4 ms·

Call me cynical but I'm guessing that Meta just made a large donation to Mozilla and in turn they're using Mozilla to whitewash this proposal. They're just buyi

by Jerry2 5y ago

Call me cynical but I'm guessing that Meta just made a large donation to Mozilla and in turn they're using Mozilla to whitewash this proposal. They're just buying Mozilla's reputation (what's left of it) for their purposes. FTA: >We’ve been looking to apply privacy preserving advertising technology to the attribution problem, so that advertisers can get answers to important questions without harming privacy. Mozilla's is basically looking for a unicorn. If they really cared about user privacy, they would have shipped an ad blocking and anti-tracking tech in their browser by default. However, if you look at where their revenue is coming from, you quickly realize why that will never happen.

akersten 5y ago
> they would have shipped an ad blocking and anti-tracking tech in their browser by default. In theory they do - the Tracking Protection thingy is on by default last I checked. I guess dirty money's hard to resist.
- jefftk 5y ago
  It is not on by default: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Privacy/Tracking_Protection https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Privacy/Trackin...
  - ekr____ 5y ago
    The naming around the various features is confusing. Briefly: - Tracking Protection basically blocks connections to known trackers entirely so the resources don't even load. - Enhanced Tracking Protection prevents various kinds of cross-site tracking by blocking cookies, etc. (https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enhanced-tracking-protection-firefox-desktop https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enhanced-tracking-prote...). ETP is on by default. TP is not.
    - Jerry2 5y ago
      I found this paper interesting [1] and how they characterize Firefox' behavior out of the box: We investigate the request behavior of each browser (Figure 7). Brave is the most effective at reducing third- party tracking-and-advertising requests; its claim to (1) is supported. The other privacy-focused browsers vary significantly in terms of reducing third-party tracking- and-advertising requests. Firefox Focus and Ghostery differ significantly in how much they reduce third- party tracking-and-advertising requests, but the perfor- mance of both supports their claims, (1) and (2). Fire- fox is least effective at reducing third-party tracking- and-advertising requests. This is unsurprising, as Fire- fox’s enabled-by-default “standard” tracking protection “blocks fewer trackers” [79]. It errs on the side of caution in what it blocks, focusing on restricting tracking cook- ies, social-media trackers, and fingerprinting scripts; it does not block other content (loaded ads, videos) that may perform tracking [78, 105]. Thus, while Firefox claims (2), its blocking of tracking and advertising is limited with its default settings. This is quite disappointing given Mozilla's marketing around privacy. [1] https://petsymposium.org/2022/files/papers/issue1/popets-2022-0012.pdf https://petsymposium.org/2022/files/papers/issue1/popets-202...
sfink 5y ago
I think such a donation would end up in the annual report, at least in some form. If it were big enough to matter, anyway. But I personally don't need to speculate, since I find the notion very unlikely. Meta needs Mozilla here since anything they propose will be viewed with intense suspicion. If they are legitimately interested in a moderately privacy-preserving solution, which they very well might be (and not out of the goodness of their hearts), then they'll need buy-in from other players. Mozilla is probably a fiercer opponent than it is a useful ally, but just in terms of gathering support it's a decent place to start. Mozilla needs Meta in order to make any headway on the privacy disaster that is the modern web. It doesn't have the market share to dominate the fight, so it makes sense to forge a temporary alliance when other pressures push Meta in the right direction. (This is assuming Mozilla's intentions are noble. I work for Mozilla, and am biased to think so, so I won't second-guess. But cleaning up this shit-show is kinda part of our mission, so it really shouldn't be hard to swallow.) It seems like Google is the elephant in the room. Could Meta + Mozilla move the needle against Google's objections? I doubt it. Meta + Mozilla + public opinion? Maybe. > If they really cared about user privacy, they would have shipped an ad blocking and anti-tracking tech in their browser by default. However, if you look at where their revenue is coming from, you quickly realize why that will never happen. First, Firefox does ship a lot of anti-tracking tech, as much of it by default as possible without breaking sites too much. Second, they'd ship an ad blocker by default if they really cared about making a useless statement. I doubt Google would pay much for search traffic that generates zero revenue. Even if Mozilla were to magically diversify its income to survive the loss of Google, though, I'm not sure such a move would be in the long-term best interests of the web. Tracking is the true enemy of privacy, not ads. Ads suck and are doing massive damage to our civilization, in ways far beyond what I've heard discussed. But a zero-ad future isn't automatically going to be peaches and cream either. It could easily end up being a web (and media) of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich.
- Jerry2 5y ago
  > First, Firefox does ship a lot of anti-tracking tech, as much of it by default as possible without breaking sites too much. Hi sfink. Thank you for a response. I still use Firefox myself but I've been disillusioned by the Mozilla's (mis)management in recent years. I think we will find out more about this "deal" with Meta in the next report and whether they have contributed anything to Mozilla. I find your theory about Mozilla teaming up with Meta to oppose Google interesting. But I don't see why Mozilla would rock the boat and upset their biggest customer. As for Firefox' 'out of the box' privacy protections, please take a look at this academic paper that I've linked in another comment [1]: Specifically, section 4.2.4 on page 238: >Firefox is least effective at reducing third-party tracking-and-advertising requests. This is unsurprising, as Firefox’s enabled-by-default “standard” tracking protection “blocks fewer trackers”. [1] https://petsymposium.org/2022/files/papers/issue1/popets-2022-0012.pdf https://petsymposium.org/2022/files/papers/issue1/popets-202...

by Jerry2 5y ago

akersten 5y ago

> they would have shipped an ad blocking and anti-tracking tech in their browser by default. In theory they do - the Tracking Protection thingy is on by default last I checked. I guess dirty money's hard to resist.

jefftk 5y ago
It is not on by default: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Privacy/Tracking_Protection https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Privacy/Trackin...
- ekr____ 5y ago
  The naming around the various features is confusing. Briefly: - Tracking Protection basically blocks connections to known trackers entirely so the resources don't even load. - Enhanced Tracking Protection prevents various kinds of cross-site tracking by blocking cookies, etc. (https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enhanced-tracking-protection-firefox-desktop https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enhanced-tracking-prote...). ETP is on by default. TP is not.
  - Jerry2 5y ago
    I found this paper interesting [1] and how they characterize Firefox' behavior out of the box: We investigate the request behavior of each browser (Figure 7). Brave is the most effective at reducing third- party tracking-and-advertising requests; its claim to (1) is supported. The other privacy-focused browsers vary significantly in terms of reducing third-party tracking- and-advertising requests. Firefox Focus and Ghostery differ significantly in how much they reduce third- party tracking-and-advertising requests, but the perfor- mance of both supports their claims, (1) and (2). Fire- fox is least effective at reducing third-party tracking- and-advertising requests. This is unsurprising, as Fire- fox’s enabled-by-default “standard” tracking protection “blocks fewer trackers” [79]. It errs on the side of caution in what it blocks, focusing on restricting tracking cook- ies, social-media trackers, and fingerprinting scripts; it does not block other content (loaded ads, videos) that may perform tracking [78, 105]. Thus, while Firefox claims (2), its blocking of tracking and advertising is limited with its default settings. This is quite disappointing given Mozilla's marketing around privacy. [1] https://petsymposium.org/2022/files/papers/issue1/popets-2022-0012.pdf https://petsymposium.org/2022/files/papers/issue1/popets-202...

sfink 5y ago

I think such a donation would end up in the annual report, at least in some form. If it were big enough to matter, anyway. But I personally don't need to speculate, since I find the notion very unlikely. Meta needs Mozilla here since anything they propose will be viewed with intense suspicion. If they are legitimately interested in a moderately privacy-preserving solution, which they very well might be (and not out of the goodness of their hearts), then they'll need buy-in from other players. Mozilla is probably a fiercer opponent than it is a useful ally, but just in terms of gathering support it's a decent place to start. Mozilla needs Meta in order to make any headway on the privacy disaster that is the modern web. It doesn't have the market share to dominate the fight, so it makes sense to forge a temporary alliance when other pressures push Meta in the right direction. (This is assuming Mozilla's intentions are noble. I work for Mozilla, and am biased to think so, so I won't second-guess. But cleaning up this shit-show is kinda part of our mission, so it really shouldn't be hard to swallow.) It seems like Google is the elephant in the room. Could Meta + Mozilla move the needle against Google's objections? I doubt it. Meta + Mozilla + public opinion? Maybe. > If they really cared about user privacy, they would have shipped an ad blocking and anti-tracking tech in their browser by default. However, if you look at where their revenue is coming from, you quickly realize why that will never happen. First, Firefox does ship a lot of anti-tracking tech, as much of it by default as possible without breaking sites too much. Second, they'd ship an ad blocker by default if they really cared about making a useless statement. I doubt Google would pay much for search traffic that generates zero revenue. Even if Mozilla were to magically diversify its income to survive the loss of Google, though, I'm not sure such a move would be in the long-term best interests of the web. Tracking is the true enemy of privacy, not ads. Ads suck and are doing massive damage to our civilization, in ways far beyond what I've heard discussed. But a zero-ad future isn't automatically going to be peaches and cream either. It could easily end up being a web (and media) of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich.

Jerry2 5y ago
> First, Firefox does ship a lot of anti-tracking tech, as much of it by default as possible without breaking sites too much. Hi sfink. Thank you for a response. I still use Firefox myself but I've been disillusioned by the Mozilla's (mis)management in recent years. I think we will find out more about this "deal" with Meta in the next report and whether they have contributed anything to Mozilla. I find your theory about Mozilla teaming up with Meta to oppose Google interesting. But I don't see why Mozilla would rock the boat and upset their biggest customer. As for Firefox' 'out of the box' privacy protections, please take a look at this academic paper that I've linked in another comment [1]: Specifically, section 4.2.4 on page 238: >Firefox is least effective at reducing third-party tracking-and-advertising requests. This is unsurprising, as Firefox’s enabled-by-default “standard” tracking protection “blocks fewer trackers”. [1] https://petsymposium.org/2022/files/papers/issue1/popets-2022-0012.pdf https://petsymposium.org/2022/files/papers/issue1/popets-202...