Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Firefox 128 enables "privacy-preserving" ad measurements by default

mstdn.social

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 221 posts

Re: Firefox 128 enables "privacy-preserving" ad measurements by default

#61

Post by chatmasta »

doe_eyes wrote: post #30

The scare quotes here are uncalled for: it is privacy-preserving. The approach allows measurement without disclosing who, specifically, did what with the ad. The best objection to these proposals isn't privacy, it's that a browser vendor is lifting a finger for advertisers. I guess the fundamental question there is if we prefer to outright shut down online advertising, or give it the tools it needs to be less bad. Op…

The scare quotes are useful, because the real story is that Firefox is enabling ad measurement by default. It’s an opt-out system being forced on users. They also claim it’s “privacy preserving,” but that’s a qualifier that deserves scrutiny, especially in an opt-out system. If it was really privacy preserving, why isn’t it opt-in?

Re: Firefox 128 enables "privacy-preserving" ad measurements by default

#63

Post by madeofpalk »

doe_eyes wrote: post #30

The scare quotes here are uncalled for: it is privacy-preserving. The approach allows measurement without disclosing who, specifically, did what with the ad. The best objection to these proposals isn't privacy, it's that a browser vendor is lifting a finger for advertisers. I guess the fundamental question there is if we prefer to outright shut down online advertising, or give it the tools it needs to be less bad. Op…

> The scare quotes here are uncalled for: it is privacy-preserving

It is net negative though.

It is more privacy-preserving to just not implement this in the first place.

It is baffling why Firefox ships with this on by default. Even Chrome prompted users with a (misleading) dialog box to turn it on or off.

Re: Firefox 128 enables "privacy-preserving" ad measurements by default

#64

Post by zihotki »

rpastuszak wrote: post #54
doe_eyes wrote: post #30

The scare quotes here are uncalled for: it is privacy-preserving. The approach allows measurement without disclosing who, specifically, did what with the ad. The best objection to these proposals isn't privacy, it's that a browser vendor is lifting a finger for advertisers. I guess the fundamental question there is if we prefer to outright shut down online advertising, or give it the tools it needs to be less bad. Op…

> The best objection to these proposals isn't privacy, it's that a browser vendor is lifting a finger for advertisers. 90% of Mozilla’s revenue, ca. $500,000,000 comes advertising partnerships (almost exclusively Google) https://untested.sonnet.io/Defaults+Matter%2C+Don't+Assume+C... My point is: it’s not just lifting a finger for advertisers. It’s deception. Defaults matter.

And only a fraction of that money is used for Firefox development. Remember that you can't donate to Firefox (like you can for Thunderbird).

Re: Firefox 128 enables "privacy-preserving" ad measurements by default

#65

Post by AlexandrB »

doe_eyes wrote: post #30

The scare quotes here are uncalled for: it is privacy-preserving. The approach allows measurement without disclosing who, specifically, did what with the ad. The best objection to these proposals isn't privacy, it's that a browser vendor is lifting a finger for advertisers. I guess the fundamental question there is if we prefer to outright shut down online advertising, or give it the tools it needs to be less bad. Op…

> I guess the fundamental question there is if we prefer to outright shut down online advertising, or give it the tools it needs to be less bad.

We've been giving advertisers new tools for 20 years. Over that time advertisements have only gotten worse. The less bad state is a myth. There's no economic incentive to be less bad.

Re: Firefox 128 enables "privacy-preserving" ad measurements by default

#66

Post by krelian »

There is a lot fire directed at Mozilla on HN. I'm not saying I support or can make sense of all of their decisions but I'd love for someone in the criticizers camp to explain what steps they would take to make Mozilla and the continued development of Firefox a financially sustainable and independent endeavour.

Re: Firefox 128 enables "privacy-preserving" ad measurements by default

#67

Post by zihotki »

TekMol wrote: post #59

More infos about it: https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/privacy-preserving-attribution-for-advertising/ https://github.com/mozilla/explainers/tree/main/ppa-experiment https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ppm-dap/ The gist of it is that Mozilla and ISRG now proxy the tracking data and give aggregated reports to advertisers. And that they handle the data in a way so that neither Mozilla nor ISRG alone can acces…

You forgot to add one more link for context - Mozilla acquired ads company Anonym https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/mozilla-anonym-raising-t...

Re: Firefox 128 enables "privacy-preserving" ad measurements by default

#69

Post by PedroBatista »

I've been using Firefox for more than 20 years since the Phoenix days, even when it was cleary slower than Chrome (it still is but the diferences are minimal )

I'm not acting surprised, but I think it's more than time to start looking into a viable alternative.

It's "Chromium" (?) still a thing? Do you guys know if there is a browser based on Firefox that doesn't have any of the BS Mozilla is putting into their browser?

I'm really praying for Ladybird but of course it's still not ready for prime time.

Re: Firefox 128 enables "privacy-preserving" ad measurements by default

#70

Post by madeofpalk »

account42 wrote: post #58
lopis wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually think this is a great initiative. Let's be honest, ads and ad tracking is not going anywhere, and Mozilla is trying to come up with a version of that which isn't terrible. And this sounds reasonable.

Well since theft is also not going anywhere would you be OK with the police helping thieves as long as they make sure the thieves don't damage your house while taking your stuff? Why do you think the advertising industry is pushing for this kind of crap? Because they ARE scared that the world is finally waking up to them and making their business effectively illegal.

I mean, this is the idea behind legalising weed and injections sites
Post reply on HN