85 points

Before you get really upset about this thread, you should read this other one: https://federate.social/@jik/112779924411100427

I’m not thrilled about this by any means, but what Firefox is doing is not what chrome is doing (which is what the op posted thread is claiming). Conflating them serves no one.

permalink
report
reply
48 points

Can we please stop linking mastodon threads? Mozilla literally has an explainer article. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/privacy-preserving-attribution

permalink
report
parent
reply
22 points

People pissed at Firefox might not be as receptive of an article straight from Mozilla. Know your audience.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

Would you rather get second hand information or would you rather get the technical specifications from the horse’s mouth?

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

I can say confidently that even if you don’t conflate the two; the Mozilla implementation can be broken and abused just as easily as the Google one can be.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

It’s pretty painful how quickly wrong information spreads. I’m sure it’s not intentional, but that doesn’t really make it better…

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Even in this actual thread, under the comment you replied to, someone stills thinks that Mozilla is placing ads.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*

Interesting thread. But I don’t understand why the data needs to be collected and correlated by a third party, can’t the ads themselves detect views and clicks? (that’s what they need right?)

Or am I missing something about the process?

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

The advertiser’s don’t place the ads themselves. They say where and when they are placed, but the actual placing/integration is done by the likes of Google, Facebook, and, in this case, Mozilla.

That’s the “third party” that’s doing the tracking.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

That’s not accurate. Mozilla isn’t placing the ads. Mozilla is storing impressions and then collating a privacy protecting report so that advertisers see that their ads are working, but not revealing information about the users to the advertisers. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/privacy-preserving-attribution

permalink
report
parent
reply
33 points

But it says “without sending information about you”

permalink
report
reply
11 points

And none of the outraged people has actually described how information about you would actually be known to advertisers, so I don’t see why people assume it will be.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-18 points

Right riiight

permalink
report
parent
reply
25 points

I’m gonna start my own browser, with blackjack, and hookers

permalink
report
reply
6 points
*

I’m probably going to be downvoted for saying this, but since the ad supported internet is here to stay, wouldn’t you rather see ads that at least somewhat match your interests, if they use a technique that moves some of the attribution logic that used to run on third-party servers to instead be done in your web browser?

There’s a few models that have worked well online:

  • You pay for the content/service directly
  • Paid users subsidise the free users (“freemium” services)
  • Someone else covers the cost (which is how a lot of Lemmy servers operate for example)
  • You don’t pay anything and it’s ad-supported

The last is very common. People expect to get high quality content and services, but don’t want to pay anything for it (or can’t afford it), which is why the ad supported model is so prevalent. It’s not going away any time soon, and advertisers are already tracking you. Wouldn’t you want to use a system that involves less tracking?

permalink
report
reply
10 points
*

I’d rather not have ads at all and just pay $5 a month and have all the websites I visit get a portion of that $5. Some people tried this years ago, but the payment infrastructure wasn’t ready for it. Nostr can do it now though, their users “zapped” (tipped) nearly 1M USD (950k) over the past two months alone to content creators on their platform (twitter clone). And there’s a feature to automatically split a set donation among all the posts you’ve liked. No reason that can’t be done for the entire web. All instant, all with incredibly low fees, all payments made directly from you to the site you visited, no middlemen having to manage custody risk.

Browser extension tracks what sites I visit and then at the end of the month send them all tips. Sites could detect such an extension and automatically not show ads if you have it installed.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

I like the idea. I used Flattr for a while maybe 10 years ago, which was a similar concept.

Having said that, for many sites, a portion of $5/month wouldn’t be enough to cover all their expenses, and in some cases they’d make more money via advertising.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Wait, so you want a browser extension that tracks you… so you can avoid Mozilla not tracking you??

I understand wanting the micropayments thing. I want that as well. But you’re literally advocating tracking here.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

The difference is that such an extension isn’t reporting my traffic to a “trusted third party”. My browser is doing the tracking locally and sending micropayments to sites I visit.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

can’t afford it

Here’s a thicket of weeds: Why would you want to show ads to someone who can’t afford your product?

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

wouldn’t you rather see ads that at least somewhat match your interests

No, that means they’re tracking me.

if they use a technique that moves some of the attribution logic that used to run on third-party servers to instead be done in your web browser?

The more of my data that stays on my system, the better. I’m not against ads or necessarily relevant ads, I’m against tracking.

Wouldn’t you want to use a system that involves less tracking?

Yes. I’m willing to disable my ad blocker if they don’t track me. If the browser places the ads and the only data that leaves my machine is deanonymized and can’t reasonably be used to identify me, that’s enough.

However, I’d much prefer to just pay whatever the revenue from the ads I see is. Unfortunately, most services are either $5-10/month to remove ads, and there’s no way they make that much from me (it’s probably <$1/month, if not per year). I wish Firefox would do something like GNU Taler where I can load up a fund and websites take a faction of a cent for each page view or something.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Exactly this. I know a very good local tech website (Tweakers.net) which offers antonymous ads but they are still relevant because they’re tech related being on a tech related web site. That’s a way I could support!

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Is there a way to disable it on mobile? I have not seen anything yet.

permalink
report
reply
5 points

It’s not on mobile yet, it’s only on specific websites, and as I understand it, it doesn’t even do anything unless you click an ad.

Which is completely different from Chrome’s system, which sends information about you to websites regardless - and they haven’t even fenced off third-party cookies yet!

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

I’m wondering the same thing

permalink
report
parent
reply

Firefox

!firefox@lemmy.ml

Create post

A place to discuss the news and latest developments on the open-source browser Firefox

Community stats

  • 1.8K

    Monthly active users

  • 439

    Posts

  • 4.6K

    Comments

Community moderators