Warum es wichtig ist: DSGVO verändert das Internet.
Ankündigungen von Unternehmen, Produkte und Services aufgrund der bald wirksamen DSGVO einzustellen, sind immer mit Vorsicht zu genießen. Manchmal bietet sich die DSGVO als letzter Nagel im bereits bereitstehenden Sarg an, manchmal kann man die DSGVO als weiteren Grund nehmen, einen bestehenden Strategieschwenk zu vollziehen. (Wie es wohl bei der kommenden Einstellung von Klout der Fall ist.) In allen Fällen lässt sich allerdings zumindest festhalten, dass die DSGVO nicht geholfen hat. (Wie auch.)
Nichtsdestotrotz also hier die erste Liste der ersten größeren DSGVO-Opfer.
Kim Crawley auf Peerlyst: „The GDPR death toll“:
Seznam.cz
Seznam.cz is a Czech company. The GDPR isn’t killing the company as a whole, but it is killing its social network for students. The company believes that the academic social platform with about 20,000 daily users would have to completely change how they do everything in order to comply with the GDPR. So it’s easier for Seznam.cz to cease that particular service of theirs.
Super Monday Night Combat
Video game developer Uber Entertainment has maintained Super Monday Night Combat, an MMO game, since 2012. That particular massively multiplayer online game will soon be no more. Uber Entertainment has confirmed that redeveloping the game to comply with the GDPR would be a pragmatic nightmare.
[…]Whois
Most of you should know what Whois is. It’s a service that enables you to look up which person or organization owns a domain name. Well Whois, at least as we know it, will cease operations on May 25th, due to the GDPR. DNS organization ICANN may have to come up with some alternative which complies with the GDPR. The Whois service has been in operation in some form or another since the early 1980s and its standard is documented in RFC 3912.
Das größte Opfer wird natürlich die Adtech-Branche sein. Gleichzeitig wird außerhalb dieser Branche diesem kommenden Massaker wohl am wenigsten nachgeweint werden. Doc Searls:
To get a sense of what will be left of adtech after GDPR Sunrise Day, start by reading a pair of articles in _AdExchanger_ by @JamesHercher. The first reports on the Transparency and Consent Framework published by IAB Europe. The second reports on how Google is pretty much ignoring that framework and going direct with their own way of obtaining consent to tracking:
Google’s and other consent-gathering solutions are basically a series of pop-up notifications that provide a mechanism for publishers to provide clear disclosure and consent in accordance with data regulations.
Specifically,
The Google consent interface greets site visitors with a request to use data to tailor advertising, with equally prominent “no” and “yes” buttons. If a reader declines to be tracked, he or she sees a notice saying the ads will be less relevant and asking to “agree” or go back to the previous page. According to a source, one research study on this type of opt-out mechanism led to opt-out rates of more than 70%.
Meaning only 30% of site visitors will consent to being tracked. So, say goodbye to 70% of adtech’s eyeball targets right there.
Google’s consent gathering system, dubbed “Funding Choices,” also screws most of the hundreds of other adtech intermediaries fighting for a hunk of what’s left of their market. Writes James, “It restricts the number of supply chain partners a publisher can share consent with to just 12 vendors, sources with knowledge of the product tell AdExchanger.”
Wir reden hier nicht von einem Teil der Branche, sondern von der gesamten Adtech-Branche. Searls:
Meanwhile, the adtech business surely knows the sky is falling. The main question is how far.
One possibility is 95% of the way to zero. That outcome is suggested by results published in PageFair last October by Dr. Johnny Ryan (@JohnnyRyan) there.
Ich hatte gestern auch auf Techdirt verwiesen, welche eine Zersplitterung des Internets durch die DSGVO aufkommen sehen.
Gerade Onlinepublisher scheinen sich in diese Richtung zu entwickeln. Hier beschreibt Lucia Moses auf Digiday, wie US-Publisher darüber nachdenken, Europäische IP-Adressen einfach zu blocken statt sich an die DSGVO anzupassen:
Some U.S. publishers with small European audiences and businesses are considering dealing with the issue by just blocking European IP addresses outright from accessing their sites. The thought: Why even bother with the risk of fines that could total 4 percent of global revenue.
Well+Good, a health news and lifestyle publication, plans to block IP addresses from Europe while it figures out what compliance means for the site, said Christina Roberts, vp of digital media operations there. […]
It’s an option Chris Tolles, CEO of entertainment news site Topix, is also considering. With a monthly reach of 22.3 million unique visitors, Topix gets more than 10 percent of its revenue from the U.K., revenue he doesn’t want to lose. But the rest of Europe isn’t necessarily worth the cost because high ad-blocking rates in countries like Germany make it hard to monetize those audiences. “It’s a rounding error for a lot of people,” he said. […]
Tom Sly, svp of digital revenue at local broadcaster E.W. Scripps Co., said Scripps has been working for the past eight months to get compliant with GDPR. But if Scripps doesn’t think it can get compliance across the board, it’ll block EU IP addresses.
Ich fürchte, europäische IP-Adressen zu blocken, wird eine gängige Praxis werden. Besonders für jüngere Angebote, die noch kein Publikum/ keine Nutzerschaft in der EU haben. Das ist schlicht einfacher und pragmatischer als den Aufwand auf sich zu nehmen, alle internen und externen Prozesse der DSGVO anzupassen.
Das kann natürlich auch bedeuten, dass mittelfristig neue Internet-Services ihren Weg gar nicht mehr in die EU finden. Denn nachträgliches Anpassen wird nicht günstiger. Und Facebook und Google etwa können sich in der Zwischenzeit weiter auf dem EU-Markt eingraben und ihn so für Neuankömmlinge unattraktiver machen. (Diese mittelfristige/langfristige Aussicht hängt stark davon ab, wie attraktiv der EU-Markt an sich ist und bleibt.)
