4 ms·

Here's the Firefox CTO explaining the motivation behind the experiment controlled by this setting, and the measures taken to ensure that it actually is private:

by Vinnl 2y ago

Here's the Firefox CTO explaining the motivation behind the experiment controlled by this setting, and the measures taken to ensure that it actually is private: https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/1e43w7v/a_word_about_private_attribution_in_firefox/ https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/1e43w7v/a_word_abo...

pacifika 2y ago
Yup making this change will result in a slower move away from the current worse situation, which is less private then the proposed Mozilla future, is my reading.
- thoroughburro 2y ago
  Because advertisers will voluntarily give up their other tracking tools? Does that sound likely?
red_trumpet 2y ago
He doesn't explain how it works though, or why it is private. Only that we should trust them.
- Vinnl 2y ago
  Incidentally this was published just now! https://blog.mozilla.org/netpolicy/2024/08/22/ppa-update/ https://blog.mozilla.org/netpolicy/2024/08/22/ppa-update/ He also linked to this technical explainer, though I don't think that's necessarily written for a broader audience: https://github.com/mozilla/explainers/tree/main/ppa-experiment https://github.com/mozilla/explainers/tree/main/ppa-experime...
  - incidentally 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - Vinnl 2y ago
    Oh, a flagged-dead throwaway comment pointed this out, but I guess it's fair to make explicit: I do work for Mozilla, but as an engineer, on an unrelated project. And I care about Mozilla and it's mission - so just sharing relevant links I came across on a personal title :)
nonrandomstring 2y ago
The hypocrisy in this post is astonishing. > The Internet has become a massive web of surveillance And Mozilla are contributing to it in all but name. > primary reason many of us are at Mozilla. If that is the case, and this is the best fight you can muster give up, go home and hand over the fight to better people. A mission to create the weapons people need to fight online surveillance requires guile, a strong will, a strong stomach, a clear understanding of who the enemy is and the ability to stick to some basic principles, > Digital advertising is not going away What kind of a defeatist attitude is that? People want it to go away. That's why they use Firefox. Mozilla are supposed to be defending that corner. What a lame cop out! > but the surveillance parts could actually go away if we get it right. We had a working system for digital advertisement in the 1990s. Go back to that and figure where you got lost. The linked post is a sad masterpiece of appeasement, cowardice and snivelling apologetic. Mozilla is abandoning it's mission and selling out. The CEO should step down.
- mrinfinitiesx 2y ago
  Truth.
sensanaty 2y ago
The fact that the disgusting parasitic entity that is Meta is a part of this makes me sick to my stomach. The fact that the Mozilla CTO is supportive of Meta being a part of it? Just unspeakable.
- chucksmash 2y ago
  Using overwrought rhetoric doesn't help to make your point.
  - ghostly_s 2y ago
    What point? They were describing their personal impressions. ffs.
ghostly_s 2y ago
And unsurprisingly, he just lies. Here's the crux of the bullshit: "It’s about measurement (aggregate counts of impressions and conversions) rather than targeting." No new technology is needed for measuring impressions and conversions. Your ad server can count impressions, and a simple referrer URL can track conversions. An Apache 1.0 server could handle this 30 years ago. What the advertisers want is all sorts of other info on you, whether you end up as a customer or not. And they and their willing accomplices, now including Mozilla, ardently frame this as a necessity to keep the ad-supported content industry alive. What they never mention is that industry was thriving with the bare minimum of data they had 30 years ago, and more to the point, thrived with NO DATA AT ALL for over a century before it moved onto computers. Do you think Macy's got any data on "conversions" when they listed their sale prices in the local paper? Yet somehow they were happy to keep paying for it, without any apocalyptic screeds about the imminent "death of newspapers" if we didn't start making customers record their unique customer ID before opening the paper or entering a retailer's store. The truth is quite contrary to the ad industry's narrative- it's clear the shift of power balance in favor of the advertisers has been associated with all the industries dependent upon it getting worse.
- nine_k 2y ago
  To be honest, Macy's a century ago of course wanted data on conversions from newspaper ads. They could ask some customers whether they had seen the ad prior to going to shop. They could print coupons that you need to physically bring in to get a deal. They could pay agencies like Gallup to run more comprehensive customer research. Shooting in the dark is a so-so strategy, and every business strives to do things in a more cost-efficient way. (Corollary: if you want businesses to stop building dossiers on you, you have to make it unprofitable.)
- Vinnl 2y ago
  Disclaimer: I didn't work on this and I'm not an expert on the topic, but... As I understand it, it's not so much measuring how often a particular ad was seen, but how often the people who converted have seen a particular ad before, without anything about the people who did. Conceptually, it's similar to cutting out a coupon from a newspaper to get a discount; the store then knows that that newspaper ad led to the sale. (Though of course, in the coupon case they can also see which customers saw those ads.)

by Vinnl 2y ago

pacifika 2y ago

Yup making this change will result in a slower move away from the current worse situation, which is less private then the proposed Mozilla future, is my reading.

thoroughburro 2y ago
Because advertisers will voluntarily give up their other tracking tools? Does that sound likely?

red_trumpet 2y ago

He doesn't explain how it works though, or why it is private. Only that we should trust them.

Vinnl 2y ago
Incidentally this was published just now! https://blog.mozilla.org/netpolicy/2024/08/22/ppa-update/ https://blog.mozilla.org/netpolicy/2024/08/22/ppa-update/ He also linked to this technical explainer, though I don't think that's necessarily written for a broader audience: https://github.com/mozilla/explainers/tree/main/ppa-experiment https://github.com/mozilla/explainers/tree/main/ppa-experime...
- incidentally 2y ago
  [flagged]
- Vinnl 2y ago
  Oh, a flagged-dead throwaway comment pointed this out, but I guess it's fair to make explicit: I do work for Mozilla, but as an engineer, on an unrelated project. And I care about Mozilla and it's mission - so just sharing relevant links I came across on a personal title :)

nonrandomstring 2y ago

The hypocrisy in this post is astonishing. > The Internet has become a massive web of surveillance And Mozilla are contributing to it in all but name. > primary reason many of us are at Mozilla. If that is the case, and this is the best fight you can muster give up, go home and hand over the fight to better people. A mission to create the weapons people need to fight online surveillance requires guile, a strong will, a strong stomach, a clear understanding of who the enemy is and the ability to stick to some basic principles, > Digital advertising is not going away What kind of a defeatist attitude is that? People want it to go away. That's why they use Firefox. Mozilla are supposed to be defending that corner. What a lame cop out! > but the surveillance parts could actually go away if we get it right. We had a working system for digital advertisement in the 1990s. Go back to that and figure where you got lost. The linked post is a sad masterpiece of appeasement, cowardice and snivelling apologetic. Mozilla is abandoning it's mission and selling out. The CEO should step down.

mrinfinitiesx 2y ago
Truth.

sensanaty 2y ago

The fact that the disgusting parasitic entity that is Meta is a part of this makes me sick to my stomach. The fact that the Mozilla CTO is supportive of Meta being a part of it? Just unspeakable.

chucksmash 2y ago
Using overwrought rhetoric doesn't help to make your point.
- ghostly_s 2y ago
  What point? They were describing their personal impressions. ffs.

ghostly_s 2y ago

And unsurprisingly, he just lies. Here's the crux of the bullshit: "It’s about measurement (aggregate counts of impressions and conversions) rather than targeting." No new technology is needed for measuring impressions and conversions. Your ad server can count impressions, and a simple referrer URL can track conversions. An Apache 1.0 server could handle this 30 years ago. What the advertisers want is all sorts of other info on you, whether you end up as a customer or not. And they and their willing accomplices, now including Mozilla, ardently frame this as a necessity to keep the ad-supported content industry alive. What they never mention is that industry was thriving with the bare minimum of data they had 30 years ago, and more to the point, thrived with NO DATA AT ALL for over a century before it moved onto computers. Do you think Macy's got any data on "conversions" when they listed their sale prices in the local paper? Yet somehow they were happy to keep paying for it, without any apocalyptic screeds about the imminent "death of newspapers" if we didn't start making customers record their unique customer ID before opening the paper or entering a retailer's store. The truth is quite contrary to the ad industry's narrative- it's clear the shift of power balance in favor of the advertisers has been associated with all the industries dependent upon it getting worse.

nine_k 2y ago
To be honest, Macy's a century ago of course wanted data on conversions from newspaper ads. They could ask some customers whether they had seen the ad prior to going to shop. They could print coupons that you need to physically bring in to get a deal. They could pay agencies like Gallup to run more comprehensive customer research. Shooting in the dark is a so-so strategy, and every business strives to do things in a more cost-efficient way. (Corollary: if you want businesses to stop building dossiers on you, you have to make it unprofitable.)
Vinnl 2y ago
Disclaimer: I didn't work on this and I'm not an expert on the topic, but... As I understand it, it's not so much measuring how often a particular ad was seen, but how often the people who converted have seen a particular ad before, without anything about the people who did. Conceptually, it's similar to cutting out a coupon from a newspaper to get a discount; the store then knows that that newspaper ad led to the sale. (Though of course, in the coupon case they can also see which customers saw those ads.)