The US Supreme Court<\/a> is poised to hear a case that could spell danger for the internet<\/a>’s most lucrative business: online advertising. 美国最高法院将审理案件可能导致危险的互联网最有利可图的业务:在线广告。
The case, Gonzalez v. Google<\/a>, will be argued Tuesday and centers on whether internet companies are liable for the content their algorithms recommend to users. The tech industry says it’s protected by a legal shield contained in communications law known as Section 230.
Much of the discussion surrounding the case has focused on the costs to online companies if the court determines they are legally responsible for the hundreds of millions of comments, videos and other content posted by users every day. However, such a decision could also strike at the heart of the automated advertising upon which Meta Platforms<\/a> Inc.’s Facebook<\/a> and Alphabet Inc.’s Google rely for the bulk of their revenue.
In fact, the social media<\/a> companies view the case as an existential threat.
“This case could adversely impact the entire advertising ecosystem,” said Marc Beckman, Chief Executive Officer of DMA United, an advertising firm that regularly uses Google and Facebook’s tools to serve targeted ads to potential customers around the world.
Google is being sued by the family of Nohemi Gonzalez, a 23-year-old US citizen who was among at least 130 people killed in coordinated attacks by the Islamic State in Paris in November 2015. The family argues that Google’s YouTube should be held responsible for automated recommendations of Islamic State videos.
Websites and ad networks automatically target ads based on information they have collected about users, including their location, browsing history, topics they follow closely and more. The ads are posted to websites by online tools without human intervention.
Google declined to comment about the case. But in its Supreme Court brief, it said it is concerned about the case’s impact on the economy, including advertisers. Meta believes that Section 230 shields the company from liability for all content from third parties, including ads, and the social media giant is worried that the court could weaken those protections, a Meta spokesperson confirmed.
A broad ruling by the Supreme Court could effectively snuff out the business of serving personalized ads on the internet and turn online ad practices back to the early 90s, experts say. It could also force the platforms to litigate a wave of lawsuits over the millions of advertisements they target at users, resulting in exponential legal costs for smaller ad networks and exchanges.
“If we’re not targeting ads, we’re going back to the old ’90s model of ‘see who bites,’” said Jess Miers, legal advocacy counsel with tech-funded group Chamber of Progress. Miers previously worked for Google.
Together, Google and Facebook capture almost 50% of all digital advertising revenues worldwide. The companies, which have been referred to as the “duopoly” of online advertising, collect reams of data about their users in order to serve them relevant ads – a business that mints both companies billions of dollars per year. Globally, Google made $168 billion in ad revenue in 2022 while Meta made $112 billion, according to data analytics company Insider Intelligence. This year, Google’s US revenue alone is projected to reach $73.8 billion, while Meta’s is expected to reach $51 billion. A ruling by the high court would only apply to the US, but it would be technically difficult for the companies to handle advertising differently in its largest market than other countries around the world.
The companies are already facing legal challenges over the ads they serve, particularly those that relate to sensitive issues like healthcare, politics, employment opportunities and more. With few exceptions, Facebook and Google successfully win dismissals of most cases that would hold them responsible, thanks to Section 230.
That could change quickly if the Supreme Court decides to narrow Section 230. While the shield protects companies from lawsuits over content generated by ordinary people, Cathy Gellis, a California lawyer who has represented tech companies in online speech cases, said ads could be categorized as “user-generated content” if the Supreme Court’s ruling is wide-ranging.
The digital advertising industry is already coming under fire as governments around the world crack down, arguing that companies collect too much information about people without their consent and violate their privacy. Privacy regulations in countries including the European Union limiting the amount of data companies are allowed to collect on users have already put a huge strain on the digital ads ecosystem, said Beckman.
“We are already, as an agency, implementing new marketing initiatives to not just combat what we think will happen if 230 is limited, but also in the face of these new third party data privacy restrictions,” Beckman said. He said the era of “beautiful” and distinctive advertising may be on its way back as advertisers can no longer rely on the hyper-personalized and cheap ad networks they’ve become accustomed to. While targeted advertising allowed firms to reach their intended audiences with little effort, a pivot away from algorithmic recommendations could require advertisers to work harder to grab attention.
Miers said it’s likely that Google and Facebook will face the brunt of lawsuits the court weakens Section 230. But smaller ad agencies and ad networks will face “trickle-down” effects.
Online advertising is so key to Meta and Google’s business models, it’s likely they would try to fight it out in court, said Gellis, the California lawyer. They would try to handle the legal costs and see if they could win cases on the merits. “Everybody’s going to try to muddle through as best they can,” Gellis said.
To some critics of the tech companies, a wind down of targeting advertising on the internet could benefit some of the internet’s most vulnerable users. Children’s advocacy group Common Sense Media and Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen in a Supreme Court brief argued that Google’s video and ad recommendations can create a “feedback loop” that steers children and teenagers down rabbit holes that can revolve around eating disorders, self harm and extremism. In their view, Google and Facebook should better control the ads that it serves to young audiences.
The case could be a “shock to a lot of businesses,” said Eric Goldman, a law professor at Santa Clara University School.
“So much of advertising is now being delivered in a dynamic way,” Goldman said. “If that dynamic assessment is an algorithmic recommendation that disqualifies the ad network for 230 protections, then the ad industry has to do something different.”
<\/p><\/body>","next_sibling":[{"msid":98058292,"title":"How to keep your Twitter account secure - without paying","entity_type":"ARTICLE","link":"\/news\/how-to-keep-your-twitter-account-secure-without-paying\/98058292","category_name":null,"category_name_seo":"telecomnews"}],"related_content":[{"msid":"98047415","title":"Google India","entity_type":"IMAGES","seopath":"tech\/technology\/googles-168-billion-in-ad-revenue-at-risk-in-supreme-court-case\/google-india","category_name":"Google\u2019s $168 billion in ad revenue at risk in Supreme Court case","synopsis":false,"thumb":"https:\/\/etimg.etb2bimg.com\/thumb\/img-size-1489133\/98047415.cms?width=150&height=112","link":"\/image\/tech\/technology\/googles-168-billion-in-ad-revenue-at-risk-in-supreme-court-case\/google-india\/98047415"}],"msid":98058347,"entity_type":"ARTICLE","title":"Google\u2019s $168 billion in ad revenue at risk in Supreme Court case","synopsis":"Much of the discussion surrounding the case has focused on the costs to online companies if the court determines they are legally responsible for the hundreds of millions of comments, videos and other content posted by users every day.","titleseo":"telecomnews\/googles-168-billion-in-ad-revenue-at-risk-in-supreme-court-case","status":"ACTIVE","authors":[],"analytics":{"comments":0,"views":428,"shares":0,"engagementtimems":1767000},"Alttitle":{"minfo":""},"artag":"Bloomberg","artdate":"2023-02-19 11:21:49","lastupd":"2023-02-19 11:22:22","breadcrumbTags":["google","supreme court","Social media","facebook","meta platforms","google ads","internet"],"secinfo":{"seolocation":"telecomnews\/googles-168-billion-in-ad-revenue-at-risk-in-supreme-court-case"}}" data-authors="[" "]" data-category-name="" data-category_id="" data-date="2023-02-19" data-index="article_1">
这样,冈萨雷斯v。谷歌会认为,周二和中心互联网公司是否承担其算法向用户推荐的内容。科技行业说,这是受法律保护的盾牌通信中包含法律称为Section 230。
相关的讨论主要集中在成本网络公司如果法院决定他们是法律责任的数以百万计的评论,视频和其他用户发布的内容。然而,这样的决定也可能罢工的自动化广告的核心元平台Inc .)脸谱网和字母Inc .)谷歌的大部分收入的依赖。
”这种情况下可以严重影响整个广告生态系统,”马克·贝克曼说,首席执行官DMA团结,一个广告公司,经常使用谷歌和Facebook的工具来提供有针对性的广告给世界各地的潜在客户。
谷歌正在起诉Nohemi冈萨雷斯的家庭,一个23岁的美国公民在袭击中至少有130人死亡于2015年11月在巴黎的伊斯兰国家。家人认为谷歌旗下的YouTube应该负责自动化伊斯兰国家的视频推荐。
网站和广告网络自动目标广告基于收集的关于用户的信息,包括位置、浏览历史,他们密切关注话题等等。广告发布到网站的在线工具而无需人工干预。
谷歌拒绝对此案发表评论。但在其最高法院短暂,它表示,它担心对经济的影响,包括广告商。元认为,第230盾公司从第三方责任的所有内容,包括广告、社交媒体巨头担心法院可能会削弱那些保护,元发言人证实。
广泛的最高法院裁决能有效地扑灭个性化服务的商业广告在互联网上,把在线广告实践回到90年代初,专家说。它也可能迫使平台提出诉讼的诉讼在数以百万计的广告,他们的目标用户,导致指数较小的广告网络和交易的法律费用。
“如果我们不针对广告,我们回到旧的90年代模型,看谁咬,”杰斯迈尔斯说,法律宣传顾问tech-funded组室的进展。迈尔斯曾为谷歌工作。
在一起,谷歌和Facebook捕捉几乎全球所有的数字广告收入的50%。的公司,被称为在线广告的“垄断”,收集大量的数据对他们的用户为了服务相关的广告业务,薄荷糖两家公司每年数十亿美元。从全球来看,谷歌在2022年1680亿美元的广告收入虽然元赚了1120亿美元,据数据分析公司内部情报。我们今年,谷歌的收入预计将达到738亿美元,而元预计将达到510亿美元。高等法院的裁决,只适用于美国,但在技术上困难的公司来处理不同的广告在其最大的市场比其他国家在世界各地。
公司已经面临法律挑战在他们服务的广告,尤其是那些涉及到敏感问题如医疗、政治、就业机会等等。除了少数例外,Facebook和谷歌成功地赢得解雇的大多数情况下,他们负责,感谢230条款。
可以很快改变如果最高法院决定缩小230条款。而盾牌保护公司免受诉讼内容生成的普通人,凯茜Gellis,加州律师曾代表科技公司在网络言论的情况下,说广告可以归类为“用户生成内容”如果最高法院的裁决是广泛的。
数字广告行业已经受到火作为世界各国政府打击,认为公司收集太多信息人没有他们的同意,侵犯了他们的隐私。隐私法规的国家包括欧盟限制公司可以收集用户的数据量已经在数字广告生态系统造成了巨大的压力,贝克曼说。
“我们已经作为一个机构,实现新的营销举措不只是战斗我们认为会发生如果230是有限的,但也面对这些新的第三方数据隐私限制,”贝克曼说。他说“美丽”的时代,独特的广告可能会返回途中,广告商可以不再依赖和廉价的广告网络,他们已经习惯了要极致个性化才行。虽然定向广告允许企业达到其特定的读者很少的努力,一个主远离算法建议可能需要广告商更努力工作来吸引人们的注意。
迈尔斯说,谷歌和Facebook可能将面临诉讼法院削弱第230节的冲击。但是更小的广告公司和广告网络将面临“涓滴”效应。
在线广告是如此关键元和谷歌的商业模式,很有可能他们会试图在法庭上据理力争,Gellis说,加州的律师。他们会试图处理法律费用,看看他们能赢得官司的优点。“每个人都试图蒙混过关承诺尽其所能”Gellis说。
一些科技公司的批评者,放松针对广告在互联网上可以受益的一些互联网用户最脆弱的。儿童倡导组织常识媒体和Facebook Frances Haugen告密者在最高法院简短认为谷歌的视频和广告建议可以创建一个“反馈回路”,引导儿童和青少年下兔子洞,可以围绕饮食失调,自我伤害和极端主义。在他们看来,谷歌和Facebook应该更好的控制它年轻观众的广告。
情况可能是一个“休克很多企业,”Eric Goldman说,圣克拉拉大学法律教授。
“那么多的广告正在交付在一个动态的方式,”高盛表示。“如果,动态评估是一个算法的推荐,这就排除了230年的广告网络的保护,那么广告行业做些不同的东西。”
The US Supreme Court<\/a> is poised to hear a case that could spell danger for the internet<\/a>’s most lucrative business: online advertising.
The case, Gonzalez v. Google<\/a>, will be argued Tuesday and centers on whether internet companies are liable for the content their algorithms recommend to users. The tech industry says it’s protected by a legal shield contained in communications law known as Section 230.
Much of the discussion surrounding the case has focused on the costs to online companies if the court determines they are legally responsible for the hundreds of millions of comments, videos and other content posted by users every day. However, such a decision could also strike at the heart of the automated advertising upon which Meta Platforms<\/a> Inc.’s Facebook<\/a> and Alphabet Inc.’s Google rely for the bulk of their revenue.
In fact, the social media<\/a> companies view the case as an existential threat.
“This case could adversely impact the entire advertising ecosystem,” said Marc Beckman, Chief Executive Officer of DMA United, an advertising firm that regularly uses Google and Facebook’s tools to serve targeted ads to potential customers around the world.
Google is being sued by the family of Nohemi Gonzalez, a 23-year-old US citizen who was among at least 130 people killed in coordinated attacks by the Islamic State in Paris in November 2015. The family argues that Google’s YouTube should be held responsible for automated recommendations of Islamic State videos.
Websites and ad networks automatically target ads based on information they have collected about users, including their location, browsing history, topics they follow closely and more. The ads are posted to websites by online tools without human intervention.
Google declined to comment about the case. But in its Supreme Court brief, it said it is concerned about the case’s impact on the economy, including advertisers. Meta believes that Section 230 shields the company from liability for all content from third parties, including ads, and the social media giant is worried that the court could weaken those protections, a Meta spokesperson confirmed.
A broad ruling by the Supreme Court could effectively snuff out the business of serving personalized ads on the internet and turn online ad practices back to the early 90s, experts say. It could also force the platforms to litigate a wave of lawsuits over the millions of advertisements they target at users, resulting in exponential legal costs for smaller ad networks and exchanges.
“If we’re not targeting ads, we’re going back to the old ’90s model of ‘see who bites,’” said Jess Miers, legal advocacy counsel with tech-funded group Chamber of Progress. Miers previously worked for Google.
Together, Google and Facebook capture almost 50% of all digital advertising revenues worldwide. The companies, which have been referred to as the “duopoly” of online advertising, collect reams of data about their users in order to serve them relevant ads – a business that mints both companies billions of dollars per year. Globally, Google made $168 billion in ad revenue in 2022 while Meta made $112 billion, according to data analytics company Insider Intelligence. This year, Google’s US revenue alone is projected to reach $73.8 billion, while Meta’s is expected to reach $51 billion. A ruling by the high court would only apply to the US, but it would be technically difficult for the companies to handle advertising differently in its largest market than other countries around the world.
The companies are already facing legal challenges over the ads they serve, particularly those that relate to sensitive issues like healthcare, politics, employment opportunities and more. With few exceptions, Facebook and Google successfully win dismissals of most cases that would hold them responsible, thanks to Section 230.
That could change quickly if the Supreme Court decides to narrow Section 230. While the shield protects companies from lawsuits over content generated by ordinary people, Cathy Gellis, a California lawyer who has represented tech companies in online speech cases, said ads could be categorized as “user-generated content” if the Supreme Court’s ruling is wide-ranging.
The digital advertising industry is already coming under fire as governments around the world crack down, arguing that companies collect too much information about people without their consent and violate their privacy. Privacy regulations in countries including the European Union limiting the amount of data companies are allowed to collect on users have already put a huge strain on the digital ads ecosystem, said Beckman.
“We are already, as an agency, implementing new marketing initiatives to not just combat what we think will happen if 230 is limited, but also in the face of these new third party data privacy restrictions,” Beckman said. He said the era of “beautiful” and distinctive advertising may be on its way back as advertisers can no longer rely on the hyper-personalized and cheap ad networks they’ve become accustomed to. While targeted advertising allowed firms to reach their intended audiences with little effort, a pivot away from algorithmic recommendations could require advertisers to work harder to grab attention.
Miers said it’s likely that Google and Facebook will face the brunt of lawsuits the court weakens Section 230. But smaller ad agencies and ad networks will face “trickle-down” effects.
Online advertising is so key to Meta and Google’s business models, it’s likely they would try to fight it out in court, said Gellis, the California lawyer. They would try to handle the legal costs and see if they could win cases on the merits. “Everybody’s going to try to muddle through as best they can,” Gellis said.
To some critics of the tech companies, a wind down of targeting advertising on the internet could benefit some of the internet’s most vulnerable users. Children’s advocacy group Common Sense Media and Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen in a Supreme Court brief argued that Google’s video and ad recommendations can create a “feedback loop” that steers children and teenagers down rabbit holes that can revolve around eating disorders, self harm and extremism. In their view, Google and Facebook should better control the ads that it serves to young audiences.
The case could be a “shock to a lot of businesses,” said Eric Goldman, a law professor at Santa Clara University School.
“So much of advertising is now being delivered in a dynamic way,” Goldman said. “If that dynamic assessment is an algorithmic recommendation that disqualifies the ad network for 230 protections, then the ad industry has to do something different.”
<\/p><\/body>","next_sibling":[{"msid":98058292,"title":"How to keep your Twitter account secure - without paying","entity_type":"ARTICLE","link":"\/news\/how-to-keep-your-twitter-account-secure-without-paying\/98058292","category_name":null,"category_name_seo":"telecomnews"}],"related_content":[{"msid":"98047415","title":"Google India","entity_type":"IMAGES","seopath":"tech\/technology\/googles-168-billion-in-ad-revenue-at-risk-in-supreme-court-case\/google-india","category_name":"Google\u2019s $168 billion in ad revenue at risk in Supreme Court case","synopsis":false,"thumb":"https:\/\/etimg.etb2bimg.com\/thumb\/img-size-1489133\/98047415.cms?width=150&height=112","link":"\/image\/tech\/technology\/googles-168-billion-in-ad-revenue-at-risk-in-supreme-court-case\/google-india\/98047415"}],"msid":98058347,"entity_type":"ARTICLE","title":"Google\u2019s $168 billion in ad revenue at risk in Supreme Court case","synopsis":"Much of the discussion surrounding the case has focused on the costs to online companies if the court determines they are legally responsible for the hundreds of millions of comments, videos and other content posted by users every day.","titleseo":"telecomnews\/googles-168-billion-in-ad-revenue-at-risk-in-supreme-court-case","status":"ACTIVE","authors":[],"analytics":{"comments":0,"views":428,"shares":0,"engagementtimems":1767000},"Alttitle":{"minfo":""},"artag":"Bloomberg","artdate":"2023-02-19 11:21:49","lastupd":"2023-02-19 11:22:22","breadcrumbTags":["google","supreme court","Social media","facebook","meta platforms","google ads","internet"],"secinfo":{"seolocation":"telecomnews\/googles-168-billion-in-ad-revenue-at-risk-in-supreme-court-case"}}" data-news_link="//www.iser-br.com/news/googles-168-billion-in-ad-revenue-at-risk-in-supreme-court-case/98058347">
评论
现在评论 阅读评论(1)所有评论
找到这个评论进攻?
下面选择你的理由并单击submit按钮。这将提醒我们的版主采取行动