5 ms·

It is an attempt to replace more invasive tracking techniques. The AdTech industry is unlikely to give up on knowing which ads were "successful". A privacy-frie

It is an attempt to replace more invasive tracking techniques. The AdTech industry is unlikely to give up on knowing which ads were "successful". A privacy-friendly solution developed by Firefox is miles better than something invented by Google, the AdTech company masquerading as a browser vendor.

KingOfCoders 2y ago
It is an attempt by Firefox to earn money from the AdTech industry. I use an adblocker, I have no need for "Privacy preserving ads".
- frabcus 2y ago
  How will it help them earn money? Are Google threatening them with withdrawal of search revenue unless they add the feature? Something else?
  - Yeri 2y ago
    Firefox is in the ads business now: https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/mozilla-anonym-raising-the-bar-for-privacy-preserving-digital-advertising/ https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/mozilla-anonym-raising-t...
    - frabcus 2y ago
      Interesting thanks! Anonyms technology is presumably what the original article was about? Any idea what a transaction will look like. Who will pay them for this and how? I guess ad networks would pay so they can still attribute and do retain their customers better? I wonder what the fee is per
  - rwmj 2y ago
    If only they'd saved the Google money into a trust rather than spaffing it on senior management.
    - KingOfCoders 2y ago
      >$6.000.000.000
  - whamlastxmas 2y ago
    Firefox is controlled opposition. Firefox will hire leadership that is most capable of maximizing revenue from Google, and Google sends their money to Firefox based on now nicely that CEO cooperates. Therefore it’s probably not a direct threat but a “do we understand each other?” situation
MenhirMike 2y ago
> A privacy-friendly solution developed by Firefox It's actually developed together with Meta/Facebook: https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/privacy-preserving-attribution-for-advertising/ https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/privacy-preserving-attri...
- tutipop 2y ago
  And the ad company they acquired is also linked to Meta: > Anonym was founded in 2022 by former Meta executives Brad Smallwood and Graham Mudd. https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/mozilla-anonym-raising-the-bar-for-privacy-preserving-digital-advertising/ https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/mozilla-anonym-raising-t...
justinclift 2y ago
So you're pretty much saying Mozilla have given up fighting and joined the dark side yeah?
barbariangrunge 2y ago
Can anyone comment on how effectively privacy is preserved with this approach?
- throwawa14223 2y ago
  If I understand it is not privacy preserving with regard to you and the aggregator but it is preserving with regard to you and the ad agency.
  - ndriscoll 2y ago
    Only if you redefine privacy. I don't want any of my information being leaked. It is plausible for example that you could form a statistical cohort around people that work in an organization and determine that they have become interested in a topic that reveals internal plans. Even as an individual, I can only see more accurate modeling of my interests as a tool to be used against me. I do not consent to sharing those correlations. They are private.
    - redxtech 2y ago
      This feature isn't modelling your interests. It's letting advertisers get insight into the performance of their ad campaigns without tracking individual users. The ad agency is only able to see: their add (y), published on source z, led to x conversions, over a period of time (p).
JoshTriplett 2y ago
Giving more tracking misfeatures to advertisers does not cause them to give up the old tracking mechanisms, just add more tools to their toolbox. The only way to get them to stop using the old mechanisms is to block those mechanisms. If you can't block those mechanisms then you're just giving more ways for advertisers to track people, not taking away the old ones. And if you can block those mechanisms, then just block them, you're done, stop there.
- buildfocus 2y ago
  This is not a tracking mechanism - it's quite convincingly private to _all_ participants in the protocol (only you, as the browser client, have the full data). Websites specifically receive only aggregate data from their complete user base, not any individual info. Whether it's worthwhile and/or will help reduce industry tracking practices is a good & separate question, but it's not reasonable to describe this as anything akin to a attack on privacy.
  - JoshTriplett 2y ago
    User data is valuable in aggregate as well, and keeping it from advertisers in every form is a component of privacy. It's an attack surface with no redeeming value for end users. There is no value gained by compromising with advertisers.
    - arp242 2y ago
      You can't just claim it's an "attack surface" without anything to back that up. That's just engaging in boring black/white thinking. And of course the data is useful. That's why this is being done. That in itself is not a argument against it.
      - JoshTriplett 2y ago
        I'm quite happy to continue saying "advertising is bad, tracking is bad, anything that serves no purpose other than to help them is bad for users". Calling that "black and white thinking" is not an argument that advertising is good, or tracking is good, or that this API proposal is good. What is the reason this is good for users? It's not "this is better than other tracking", because this does nothing to take away other tracking so it's not an either-or. Other tracking won't go away until it's blocked. There is no requirement to provide a replacement. "We've should eliminate toxic waste being dumped in the water!" "What do you propose to replace the toxic wastewith? Why don't we provide a less toxic waste? Maybe if we offer the option of dumping a less toxic waste, that'll incentivize factories to dump that instead of the more toxic waste?"

KingOfCoders 2y ago

It is an attempt by Firefox to earn money from the AdTech industry. I use an adblocker, I have no need for "Privacy preserving ads".

frabcus 2y ago
How will it help them earn money? Are Google threatening them with withdrawal of search revenue unless they add the feature? Something else?
- Yeri 2y ago
  Firefox is in the ads business now: https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/mozilla-anonym-raising-the-bar-for-privacy-preserving-digital-advertising/ https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/mozilla-anonym-raising-t...
  - frabcus 2y ago
    Interesting thanks! Anonyms technology is presumably what the original article was about? Any idea what a transaction will look like. Who will pay them for this and how? I guess ad networks would pay so they can still attribute and do retain their customers better? I wonder what the fee is per
- rwmj 2y ago
  If only they'd saved the Google money into a trust rather than spaffing it on senior management.
  - KingOfCoders 2y ago
    >$6.000.000.000
- whamlastxmas 2y ago
  Firefox is controlled opposition. Firefox will hire leadership that is most capable of maximizing revenue from Google, and Google sends their money to Firefox based on now nicely that CEO cooperates. Therefore it’s probably not a direct threat but a “do we understand each other?” situation

MenhirMike 2y ago

> A privacy-friendly solution developed by Firefox It's actually developed together with Meta/Facebook: https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/privacy-preserving-attribution-for-advertising/ https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/privacy-preserving-attri...

tutipop 2y ago
And the ad company they acquired is also linked to Meta: > Anonym was founded in 2022 by former Meta executives Brad Smallwood and Graham Mudd. https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/mozilla-anonym-raising-the-bar-for-privacy-preserving-digital-advertising/ https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/mozilla-anonym-raising-t...

justinclift 2y ago

So you're pretty much saying Mozilla have given up fighting and joined the dark side yeah?

barbariangrunge 2y ago

Can anyone comment on how effectively privacy is preserved with this approach?

throwawa14223 2y ago
If I understand it is not privacy preserving with regard to you and the aggregator but it is preserving with regard to you and the ad agency.
- ndriscoll 2y ago
  Only if you redefine privacy. I don't want any of my information being leaked. It is plausible for example that you could form a statistical cohort around people that work in an organization and determine that they have become interested in a topic that reveals internal plans. Even as an individual, I can only see more accurate modeling of my interests as a tool to be used against me. I do not consent to sharing those correlations. They are private.
  - redxtech 2y ago
    This feature isn't modelling your interests. It's letting advertisers get insight into the performance of their ad campaigns without tracking individual users. The ad agency is only able to see: their add (y), published on source z, led to x conversions, over a period of time (p).

JoshTriplett 2y ago

Giving more tracking misfeatures to advertisers does not cause them to give up the old tracking mechanisms, just add more tools to their toolbox. The only way to get them to stop using the old mechanisms is to block those mechanisms. If you can't block those mechanisms then you're just giving more ways for advertisers to track people, not taking away the old ones. And if you can block those mechanisms, then just block them, you're done, stop there.

buildfocus 2y ago
This is not a tracking mechanism - it's quite convincingly private to _all_ participants in the protocol (only you, as the browser client, have the full data). Websites specifically receive only aggregate data from their complete user base, not any individual info. Whether it's worthwhile and/or will help reduce industry tracking practices is a good & separate question, but it's not reasonable to describe this as anything akin to a attack on privacy.
- JoshTriplett 2y ago
  User data is valuable in aggregate as well, and keeping it from advertisers in every form is a component of privacy. It's an attack surface with no redeeming value for end users. There is no value gained by compromising with advertisers.
  - arp242 2y ago
    You can't just claim it's an "attack surface" without anything to back that up. That's just engaging in boring black/white thinking. And of course the data is useful. That's why this is being done. That in itself is not a argument against it.
    - JoshTriplett 2y ago
      I'm quite happy to continue saying "advertising is bad, tracking is bad, anything that serves no purpose other than to help them is bad for users". Calling that "black and white thinking" is not an argument that advertising is good, or tracking is good, or that this API proposal is good. What is the reason this is good for users? It's not "this is better than other tracking", because this does nothing to take away other tracking so it's not an either-or. Other tracking won't go away until it's blocked. There is no requirement to provide a replacement. "We've should eliminate toxic waste being dumped in the water!" "What do you propose to replace the toxic wastewith? Why don't we provide a less toxic waste? Maybe if we offer the option of dumping a less toxic waste, that'll incentivize factories to dump that instead of the more toxic waste?"