It has come to my attention that many of the people complaining about #Firefox's #PPA experiment don't actually understand what PPA is, what it does, and what Firefox is trying to accomplish with it, so an explainer 𧡠is in order.
Targeted advertising sucks. It is invasive and privacy-violating, it enables populations to be manipulated by bad actors in democracy-endangering ways, and it doesn't actually sell products.
Nevertheless, commercial advertisers are addicted to the data they get from targeted advertising. They aren't going to stop using it until someone convinces them there's something else that will work better.
"Contextual advertising works better."
Yes, it does!
But, again, advertisers are addicted to the data, and contextual advertising provides much less data, so they don't trust it.
What PPA says is, "Suppose we give you anonymized, aggregated data about which of your ads on which sites resulted in sales or other significant commitments from users?"
The data that the browser collects under PPA are sent to a third-party (in Firefox's case, the third party is the same organization that runs Let's Encrypt; does anybody think they're not trustworthy?) and aggregated and anonymized there. Noise is introduced into the data to prevent de-anonymization.
This allows advertisers to "target" which sites they put their ads on. It doesn't allow them to target individuals.
In Days Of Yore, advertisers would do things like ask people to bring newspapers ads into the store or mention a certain phrase to get deals. These were for collecting conversion statistics on paper ads. Ditto for coupons.
PPA is a way to do this online.
Is there a potential for abuse? Sure, which is why the data need to be aggregated and anonymized by a trusted third party. If at some point they discover they're doing insufficient aggregation or anonymization, then they can fix that all in one place.
And if the work they're doing is transparent, as compared to the entirely opaque adtech industry, the entire internet can weigh in on any bugs in their algorithms.
Is this a utopia? No.
Would it be better than what we have now? Indisputably.
Is there a clear path right now to anything better? Not that I can see.
We can keep fighting for something better while still accepting this as an improvement over what we have now.
This is bullshit. The total amount of advertising I want is zero. The total amount I want of tracking is zero. The total amount of experiments I want run on my data without consent is, guess, zero.
Then you keep blocking ads and nothing changes for you.
The backlash here is wild and completely uninformed. This is only good for consumers, the ads that this will affect are already tracking you in more onerous ways.
"They are already kicking you in the balls, so why not let Mozilla kick you too?"
Lmao no this is Mozilla giving you a cup.
You're still missing the point. I know what the tech does. But it's opt-out without user consent, not opt-in. And there is some phoning home for it to work, isn't there?
This is Mozilla pulling your pants down while you sleep, grabbing your balls to put the cup, pulling the pants back up, then carrying on as if nothing happened.
Well, this isn't about you. If you're blocking ads anyways, there's going to be no data to report.
But Firefox needs webpage owners to be able to make a buck off of supporting Firefox. Otherwise, we'll see even more webpages suggesting to switch to Chrome.
Do you donate to FOSS software you use?
Your options are ads or donations. As it costs money to develop and host a lot of FOSS, in our capitalist world, it's impossible to offer a service without somehow receiving money to continue to provide that service.
Yes, for example I donate to thunderbird since I find it useful. And I wouldn't mind donating to Firefox either provided they wouldn't do this sort of fuckery.
though in the long run we need to overturn capitalism of course, and that an economic model is viable doesn't mean we should sustain it or justify it.
I do. Are there any other strawmen you'd like to throw at me?
Based
Bruh, you're not who they were responding to. You don't have to insert yourself and then get defensive.
The top level comment is a pretty generic and widely agreeable within privacy circles statement, so yeah the reply was reasonably interpreted to be directed at people who agree with the top level comment, not just the author of the comment specifically.
It was against an opinion I agree with... I'm sorry for "inserting myself" into a completely public discussion on social media πππ
Then keep blocking ads and opt out of it. Not that hard isn't it?
It's hard when I don't get told about it and find by chance.
opt-out (instead of opt-in) should be illegal.
Okay, but should every other feature that has downsides then also be opt-in only? Should javascript be opt-in? Should storing cookies? Should HTTPS? -- After all, for the encryption to work, you need to send something to someone. Actually, should HTTP be opt-in in your web browser, since it mandates sending requests?
Yes, there's no reason everything can't be opt-in.
I don't think Firefox is for you. Firefox is a sane defaults type application, not an unopinionated humble application. It has a lot of settings which everyone appreciates, but ideologically it's targeting someone else.
Sane defaults like forced ad-tech?
Version 120 added a GPC option called "Tell websites not to sell or share my data"... too bad it doesn't apply to Mozilla themselves.
You mean "on ad-tech", it's a setting, it's not forced. Firefox by default has cookies and javascript on, which are also primarily ad-tech. The decision to allow ads by default was made a long time ago. It's what most users want.
Hard disagree, and I don't think the majority of people would agree with you there either.
By forced I meant not only is it opt-out and turned on by default, it's turned on for existing users who never had that setting before either (so not just for new users).
@refalo well, consider the entire Fediverse illegal then...π€¨
as far as GDPR is concerned, yes I think federated services are illegal.
Wait, what's the context for this claim?
@refalo but that's not what you originally said. But yeah, I'd like to see them take down all 25,000+ of us. Especially when a ton of them aren't in the EU.
It sure would have been if the community wasn't raging about it - most of us would have never learned it was turned on in the first place.
Sow do you plan to pay sites for the resources you use?
It depends, but mostly no. And if that means some sites are not economically possible, so be it.
I do donate to sites I regularly use, and find this much preferable to ads. I think most people find this preferable to ads, given how much I see popular ad-free websites raising during donation drives.
Well you can't have that because it guarantees you stay irrelevant and broke. Google did not make money off of you and you were never their target audience. Google and Chrome only ever existed because the majority of people click ads. Same thing here. Mozilla has been ad-funded since at least 2005.