- cross-posted to:
- privacy@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- privacy@lemmy.ml
Mozilla’s system only measures the success rate of ads—it doesn’t help companies target those ads—and it’s less susceptible to abuse, EFF’s Lena Cohen told @FastCompany@flipboard.com. “It’s much more privacy-preserving than Google’s version of the same feature.”
https://mastodon.social/@eff/112922761259324925
Privacy experts say the new toggle is mostly harmless, but Firefox users saw it as a betrayal.
“They made this technology for advertisers, specifically,” says Jonah Aragon, founder of the Privacy Guides website. “There’s no direct benefit to the user in creating this. It’s software that only serves a party other than the user.”
You must log in or register to comment.
Everyone’s up in arms about a literal anonymous counter, but the other option is the current “spy on everything you do”
How is Mozilla getting flak for this outside of a few hardcore nerds that are welcome to use chrome if they so desire…
And I say that as a huge privacy advocate. In the local tin foil hat “privacy matters” nerd and I honestly don’t see the problem.
And quite frankly anyone that’s said it’s a problem has only been able to come up with “it shouldn’t help them count your views “ which is ridiculous, because it’s very anonymous.
Sooo …. Help me out here, what’s the issue?
“The other option,” like there’s only one. Like you can’t imagine anything else.
Until Mozilla got directly involved, other option was, fuck off.
“Why don’t you just move to another country if you don’t like it here?”
“I say this as a true patriot.”
There’s your issue.
Their argument was not that it’s good because people can use Chrome - the remark about Chrome was a sarcastic side note that is not needed to support the argument that it’s not clear what the issue is with an anonymous counter.
My issue was with that type of sarcasm, which is why I responded with a similarly dismissive sarcastic remark.
Dismissing people’s complaints by saying “you can go use something else/move someplace else” is unhelpful and used to negate their complaints without ever having to address their source.
I doubt many people see an anonymous counter as a huge problem itself, I don’t. The point is that this is a first step in a direction we don’t want to see the software go. If you don’t push back against these things from the moment they show up, they will continue to slowly inch in that direction until you end up in a nightmare like Chrome or Edge.
My issue was with that type of sarcasm, which is why I responded with a similarly dismissive sarcastic remark.
That’s fair enough.
There’s no reason why open source software should cater to advertisers.
Advertising is a plague on humanity. If we have to rethink our digital economics to fix it, then so be it.
If privacy preserving ad features become good enough, we won’t have as much privacy inversive ad tracking and a better internet overall. For the long game, this might not be such a bad thing as ads won’t go away anytime soon.
Typical. You post a reasonable response and get a bunch of ad-pilled shit takes:
“But will you eat shit if I put a little chocolate on it?”
“If you don’t eat shit, you don’t deserve to
interact with the interneteat.”“Maybe if you pay them a little money, they’ll stop trying to serve you shit?”
Advertisers contribute nothing of value to our society and contribute little of value to even the companies they serve. Let them burn. Every action they take to “serve” me ads will be met with an equal counteraction.
We deserve to live a life without being constantly bombarded with messages telling us to buy, buy, buy! This significantly decreases our quality of life and is endemic within our entire society. What the hell are all of you who defend advertisers thinking?
Give them an inch and they will take a mile. It definitely won’t be the first time.
If people aren’t ready to see an ad or pay to support something. Then maybe they don’t deserve that thing.
Exactly. I am happy to pay a reasonable price for content (I’m paying a bit for Nebula, for example), and my hope is that transitioning advertising to a privacy-friendly system run by clients will encourage more options to pay for content in lieu of ads.
I’d pay a few dollars a month to avoid ads on most sites, and I’m guessing that’s about what advertisers are making from me, but instead the options are:
- pay 10x what they’d make from ads
- see ads and get my privacy absolutely violated
- don’t interact with the thing
So the more we move toward privacy-respecting ads, the more likely we are to see more options than the above. At least that’s my take.
exactly. If the price was as much as ads pay it would cost users fractions of pennies per view. They just charge paid users so much more then that for the same thing. Since google ads is one of the biggest ads supplier we could technically have a wallet that substracts the ad value to not see it directly with google.
I just sent feedback to google from the “my ad center” page describing the wallet idea to pay the ad price instead of watching the ad. Last time i sent youtube feedback they didn’t come back to me but they did apply the change i was asking for. So we never know.
Cool, but I doubt Google honestly cares much. If they do it, it’ll be something much higher than the actual amount that ad is worth as a way to nudge users to pay for some kind of subscription.
Yea. That’s also what i think would happen if anything.
Personally, I don’t have a problem with ads. And if those ads can support further development on an open source product I get to use for free then that’s even better. What I have problem with is privacy intrusive targeted ads. Even before the internet, newspaper, radio had ads. They sure were annoying, but not as bad of a situation as it is now.
I mean, go ahead, rethink our digital economics. While we wait for that, what do we do in the meantime?
(And of note: Mozilla itself has launched several initiatives there as well (example), but none have panned out so far.)
Yeah it couldn’t happen overnight. I feel like ad blocking is a better solution to invest in up until that point however. We don’t need to enable advertisers.
We have adblockers. Websites keep finding ways to track us still, and/or to block people who are using them :/
Getting shot in the feet is technically better than getting shot in the stomach, but is still a bad option.
This entire thing is just idealism vs pragmatism for the trillionth time. The idealists are mad because they think all ads are bad and we shouldn’t try to work with advertisers in any capacity. They do not believe reducing the harmfulness of ads is a valid approach, because that would be an acknowledgement of ads. Common talking points there are about how this is technically working with advertisers and how the internet shouldn’t have ads in the first place.
The pragmatics also think ads are bad, but believe that an Internet without ads is very unlikely to happen, so they believe attempting to reduce the harmfulness of ads is a valid approach. Common talking points there are about how this isn’t giving advertisers anything they don’t already have and about how this doesn’t matter if you’re using an adblocker.
Like all other debates of this type, this probably isn’t ever going to be resolved to anyone’s satisfaction and we’ve really just been seeing the same talking points over and over again since the beginning. So I hope y’all have fun duking it out, I don’t think I’m gonna bother looking at these pointless PPA threads anymore.
Please argue how removing all (non-voluntary) advertising from society right now would do anything other than vastly improve society, and keep calling people like me idealists.
All ad supported services would need to move to a paid only model, locking out those who couldn’t afford to pay.
Or profit margins could just go down. I don’t know why you treat those two concepts as mutually exclusive; it’s been shown that even with expensive products companies will still mine massive amounts of user data and advertise to you endlessly. These parasites aren’t going to turn down extra profit at any avenue, no matter how legally, morally, or ethically questionable.
Many of the non-pragmatists also see this as somehow leaking information about you to advertisers though, rather than only working together with advertisers in the first place. But nobody has been able to mention what an advertiser would be able to know about me.
(Yes, yes, there are also people for whom it is only about working together with advertisers - I’m not talking about you, so no need to let us know.)
Exactly, well said.
It’s not that the ad issue isn’t going to be solved, it’s that ads are here now and we have to deal with them.
They are going to be replaced by direct micro-payments eventually but the puzzle pieces have been slow to get into place (also Google and the whole ad industry haven’t been cooperating for obvious reasons).
One of the major hurdles was the [in]ability to make online payments of a fraction of a cent but the digital Euro aims to make that possible (among other things).
With that and support for direct micropayments implemented in the browser we’ll be able to give a web page owner that fraction of a cent they get from ads now but only IF we want to, and when we do that we cut out all the ad industry as middlemen.
The problem with PPA wasn’t anything to do with the method it uses. Given enough announcement, discourse and investigation by the community; it’s entirely possible that users in general would have accepted it.
However; Mozilla did something very wrong by deploying this without asking the greater community. Point blank. That’s not good faith; and that did not allow for the community to go over the code and suggest fixes and express their concerns with how it works.
Instead Mozilla took the lead and decided it will exist; quietly. Without consulting the community. Given that this is how most companies turn selfish, that alarms MANY people who are knowledgeable about how Mozilla typically operates, and it undermines public trust in Mozilla.
They don’t necessarily need to run everything by me (or us, the community) but this context would’ve lessened my rage greatly.
I still don’t understand what’s so bad about this. Isn’t it a good thing for people not using adblocker and changes nothing for adblock users?
The problem is that they auto-opted all users into it, without giving notice or warning about what it is. They’ve done this before too with other “experiments”. The problem is that Mozilla becoming an ad oriented business is bad for user privacy. No different to Apple’s shift from hardware to services. The fox is infiltrating the hen house. Line must go up, and the users always pay the price for that with their data.
Turns out a user base who hates ad tech and surveillance capitalism doesn’t want ad-tech or surveillance embedded in their browser. Who would’ve thought?
The biggest issue I have with this is that it is opt out
Wouldn’t be a very useful metric if no one had it on lol
That is a very anticonsumer and antiuser freedom mentality.
Sure but it’s the reason why
Other big issue is they didn’t consult the Open source community. They could’ve been just straight with us and told us that donations aren’t cutting it and then community as a whole could’ve come up with something to monetize. And even if it ends up being advertising they could’ve worked with community to implement in such a way that it would respect the try reason why most people switch to Firefox to escape Google’s surveillance. And maybe I can stop daydreaming about an utopia
There’s a lot of people that trust the privacy guides website and yet the founder is just spewing emotional bullshit that’s not even grounded in facts. A bunch of smart people can see the benefit to the average end user and then Jonah is putting out bullshit. I’m disappointed in him and privacy guides.
As the other comment mentioned, it’s about caring about principles in theory vs. real-world effect. He still says that you should use Firefox (with some tweaks - installing uBlock Origin is the most important one, of course) if you want the most privacy-friendly browser, but I’m sure his ruckus will have caused people to just give up and stay with Chrome too.
I don’t want ads.
Their effectiveness is not really a factor.
Half the problem with Chrome is, browsers should have NOTHING to do with advertisers. It is a conflict of interest.
