294
submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by sabreW4K3@lazysoci.al to c/firefox@lemmy.ml

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] xantoxis@lemmy.world 47 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 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.

[-] tja@sh.itjust.works 26 points 3 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

[-] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 3 months ago

Who, exactly, trusts this third party?

I'm so used to getting treacherously betrayed by third parties distrust is my default setting.

[-] mark3748@sh.itjust.works 16 points 3 months ago

Nearly everyone, would be my guess. The ISRG is the non-profit behind LetsEncrypt.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2024
294 points (95.9% liked)

Firefox

17302 readers
129 users here now

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

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS