Sorry, I don't get the distinction here. What is what is something that counterintuitively counts as first party data.

So they're like, they're displaying ads on third party publisher, like third party publisher sites, but because the ad's take the form of content recommendations, it is actually like a first party ish product. So, and I'm not sure how far that like, how much Apple and Google actually count, that distinction, but there are definitely cases where you can make something first party enough to count, and, and, you know, still still do things sort of the old way with more a little more inconvenience and just a little less of the ability to use external data sets and try to go across them. Right.

Yeah, so like, is this, maybe we just go back to the kind of, yeah, is it the, is it malice or is it, or is it just kind of like signaling and social factors. Right. What was the kind of intent behind this legislation, and we might not know as well so feel free to tell me that if you don't know or just aren't really very confident. But was the intent behind this like it, like the public choice theory purpose or was it just, you know, a mess that happened to land on this land on this outcome.

My, my mental model is that usually these things start out with good intentions, but there are a lot of detailed decisions you have to make to actually implement them, and that the implementation is when you, you the legislator do need to rely on lobbyists. And the lobbyists are definitely going to give you a version of the truth that does correspond to reality, but also corresponds to the version of reality that is best for their purposes. And then the other piece of privacy is Apple and Google getting more restrictive. And I think in that case, it is, it is more straightforwardly that they, they see this as good PR, and they also know that it's not going to affect them like Apple Apple still tracks you across apps like they're still doing exactly what they ban other apps. And they, they're just very, very vague about exactly exactly how they do it, but they're still doing that. And then they're, they're also staffing up on the advertising side of their business. So it's, yeah, again, it doesn't, it doesn't entirely change what happens. It changes who does it. And in some ways, in some ways, it's good. So one of the sentences, which is good, is that it does mean that you have less data just being freely auctioned off by whomever to whomever. You have a lot more of it concentrated in companies that at least view, they at least see that there's reputational legal risk to doing anything to agree just with the data. They may also actually have some level of ideological commitment, like they don't want, they don't want lots of data brokers out there sharing everything about everyone with anyone who wants to pay, because they, they believe they would hold themselves to higher standards and, you know, they, they can, they can still do a fair amount of ad targeting. Also keep people's personally identifiable information safe and make, you know, more money for them, but not as much money as the entire ad type system would have made under

previous system.