This interview from @OSchiffey has great quotes that directly refute the nonsense that many privacy advocates spout about how the death of cross-site tracking will help ad-supported publishers on the open web. https://t.co/bj1gWPKOei 1/

The interview is with a senior leader at a major global ad agency. Someone who actually knows what advertisers are talking about, where they are directing their spending, and what the future trends will be. Not a privacy advocate who knows nothing about the advertising market 2/
First, privacy advocates spread misinformation and bad research data that ITP hasn't hurt publisher revenue and/or hasn't affected advertiser spending. And yet here is an unequivocal answer as to the impact of ITP on advertiser spending. 3/
The agency exec also clearly shares the opinion that the end of 3PC will push money away from the open web, exactly what privacy advocates claim won't happen. 4/
She also talks about how context matters, but so does audience. Audience targeting is effectively dead without 3PC and non-Chrome browsers are doing nothing to change this. 5/
So the loss of audience targeting is another major negative for the open web as opposed to walled gardens who are mostly not affected - silence from privacy advocates. 6/
Then this quote, specifically about ID solutions, but also applies to contextual targeting. Context doesn't scale very strongly for advertisers, so where do you think more of their spending will flow? To the walled gardens of course! 7/
"Privacy" is used either as a tool for those who hate advertising, and just don't care about destroying free, quality content on the open web, or as a way to drive revenue growth for global platforms like Apple. https://t.co/TaRiRx5zP3 8/
More privacy is good, but it appears increasingly likely that the death of cross-site/app tracking (with no replacement) will drive more money to major platforms, hurt quality content, and allow those platforms to abuse privacy inside their walled gardens. 9/9

More from Finance

1/18 After 3 months, @saffronfinance_ is no longer new on the scene. Now that the kid has climbed the ranks, it's time to see if he can hang with the big boys.

Below are some updated thoughts on potential integrations, improvements, and innovations for Saffron moving forward. ⬇️


2/18 First, if you haven't seen @Privatechad_'s alpha-leaking introductory thread, you should check it out.

I agree that @AlphaFinanceLab and @CreamdotFinance, specifically the Iron Bank, would be ideal targets for SFI risk tranches.


3/18 Speaking more broadly, Saffron is primarily integrated with @compoundfinance, which has served as a MVP of sorts.

The thing is, Compound is one of the safest (but also lowest yield) protocols in DeFi, so it's not surprising that there isn't much demand for the sen. tranche.


4/18 Expanding beyond Compound to higher-risk/higher-return protocols has always been key.

These protocols are the bread-and-butter target market for Saffron, and I would expect to see a surge in demand for senior tranche staking in these


5/18 Additionally, @DeFiGod1 convinced me that Senior Tranche pools would be more appealing if they offered fixed yield.

Essentially, Saffron would augment the product offerings of @Barn_Bridge by also offering senior stakers insurance in the form of junior tranche collateral.

You May Also Like

The entire discussion around Facebook’s disclosures of what happened in 2016 is very frustrating. No exec stopped any investigations, but there were a lot of heated discussions about what to publish and when.


In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.

In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.

This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.

In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.