Original toot:

It has come to my attention that many of the people complaining about #Firefox’s #PPA experiment don’t actually understand what PPA is, what it does, and what Firefox is trying to accomplish with it, so an explainer 🧵 is in order.

Targeted advertising sucks. It is invasive and privacy-violating, it enables populations to be manipulated by bad actors in democracy-endangering ways, and it doesn’t actually sell products.

Nevertheless, commercial advertisers are addicted to the data they get from targeted advertising. They aren’t going to stop using it until someone convinces them there’s something else that will work better.

“Contextual advertising works better.” Yes, it does! But, again, advertisers are addicted to the data, and contextual advertising provides much less data, so they don’t trust it.

What PPA says is, “Suppose we give you anonymized, aggregated data about which of your ads on which sites resulted in sales or other significant commitments from users?” The data that the browser collects under PPA are sent to a third-party (in Firefox’s case, the third party is the same organization that runs Let’s Encrypt; does anybody think they’re not trustworthy?) and aggregated and anonymized there. Noise is introduced into the data to prevent de-anonymization.

This allows advertisers to “target” which sites they put their ads on. It doesn’t allow them to target individuals. In Days Of Yore, advertisers would do things like ask people to bring newspapers ads into the store or mention a certain phrase to get deals. These were for collecting conversion statistics on paper ads. Ditto for coupons. PPA is a way to do this online.

Is there a potential for abuse? Sure, which is why the data need to be aggregated and anonymized by a trusted third party. If at some point they discover they’re doing insufficient aggregation or anonymization, then they can fix that all in one place. And if the work they’re doing is transparent, as compared to the entirely opaque adtech industry, the entire internet can weigh in on any bugs in their algorithms.

Is this a utopia? No. Would it be better than what we have now? Indisputably. Is there a clear path right now to anything better? Not that I can see. We can keep fighting for something better while still accepting this as an improvement over what we have now.

    • Treczoks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      That, and the point that ad blasters want to know the gory details of your private life in order to make their ads that one or two percent “more effective”.

      Does the Firefox really believe that sites will stop throwing a gazillion cookies and trackers just because they now also have PPA?

      I, for my part, opt to block both the cookies and trackers as much as I can and the PPA, too.

    • sabreW4K3@lazysoci.alOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      If they didn’t understand user consent, would they really have the ability to opt out? I get that you’re on your soap box and seething with anger, but let’s not devolve into ludicrous nonsensical reframing.

  • modulus@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    This is bullshit. The total amount of advertising I want is zero. The total amount I want of tracking is zero. The total amount of experiments I want run on my data without consent is, guess, zero.

  • addie@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Man alive, I thought that Mozilla had been doing their own Personal Package Archives so that we didn’t have to deal with Ubuntu packaging it as a Snap anymore. And this is doubly disappointing.

  • socsa@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Me wondering why the Firefox package archive is suddenly controversial…

    does anybody think they’re not trustworthy?

    I didn’t until I read that sentence. I actually get what they are trying to do here, but good grief…

  • SuckMyWang@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    This is the exact same story the whole internet has used and every time the 3rd party or whoever it is eventually gets corrupted and it turns out that they kept the original data. The company gets bought by Amazon or who google and repeat

  • xantoxis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Completely facile argument, right there in the last sentence.

    We can keep fighting for something better while still accepting this as an improvement over what we have now.

    YOU BUILT THE FUCKING THING. Just turn it off and go away. Tada, we now have something better: no privacy-violating data at all.

    Who’s forcing you to make advertisers happy? Don’t answer that, because I don’t care. You can’t pretend to be about privacy and then build things that help advertisers violate it.

    This one’s also pretty funny btw:

    If at some point they discover they’re doing insufficient aggregation or anonymization, then they can fix that all in one place.

    Advertisers don’t give a shit. They have zero motivation to fix anonymization. They’re not going to HELP us get rid of privacy violations.

    • ikidd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      I have defended Mozilla for years, because we can’t let Chrome become the only browser engine available.

      But goddam, it’s getting hard to be enthusiastic about it. This is starting to get like voting for the genocidial dementia patient because at least he isn’t the megalomaniac pedophile.

    • TJA!@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Just turn it off and go away. Tada, we now have something better: no privacy-violating data at all.

      Well, yes. Except for the fact that advertisers now have an excuse to try more invasive things to get to their data

      Advertisers don’t give a shit. They have zero motivation to fix anonymization. They’re not going to HELP us get rid of privacy violations.

      That’s why a trusted third party is handling this. They care a lot, because of they fumble it they are now an untrusted third party and someone else will take care of the anonymization part

      • xantoxis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Well, yes. Except for the fact that advertisers now have an excuse to try more invasive things to get to their data

        They’re going to do this anyway. As far as Firefox is concerned, it’s the browser’s job to stop them. That’s what Firefox is selling: privacy

        because of they fumble it they are now an untrusted third party

        Assuming I take this for granted, they have already fumbled it by turning on an anti-privacy feature without consent. They can no longer be trusted. Not that you ever should have trusted them because whatever motivation they have for pure moral behavior now, that will change with the wind when more VC money gets involved, or there’s been a change in management.

        And firefox has ALREADY had a recent change in management, which is probably why THIS is happening NOW. They just bought an adtech firm for pete’s sake. Don’t trust other people with your data. At all.

  • smpl@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    I’m not even buying the premise. Any business can look at its bottomline to see if their advertising works. If they can’t, then its not working.

      • smpl@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        You’re in trouble already as a business, wasting a lot of money, if you don’t know where your target audience is. What you argue is that this is used for a business to probe where an advertisement would work. I’d argue that that is a very expensive way of finding your target audience, because you still have to pay for all the ads that didn’t work. There are much better ways of figuring out where your target audience is.

        I think most people believe that this obsessive data collection is neccessary, only because Google has repeatedly painted that narrative. This better advertising is just coincidentally the form of advertising that Google is in the best position to supply.

        If you carefully pick the places you advertise and do statistics on how it affect your business while a campaign runs I’m willing to bet you get a much better return. As a bonus to saving money you didn’t have to shit on an important principle in democracy, the autonomy of the people, protected by something called privacy.

  • GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    And what is the advertising industry doing to earn back the trust that they’ve eroded with their incessant, relentless abuse over the entire life of the Internet?

    • Virkkunen@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Creating ads that are even more targeted to you so you can forget about everything and buy that electric kitchen knife you just saw scrolling reddit

      • socsa@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        I don’t know, I am on the fence about the XYT FULLFORGE lithium powered, rechargable electronic kitchen knife I saw on reddit. I just don’t know if I can trust the comments which say it stays sharp forever, and I am very skeptical that it truly has the fastest cutting speed of any knife on the market. Perhaps I will go read the Amazon reviews again to get more information about the patented digital motor design.

    • ikidd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      I want the old internet back. God it was so wonderful before the dotcom bubble.

    • AnyOldName3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      They’re not supposed to have trust. That’s why they’re only allowed fully anonymised data under this scheme. They do pay the bills, though, so they can’t be completely banished until there’s an alternative source of money.

      • xantoxis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        There is no such thing as “fully anonymised data”. Data can be de-anonymised by anyone who aggregates it. It’s been demonstrated over and over and over again.

  • Emmie@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    They keep saying many words waving hands frantically and people still don’t like it. I bet if they explain 10th time with colourful diagrams and 3 minute whiteboard explainer video people still won’t like it. Such an ungrateful crowd

    You need hands on workshops, we will organise them with foundation budget. That will surely explain things sufficiently. We will also give out informational flyers in small communities to foster local enlightenment.

    • socsa@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      They are definitely in a weird position. On one hand, the current state of internet advertising is horrifying. This has nothing to do with anything Firefox has done. On the other hand, trying to explain to privacy absolutists why these innovations in targeted advertising is actually a revolutionary leap in user privacy, is obviously never going to take.

  • UnfortunateShort@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Mozilla: We want to offer anonymised data so advertiser stop trying to track you with shady means. You can opt ou tho.

    Privacy ultras: WHY YOU WANT DATA?!

    Mozilla: …