Chronotope’s avatarChronotope’s Twitter Archive—№ 141,704

      1. This speaks to one of the core issues with TCF's methodology. The system doesn't actually turn anything off, instead everything operates but with a signal saying 'please don't record any of this user data'. digiday.com/media/new-report-calls-into-question-the-validity-of-consent-signals/
        OpenGraph image for digiday.com/media/new-report-calls-into-question-the-validity-of-consent-signals/
        Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar ♻️ 4 Retweets ❤️ 21 Favorites Mood 0
    1. …in reply to @Chronotope
      It's a bad look for publishers to users and it's not great practice either. It also means if any ad tech inside the iframe in an ad call systematically or arbitrarily don't follow the rules there's little way to consistently detect & prevent it. This is why we have consent fraud
      Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar ❤️ 4 Favorites Mood -9 🙁
  1. …in reply to @Chronotope
    Consent strings with no on-page or in-ecosystem technical enforcement are always going to come up short because the methodology of consent strings is not about enforcement, it's about cooperation, and the ad tech ecosystem is not built to cooperate.
    On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar ♻️ 1 Retweets ❤️ 5 Favorites Mood +3 🙂

Search tweets' text