3 ms·

> But you want to make sure this is useful enough for the ad companies so this actually becomes a solution. I guess the question though is: is Facebook going t

> But you want to make sure this is useful enough for the ad companies so this actually becomes a solution. I guess the question though is: is Facebook going to stop delivering ads if the solution isn't good enough? Why is it important that Facebook like the system? Facebook was very upset about Apple's privacy changes, it didn't get rid of ads on iOS. It's been very upset about a lot of things. What throws me in these conversations is that I'm not sure why the solution has to be one that Facebook is happy with. What Facebook would be happy with is as much data as they're allowed to have. And also, Facebook doesn't really have veto powers over what anyone else does, so it's not like we need to find a middle ground with the company. Part of the problem of building a solution that's good enough that advertisers won't want more is that it's difficult to believe that solution exists. Facebook is pretty clear that the constraints on what they'll collect is defined in their internal/public privacy policies, and within that constraint they will collect as much data as the platform offers. I'm not aware of any instances of a platform offering an ad attribution system that was privacy preserving, and having Facebook (or other companies) decide not to do any fingerprinting or insert any tracking links into pages, or use any cookies on that platform. I also find it really hard to believe that if Mozilla cracks down on fingerprinting and doesn't provide an alternative that Facebook is happy with, that Facebook will stop selling ads.

lisper 5y ago
My Bayesian prior is that anything that upsets FB is almost certainly a good thing, and vice versa.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  Indeed, the more upset they are the more likely it is that a solution really works.
  - Accacin 5y ago
    Exactly. Remember Facebook taking out a spread in a newspaper saying Apple would kill small businesses because they couldn't advertise? And that solution by Apple seemed to actually work in many respects. I'm really fed up with Mozilla. I've always used and believed in them but this just feels so odd.
reillyse 5y ago
Yea, there seems to be an unwarranted assumption that Facebook is somehow a necessary part of the ecosystem. They aren't. The internet will continue without them and doesn't need them.
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  Expecting advertisers to stop advertising on the Internet is like expecting all the billboards on the highway to blow down. Better to work on things like size limits and board-per-mile maximums with the billboard manufacturers.
  - LegitShady 5y ago
    The billboards are all virtual. If your interface doesn't render them they don't exist, and without colluding with advertiser's the size and rate of ads to a system that blocks ads is a meaningless number because they are never rendered. The real question is why is my supposedly privacy preserving interface colluding with this advertiser at all? I do not want them involved in my interface and it seems contrary to Mozilla's userbase's interests. Google at least went to the trouble of building a new browser and taking over the market. Facebook hasn't done anything to be involved except have money to pay off a seemingly corrupt mozzila
  - asfdgdthawerh 5y ago
    I don't expect advertisers to stop putting up billboards and I don't expect them to blow down. I live in a part of the world where billboards are banned. Likewise, all advertisements are banned from my network and any devices I manage. We are under no obligation to negotiate. Destroying the whole industry is on the table.
    - Jcowell 5y ago
      Yes but Firefox is NOT in any position to do that. The only ones are Apple via iOS Google through Chrome, and the Government and none do these entities have any incentive to do so. As such this is the most plausible way forward.
tyrfing 5y ago
What's your view on how this proposal compares to Apple's PCM? Why is Apple building a similar way for 3rd parties to reliably track users if this is overall harmful for users? > What Facebook would be happy with is as much data as they're allowed to have. Indeed. However, platform owners like Apple and Google are currently in a privileged position, where they make rules for others to follow but are free to collect any and all data they want. > While we believe that Apple’s move to eliminate IDFA was done in the spirit of advancing consumer privacy, it may ultimately provide Apple with an advertising platform that is competitively advantaged vs. peers who don’t have access to Apple’s richer APIs
- pseudalopex 5y ago
  > Why is Apple building a similar way for 3rd parties to reliably track users if this is overall harmful for users? The rest of your comment suggested they want to track users.
- danShumway 5y ago
  > What's your view on how this proposal compares to Apple's PCM? Why is Apple building a similar way for 3rd parties to reliably track users if this is overall harmful for users? It's always tricky to talk about Apple's positions on privacy. In some areas they are very good, but in some areas they are very good at appearing to be very good. I think that Apple itself wants to be able to do some level of attribution on the web. I think that Apple is under a lot more stress from regulators than Mozilla is. Obviously Apple has an inherent interest in making it look like that's not the case and that they're just solely on the side of privacy. I also think your concern about Apple/Google privileging their own platforms is completely accurate. However, I don't think that the solution to that is to make privacy worse in other areas, I would rather see Apple/Google hold themselves to the same standards that they hold other companies. In short, I'm not angry at Apple for the changes it's making because they hurt Facebook, I'm angry at Apple for either ignoring those changes itself or making sure that those changes don't apply to parts of iOS and the web that are important to Apple. This has come up a couple of times with iOS; it's good that 3rd-party apps have more restrictions on tracking, I wish the built-in apps were the same.
skybrian 5y ago
I assume they would be happy if this became a standard that Apple buys into, but the real competition is Google's proposal. And if that doesn't work out, the status quo continuing with tracking via third-party cookies.

lisper 5y ago

My Bayesian prior is that anything that upsets FB is almost certainly a good thing, and vice versa.

jacquesm 5y ago
Indeed, the more upset they are the more likely it is that a solution really works.
- Accacin 5y ago
  Exactly. Remember Facebook taking out a spread in a newspaper saying Apple would kill small businesses because they couldn't advertise? And that solution by Apple seemed to actually work in many respects. I'm really fed up with Mozilla. I've always used and believed in them but this just feels so odd.

reillyse 5y ago

Yea, there seems to be an unwarranted assumption that Facebook is somehow a necessary part of the ecosystem. They aren't. The internet will continue without them and doesn't need them.

shadowgovt 5y ago
Expecting advertisers to stop advertising on the Internet is like expecting all the billboards on the highway to blow down. Better to work on things like size limits and board-per-mile maximums with the billboard manufacturers.
- LegitShady 5y ago
  The billboards are all virtual. If your interface doesn't render them they don't exist, and without colluding with advertiser's the size and rate of ads to a system that blocks ads is a meaningless number because they are never rendered. The real question is why is my supposedly privacy preserving interface colluding with this advertiser at all? I do not want them involved in my interface and it seems contrary to Mozilla's userbase's interests. Google at least went to the trouble of building a new browser and taking over the market. Facebook hasn't done anything to be involved except have money to pay off a seemingly corrupt mozzila
- asfdgdthawerh 5y ago
  I don't expect advertisers to stop putting up billboards and I don't expect them to blow down. I live in a part of the world where billboards are banned. Likewise, all advertisements are banned from my network and any devices I manage. We are under no obligation to negotiate. Destroying the whole industry is on the table.
  - Jcowell 5y ago
    Yes but Firefox is NOT in any position to do that. The only ones are Apple via iOS Google through Chrome, and the Government and none do these entities have any incentive to do so. As such this is the most plausible way forward.

tyrfing 5y ago

What's your view on how this proposal compares to Apple's PCM? Why is Apple building a similar way for 3rd parties to reliably track users if this is overall harmful for users? > What Facebook would be happy with is as much data as they're allowed to have. Indeed. However, platform owners like Apple and Google are currently in a privileged position, where they make rules for others to follow but are free to collect any and all data they want. > While we believe that Apple’s move to eliminate IDFA was done in the spirit of advancing consumer privacy, it may ultimately provide Apple with an advertising platform that is competitively advantaged vs. peers who don’t have access to Apple’s richer APIs

pseudalopex 5y ago
> Why is Apple building a similar way for 3rd parties to reliably track users if this is overall harmful for users? The rest of your comment suggested they want to track users.
danShumway 5y ago
> What's your view on how this proposal compares to Apple's PCM? Why is Apple building a similar way for 3rd parties to reliably track users if this is overall harmful for users? It's always tricky to talk about Apple's positions on privacy. In some areas they are very good, but in some areas they are very good at appearing to be very good. I think that Apple itself wants to be able to do some level of attribution on the web. I think that Apple is under a lot more stress from regulators than Mozilla is. Obviously Apple has an inherent interest in making it look like that's not the case and that they're just solely on the side of privacy. I also think your concern about Apple/Google privileging their own platforms is completely accurate. However, I don't think that the solution to that is to make privacy worse in other areas, I would rather see Apple/Google hold themselves to the same standards that they hold other companies. In short, I'm not angry at Apple for the changes it's making because they hurt Facebook, I'm angry at Apple for either ignoring those changes itself or making sure that those changes don't apply to parts of iOS and the web that are important to Apple. This has come up a couple of times with iOS; it's good that 3rd-party apps have more restrictions on tracking, I wish the built-in apps were the same.

skybrian 5y ago

I assume they would be happy if this became a standard that Apple buys into, but the real competition is Google's proposal. And if that doesn't work out, the status quo continuing with tracking via third-party cookies.