Advertising arrives on Whatsapp: spots in the “states” and on channels. The NGO on digital rights: “Contrary to EU rules”

It seemed like it would be the only app to remain “pure” in the Meta galaxy , which – let’s remember – includes Facebook and Instagram. And instead, Mark Zuckerberg managed after almost a decade to complete what was probably his initial project and to also include WhatsApp in the advertising triad. And this, we will see, is a problem for EU regulations that both Zuckerberg and Trump believe to be too restrictive and that hinder technological progress. Even more so if we take into account the fact that the various platforms could exchange information. But let’s start with the technical data.

Status and channels – Advertising will arrive on Whatsapp in two ways. With ads in the “status”, the contents that last 24 hours maximum (a bit like what already happens between one story and another on Instagram) and also through promotional channels for brands and companies that can be paid for with a monthly subscription to retain the public, who will receive exclusive contents. A practice that could be useful, for example, for those who create contents and want to monetize what on Telegram up to now is for example free. There will be the option “promoted channels” with which “for the first time administrators have a way to increase the visibility” of their space. The 'Updates' section of WhatsApp that hosts both channels and statuses is “used by 1.5 billion people every day”.

Privacy – Meta has specified that there will be no access to messages or phone numbers and conversations but that it will be able to use location, language and even the way in which users interact with ads and channels. In a word: profiling. “We do not sell or share your phone number with advertisers – explained the social network – Personal messages, calls and groups you are part of will not be used to determine the ads you may see”.

Monopoly issue – And what about what happens on other platforms? “If people use the Account Management Center, their ad preferences will be applied, and information from all their accounts will be used for ads,” explains the technical information on the site. A sort of “three-headed monster” that could be activated with a button and with which Meta is trying to monetize its platform with 2 billion active users per month, after having acquired it in 2014 for 19 billion dollars. Even at that time, there were fears that the union of these platforms would generate a monopoly problem (the EU Commission was the first to detect it) and in April in the US , after six years of investigations, the Federal Communication Commission (FTC) trial opened against the acquisition of Instagram and Whatsapp and the creation of a social media monopoly, initially agitated by the first Trump, then taken up by Biden and now, evidently, less worrying. A nice change of direction.

The NGO: “Contrary to EU law” – The Digital Markets Act (DMA) in force in the EU actually includes a commitment to limiting the monopolies of large technology companies. “Article 5(2) of the DMA – explains the NGO Noyb , the European Centre for Digital Rights based in Austria – requires the user’s free consent when companies want to link data between services. Similarly, the GDPR requires ‘free’ consent for personalized advertising”. Users should therefore always have the option to say “yes” or “no”. Meta instead proposed the “Pay or ok” option : if you don’t want to be profiled, you have to pay. An approach that the EU Commission has already deemed invalid. Also because – explains the NGO – 99% of users allow advertising, not being able to afford to pay for their digital freedom. Furthermore, the EU is the largest global market for WhatsApp in terms of purchasing power. “Meta is doing exactly the opposite of what is required by EU law,” explains Max Schrems, president of Noyb. “Data from its various platforms is being linked and users are being tracked for advertising purposes without any real choice.”

The appeal – The European Commission and national privacy authorities should protect citizens from having their data used without consent: “But Meta has learned that there are no real consequences. There are almost no fines, and those imposed so far have not been paid. Instead, it seems to be following the Trump administration’s approach and simply ignoring EU rules, deeming them somehow illegitimate.”