fastcompany.com
www.fastcompany.com

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 @[email protected]. “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.”

  • sabreW4K3@lazysoci.al
    0·
    3 months ago

    I think a reasonable person would say better ad-tracking does not provide a direct benefit to a user.

    That’s not a reasonable person. That’s an ignorant conspiracy theorist whose reality is grounded in delusion because right now advertisers take what they want and what they can get and the average user is depending on the browser to pay whack-a-mole with the invasive privacy tech they build and it’s not sustainable.

    The argument is that better ad-tracking means that companies such as mozilla can make money from advertisements while providing “better” privacy then the cookies/fingerprinting everywhere model.

    There has never been a suggestion that Mozilla is planning to monetize PPA for themselves.

    That is a indirect benefit for the user. If they don’t use the new ad-tracking how does their experience change? Not at all. So any benefits are down the line.

    The benefit is that it’s better than what we have now.

    • jet@hackertalks.comEnglish
      0·
      3 months ago

      Since I think of myself as a reasonable person, and I agree with what said by the privacy guides editor, that means I’m also a “ignorant conspiracy theorist” and I may be just conspiring about my ignorance but I don’t appreciate being devalued as such.

      Mozilla purchased a advertisement company… that’s a pretty strong step towards monetization.

      • sabreW4K3@lazysoci.al
        0·
        3 months ago

        One has nothing to do with another, since the other person replied with logical fallacies, I’ll point out that you’re using a false cause. Regarding your feeling devalued when you bandwagon and push a false narrative in order to assist in manufacturing outrage is on you.

        And for the record, reasonable people stick to the facts, they don’t pull random bits of information to support theories with zero standing.

    • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
      0·
      3 months ago

      Ah, yes, ad-hom people you disagree with, that’s always a compelling argument.

      Maybe you should learn how much we’re actively tracked today before making your claims.

      I highly recommend “Taking Control of Your Personal Data” by prof. Jennifer Golbeck, published by The Teaching Company, ISBN:978-1629978390, likely available at your local library as a DVD or streaming.

    • ReversalHatchery@beehaw.orgEnglish
      0·
      3 months ago

      That’s not a reasonable person. That’s an ignorant conspiracy theorist whose reality is grounded in delusion because right now advertisers take what they want and what they can get and the average user is depending on the browser to pay whack-a-mole with the invasive privacy tech they build and it’s not sustainable.

      I’m afraid actually you are the ignorant corporate worshipper, whose reality is grounded in delusion, because ad tech companies will not ever stop using their already researched tracking and targeting techniques. For one, they have spent a lot of money on that research, the results are earning them a lot of money, and the business model of all of them is based on infinite growth, like cancer, so they’ll never stop using those techniques to switch to something inferior in their eyes.
      You won’t be able to force them with legislation either. They’ll either find loopholes, make the loopholes, or just pay the small fines for the few cases they’ll receive, in any case treating the costs as the cost of business because it is still very profitable.

      Parasites cannot be believed, if you have forgot.

      There has never been a suggestion that Mozilla is planning to monetize PPA for themselves.

      I think the user was speculating that Mozilla might want to embed ads in Firefox with this tech, or on their support and other websites.

      The benefit is that it’s better than what we have now.

      Saying this is like accepting a new form of tax from a government that’s widely known to be (monetarily) corrupt, in the hopes that with it they’ll be content and will stop stealing and privatizing public money.