong. Um, the the idea of the target audience so that said, I enjoy the idea of throwing the algorithm off a little bit. So that's where I see. So I recognize the value. I do, like, knowing that I'm not completely figured out. And yeah, that would be my answer to that. Um, I do like to ask two more questions, if you don't mind the first being this month, and I recognize the month has just started, but what have you learned this month? That's, that has some value to you.
David
Yeah, this month, or maybe going back? A little bit of way. I mean, I don't know, I feel like I've learned just last couple months, but the value of the pharmaceutical industry, you know, sir, okay, okay. Yeah, kind of skeptical. And here we are now, you know, in looking at it, the benefits are nations that able to have an end kind of coming out of this, this deadly pandemic, and, and having a lot of hope, and reality, to kind of turn the corner back to normal. You know, there's, there's some real, real good stuff going on. And I guess I'm kind of feeling like, you know, I feel I feel like I've learned that that's pretty impressive. Oh,
Darshan
I'm fascinated by that. Because for me, and again, I'm not asking a follow up question. Mostly. I'm just fascinating, because what I'm hearing you really say is that before that, that's not what you saw. So to me, that's a really interesting perspective. I wonder what he thought before then. But definitely something I'd love to explore next time as well. And then the second question was, in the last week, and I mean, I'm record, yeah, in the last week, what was the most memorable part of your job?
David
Last week, well, I got to go on a business retrieved, which was again, you know, seeing people for the first time, but people hadn't seen and getting together and having real conversations the way we used to, and kind of actually sitting back and, you know, having some side conversations, and that to me was, you know, great. And, you know, I don't know that I'll probably remember that forever, coming out of a pandemic, and being working out of my house, you know, for over a year and like, being able to go back and be like, Oh, my God, yeah, this is great. It's not able to talk to these people. You know, this is fun. Yeah, I think. So that was definitely that is
Darshan
very, very cool. Dude, I'm gonna do a quick summary of what we spoke about. During conversation, we talked a little bit about your role at an AI, how its o and AI itself evolved from being a self regulatory organization for over 20 years, to what you guys are not doing, which is around co regulation, which we're going to talk about, hopefully, next time, we will I discovered that you've been with me for three years, had me actually had a bunch of questions about that, but we just went into her path. And then we spoke why the difference of the two types of lobbying the proactive versus reactive, and any AI being a small organization, and mostly in the reactive space, we spoke about the importance of consumer privacy. But how you are at this moment shaping, or at least helps shape the state regulation state laws by saying, we really recommend going towards a more federal policy for all the advantages that it has. But the reality is that you often end up having to guide them in a position or into a into something that they already have, or that they can mimic or pull from. And that often ends up being something like ccpa. And, again, feel free to let me know if I misunderstood that. But we then spoke a little bit about Apple versus Facebook and what the distinction is, first party versus third party ads. We then talked about about fee based apps. And that might be the cost of the quote unquote, gain of privacy, if you will. And we talked about the distinction between advertising versus nudging. And I kind of on one hand, seems so cool to talk about it. But you're the point you made was, it's a little bit too soon to talk about it because we aren't anywhere close to actually having that happen. The nudging obviously happens, but there's no real true loss of autonomy yet. And then I talked about my little inner conversation with Alan Kay. And then finally, we landed up talking very briefly around dark patterns. Did I miss anything?
David
I think that's a pretty good summary. You did a good job. Quick, good. Good.
Darshan
I do have a question, David. Where can people reach you if they have questions?
David
At the David at network, advertising.org I think I'm reachable via our site network advertising initiative and always happy to engage or to do education and to help people understand processes. It's really our job.
Darshan
Perfect. If you like this podcast, please like leave a comment, please subscribe. You can find me at DarshanTalks on Twitter, or just go to our website at darsan tops comm David, thank you so much. This was wonderful. Thank you again.
David
Thanks for having me to our show. Next talk. Pleasure to hear.
David
This is the DarshanTalks podcast, regulatory guy, irregular podcast with hosts Dr. Shaun Kulkarni. You can find the show on twitter at DarshanTalks or the show's website at DarshanTalks.com