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.
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.
Yeah, but this lets them know WHAT ads are or arent working
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.
Exactly.
This is about data collection.
If it were about improving user privacy, wouldn't they have announced it with a lot of fanfare?