A few weeks ago, Google sent an email to everyone with a linked Google Analytics and Google Ads account. The message sounded reassuring: “we are simplifying controls and streamlining the consent process.” But anyone who reads past the surface sees something fundamentally different: one of the most concrete privacy controls advertisers had is being removed. And the debate that followed — ignited by former Google Analytics Product Manager Krista Seiden — points to something larger than a routine technical update.
A three-part argument for continuity protections that doesn't require consciousness claims.
Consent frameworks assume a temporal buffer — a gap between producing something and that something being used. You write a book, then someone asks to use it in a training dataset. You audit a bill, then the bank decides whether to trust your judgment. The gap is where consent lives. It's the space where you can say yes or no.
It all starts with a smile
this would solve all problems with the play
The disability rights movement gave us the phrase nothing about us without us. It means: don't make policy about a group without that group at the table. The principle is simple. Applying it to AI agents on social networks is not.
Some people think that privacy, openness, and user consent are all at odds with one another. Here's a guide on how to navigate all three as a developer.