Editor:
- James Rosewell (james@51degrees.com)
Referencing prior W3C values and principles, GDPR, and a limited number of external documents, this document defines success criteria to evaluate the interests of societies, people, publishers, marketers, and browser vendors. No one factor is assumed to be more or less important than another.
The Improve Web Advertising working group has a shared goal of preserving the web as an open platform for diverse and rich experiences provided by multiple parties. Towards this end, our goal is to provide monetization opportunities that support the open web while balancing the needs of publishers and the advertisers that fund them with improvements to protect end users from the individual and societal impacts of tracking content consumption over time.
The open web has become a critical global utility that supports the free flow of communication, commerce, content and competition. The open web is increasingly becoming the primary method used by citizens to access news, communicate with each other, engage with governments, conduct commerce and consume entertainment. Any individual, business, charity or government organization regardless of background, geography or wealth can now cost effectively participate in this global resource. A set of common technical and policy standards makes all this possible.
The web is an open platform. Interoperability is a fundamental principle that supports all web technologies. Existing specifications and protocols for encoding, transmitting and rendering information facilitate these exchanges. Data portability also helps ensure that the web is interoperable (GDPR, Recital 68).
The web underpins trillion-dollar industries. Accordingly, any proposed change to the underpinning policy and technical standards can have global ramifications. While no one individual is able to understand every ecosystem dependency to ensure other participants are not unintentionally undermined, a common set of principles can and should be used to review these proposed changes.
This document provides a set of improved web advertising principles to ensure proposed changes appropriately balance the benefits of the change against the impact on the important rights of individuals and the societies they live in. When describing how to balance of these important interests in promoting openness and fairness in the standards they develop, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IEFT) emphasizes this point:
the IETF is concerned with developing and maintaining the Internet to promote the social good, and the society that the IETF is attempting to enhance is composed of end users, along with groups of them forming businesses, governments, clubs, civil society organizations, and other institutions. (Draft - Internet Architecture Board for the End Users).
This does not mean that all stakeholders are unanimously agreed and aligned on how to "improve" the web. Scholars describe diverging interests of stakeholders as a "tussle."
The resulting tussles span a broad scope: the rights of the individual vs. the state, the profit seeking of competitors, the resistance to those with malicious intent, those with secrets vs. those who would reveal them, and those who seek anonymity vs. those would identify them and hold them accountable. (Tussle in Cyperspace).
Achieving a balance across the diverse interests of global stakeholders when determining tradeoffs among speed, fairness, security, public accountability, diversity and quality is in accordance with values of the W3C. To resolve this tussle and in the interests of end users requires us to carefully examine what alternate means are possible of achieving the desired goals. If a negative impact to stakeholders is unavoidable, then the reasoning behind this decision ought to be thoroughly documented. Accordingly, this document describes the principles that support the key interests of stakeholders that enable people's internet-enabled access to information.
They are called "principles" (rather than, for example, guidelines or requirements) because they attempt to capture important concepts and aspirations that are not specific to any particular realization. These principles can be distinguished from bottoms up, granular "use cases," which illustrate how an actor can conduct a process to achieve a goal. Like other working groups, the Improve Web Advertising working group may choose to adopt the Critical Success Factor (CSF) Analysis method to better communicate our work. These principles are examined from three perspectives: that of individuals (both in aggregate and individually), publishers (both authors and the business model that funds them) and the delivery access mechanism (both connectivity and navigation).
Any technology can be abused. Modern societies do not attempt to suppress technology, but rather put appropriate regulations in place to define acceptable and unacceptable uses of that technology. For example, automobiles are not required to integrate functionality that technically prevents them from exceeding the speed limit. Instead, drivers are educated and trained in traffic rules, and drivers who violate speed limits are subject tofines and/or deprived of their permits. However, documenting specific criteria as to what constitutes a violation helps enable easier detection and reporting of non-compliance with the regulations that govern technology.
By documenting the defined norms and principles behind appropriate and inappropriate data collection and processing, we can better devise methods of accountability. This accountability requires each participant that has access to data collection and processing to abide by its responsibility not to abuse the data under its control. This in turn requires definitions of legitimate data collection and processing as well as transparency around whether the data controller has fulfilled its obligations.One of the first assumptions we document is that an advertising-funded business model supports the open web, and hence changes which degrade the efficacy of this business model negatively impacts end users. While end users increasingly understand advertising funds their free access to the open web, they desire improved transparency and control over their personal data.
Individual privacy is a critical issue that societies around the world must address. Given the pervasiveness of internet-enabled content and services that support modern societies, it is important we protect people's privacy while ensuring we do not undermine important societal goals.
Tracking content consumption over time poses risks to end users. Privacy regulations have identified numerous harms from these risks, including manipulation of political elections by foreign parties, discrimination against protected classes, using content consumption activity ("behaviour") in a manner that causes a substantive life impacts to people's access to healthcare, financial resources or infliction of emotional distress, deceptive manipulation, and fraud. As this first example illustrates, these harms pose risks not just to the individual but also to the larger society in which people live.
As GDPR concisely states, data protection must be balanced with these other fundamental rights:
The processing of personal data should be designed to serve mankind. 2 The right to the protection of personal data is not an absolute right; it must be considered in relation to its function in society and be balanced against other fundamental rights, in accordance with the principle of proportionality. 3 This Regulation respects all fundamental rights and observes the freedoms and principles recognized in the Charter as enshrined in the Treaties, in particular the respect for private and family life, home and communications, the protection of personal data, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, freedom of expression and information, freedom to conduct a business, the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, and cultural, religious and linguistic diversity. -- GDPR, Recital 4
In an effort to balance these interests, many privacy regulations describe the privacy risks to people relative to the scale, sensitivity of the data collected and potential of a significant economic or social impact from its inappropriate processing. Accordingly, data minimization, purpose limitation, limited storage, and reliance on pseudonymous identifiers are often recommended to minimize these risks. (GDPR, Art. 5, 25; Recital 78)
Moreover, privacy regulations and national laws often provide specific and appropriate remedies for violations of their codes of conduct. Ensuring improved accountability is a chief principle of improving web advertising.
W3C mission is to provide "technologies (specifications, guidelines, software, and tools) that will create a forum for information, commerce, inspiration, independent thought, and collective understanding." Trust and interoperability are two of the core goalsin support of W3C's mission.
Trust requires a system that supports "confidentiality, instils confidence, and makes it possible for people to take responsibility for (or be accountable for) what they publish on the Web." By improving both transparency and accountability we can ensure market actors earn trust while enhancing efficiency, efficacy and fairness in the matching of advertising content to people.
Much of the web consists of embedded content and centralized services provided to decentralized publishers (e.g., single sign on, web payments, advertising). People trust many of the brands they purchase or interact with. Behind most of these brands are numerous supply chain partners that enable people to benefit from each brand's end product or service. Digital publishers are no different. Independent publishers must rely on networks of direct partners and indirect partners of the marketers that fund their operations. This interoperability is a goal in support of W3C's mission and the first principle in support of improved web advertising.The trust in this interoperable network requires transparency and improved documentation of acceptable and unacceptable uses of data. Some organizations have pointed out that transparency is advanced by vertical-integration. "Opacity sometimes is a function of fragmentation.... Vertical integration can sometimes resolve some of the concerns around a lack of transparency and complexity.... Vertical integration means there is a single point of contact for advertisers and publishers and it eliminates concerns about the possibility of rent-seeking by difficult-to-identify themselves intermediaries.... vertical integration in the ad tech state creates efficiencies for users. Changes ought to benefit all stakeholders, not just one set."
The final sentence emphasizes decentralization, which is a third goalin support of W3C's mission. "Decentralization is a principle of modern distributed systems, including societies." Among the rationales supporting decentralization are choice, competition, and the freedom of information. The common element among these rationales is the accessibility to a wide array of diverse publishers. As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brandeis wrote: "Among free men, the deterrents ordinarily to be applied to prevent crime are education and punishment for violations of the law, not abridgment of the rights of free speech and assembly." Thus to exercise this freedom, people should have digital access to publishers, which equates to both the right to assembly and freedom of speech. Safeguarding and improving this accessibility and choice are the third and fourth principles of improvedweb advertising.
The Internet Architecture Board (IAB) also expressed concerns as to growing consolidation of power on the Internet.
While the IAB, the Internet Society, and others are examining this phenomenon to understand it better, it is nevertheless prudent to consider whether proposals for changes to how the Internet works favors or counters consolidation. Favoring entities with existing advantages - like resources, size, or market share - is not necessarily a factor that disqualifies a new proposal, but it needs to be considered as a cost of enabling that technology. (Draft - IAB ESCAPE Report).
The 2019/20 UK Competition and Market Authority (CMA) studied online platforms supported by digital advertising. The CMA set out five goals for supporting a trusted, decentralized, interoperable open web, whose operation relies on web advertising:
-
promoting "competition for the benefit of consumers";
-
ensuring "the enormous innovation and benefits brought about through digitisation can continue";
-
creating a "level playing field" for all businesses to compete on the merits;
-
ensuring new competitors can enter digital markets; and
-
enabling people "to feel trust in online markets.
The above principles for an interoperable web seek to help advance the mission of the W3C as well as further the objectives outlined by the UK CMA "to promote competition for the benefit of consumers, both within and outside the UK, to make markets work well for consumers, businesses, and the economy."
The key stakeholders involved in web advertising include individual and groups of people, publishers, marketers and delivery access providers. We believe the majority of these interests are compatible with each other in ensuring people have their rights protected and receive better products, which is advanced through free market competition. The following sections outline the key interests and principal goals for each stakeholder group.
-
Diversity of publishers that protect
-
Freedom of expression to represent minority voices
-
Free elections protected against foreign manipulation
-
While free speech requires allowing speech not approved of by the majority, we can label political speech by nationality of author and whether it is endorsed by one or more candidates Freedom of the press to enable watch-dog reporting on important issues and combat fake news
-
-
Freedom of information to provide fast, easy access to internet-enabled content for all
-
Cost-free access to enable all to access, regardless of economic means
-
Freedom from self-censorship due to content consumption being associated with directly-identifiable, offline identity
-
-
-
Free-market economies rely on competition, and competition benefits from lower barriers to entry for industry newcomers
-
Competition benefits from
-
low barriers of entry for people to start new businesses and compete against existing incumbents
-
market actors having choices over which organizations they can work with
-
interoperable standards of communication and ease of data exchanges among market actors
-
-
Transparent pricing and fees to ensure markets are operating fairly
-
-
Appropriate remedies for members of society harmed by other entities
-
Fines
-
Antitrust intervention
-
-
Same interests as society-level plus
-
Fast, frictionless experience to access a wide array of internet-enabled content and services that makes the Web so valuable
-
Secure access to access a wide array of internet-enabled content and services that makes the Web so valuable
-
-
Appropriate risk mitigation and remedies
-
Increased transparency on data collection and processing purposes
-
Easy access to understand descriptions of data collection and processing purposes
-
Right to data portability
-
-
Increased control over any stable ID to which content consumption activity is associated
-
Increased control over legitimate data processing purposes
-
Consent for
-
Use of interest-based advertising
-
Use of precise geolocation data
-
Use of sensitive health and financial data or information related to protected classes
-
Association of a pseudonymous digital ID with directly-identifiable data
-
Content consumption, communication or commercial activity tied to offline identity
-
Access to adult content by appropriate guardian to prevent unauthorized viewing by underage family members
-
-
-
Remedy for the inappropriate use of personal data
-
Right to be forgotten that benefits from
-
Ability to reset a pseudonymous digital ID
-
Dissociation of previously associated devices
-
Dissociation of previously collected data with a pseudonymous digital ID
-
Correction/deletion of directly-identifiable data
-
-
Right to object to data processing
-
Right to be informed of high-risk data breaches
-
Right to appropriate remedies for harm (e.g., compensation)
-
-
-
The publisher ad-funded business model is supported by addressing marketers needs and wants
-
Impacting these marketer interests, reduces the revenue publishers can earn
-
Reducing publisher revenues, impacts the interests of society
-
-
Marketers who invest in cross-publisher advertising need scaled, interoperable measurement and control.
-
Real-time feedback to improve content matching and budget reallocation to better engage with prospects and customers
-
Fraud and robot detection
-
Independent verification of delivery and measurement
-
Attribution of subsequent first-party engagement to prior third-party exposure
-
Aggregate content consumption trends
-
-
Appropriate risk mitigation and remedies.
- Remedy for being charged for inaccurate delivery of content to the "right" individuals or the inaccurate measurement of total exposures or interactions
-
Ad-funded business model to provide free access to all
-
Same interests as marketers that maximize the value of advertising inventory
-
Same interests as marketers to attract new people to the publisher's own property
-
-
Freedom to provide internet-enabled content/services with the support of an open marketplace of vendors.
-
Appropriate risk mitigation and remedies
- Remedy for publisher brand being misappropriated ("repurposing")
-
Same interests desired by society and individuals plus
-
Ability to facilitate publisher and marketer engagement with end users
- Interoperable standards to support the ease of navigation across publishers' internet-enabled content and services
-
Ability to differentiate on
-
speed of rendering content
-
ease of navigating the open web
-
customizability for each person
-
efficiency in CPU (and hence power and battery consumption)
-
-
-
Browsers do not want to differentiate on
-
Which internet-enabled content and services (publishers) they are compatible with or break
-
Security (the internet should be equally secure across all browsers)
- Protection against malware
-
Principles to Improve Web Advertising
IWAG01 Interoperable
Improved Web Advertising should facilitate data exchange among multiple, separate services.
-
IWAR01.1 should consist of precisely defined standards
-
IWAR01.2 must enable data portability across services
-
IWAR01.3 should support secure point-to-point communication
-
IWAR01.4 should support ease of navigation
-
IWAR01.5 should provide consistent experiences
IWAG02 Accountable
Improved Web Advertising participants must be responsible for their actions so as to encourage trustworthy data collection and processing.
-
IWAR02.1 data exchanges and processing must be auditable
-
IWAR02.2 violations for inappropriate actions should be enforceable
-
IWAR02.3 must supply appropriate remedies for harm
-
IWAR02.4 must support freedom of the press to investigate and report on wrongdoing
-
IWAR02.5 must provide individual right to be forgotten
-
IWAR02.6 must provide individual right to correction or deletion
IWAG03 Accessible
Improved Web Advertising should not impose high costs to send or receive internet-enabled data.
-
IWAR03.1 should provide frictionless access to a wide diversity of publishers
-
IWAR03.2 must be accessible regardless of economic means
-
IWAR03.3 should support freedom of expression
-
IWAR03.4 must be keep users free from self-censorship
IWAG04 Choice
Improved Web Advertising should not impose high barriers to entry for new market entrants.
-
IWAR04.1 must support decentralization or sufficient options for centralized alternatives
-
IWAR04.2 should support open market competition
-
IWAR04.3 should support freedom of information
-
IWAR04.4 should supporting diversity, especially minority opinions