Gregory's Server@cuchaz
Thanks for the warning. :blobcat_owo:
Wasn't expecting this junk from Firefox, but I guess everyone has a price.
|
48 comments
 @prettyhuman @cuchaz This isn't about a price being paid. This is about finding ways web authors can monetize their content without payment portals and such things. Making most content of the web sounds great to me. But I'm wealthy, the way things are, an ad-free web would lock most marginalized people out of the majority of web content. I know that isn't much of a concern to the generally wealthy folks on for example Mastodon. But it's a reality the web needs to innovate for. @prettyhuman @cuchaz (Possibly relevant, the reason this is opt-out is because the privacy technology used only works well with large submission counts. Using opt-in would reduce submissions and consequently reduce privacy of those users opting in. This is an unfortunate trade off.) @Schouten_B @prettyhuman @cuchaz is there not an ethical way to serve ads based simply on the content of a given page, rather than any sort of tracking of the users visiting that page? @fathermcgruder @prettyhuman @cuchaz Aiui the system isn't so much about tracking the people (the Google system is a little more geared that way I think, but this isn't my expertise). The system is about understanding whether ads had clickthroughs, which is an important monatization step for content providers. But my expertise is web performance, so I may be wrong :-).  @fathermcgruder @Schouten_B @prettyhuman @cuchaz @leeloo @fathermcgruder @prettyhuman @cuchaz I feel people aren't reading the explainer. PPA isn't a technology that allows for targeting ads.  @Schouten_B @prettyhuman @cuchaz Wikipedia gets along just fine. Mastodon gets along just fine. There are lots of business models which don't employ ads and frankly, to me it seems like the companies serving them are not truly serving people anyway. I'm completely fine with a smaller internet which isn't run by data-hungry advertising services acting in the guise of social networks or search engines or video/streaming platforms. We can do it better (read: better for human beings) without ads. @Schouten_B @prettyhuman @cuchaz And if we must have ads, these companies can serve ads in ways which don't track, store and codify your interests. @disky00 @prettyhuman @cuchaz I suspect you are wealthy compared to 80% of the world's population (even if not the global North) 🙂. But it is possible that your mastery of the English language is deceiving me. In which case I apologize. @Schouten_B @prettyhuman @cuchaz Without revealing the limitations of my bank account, I'll take the compliment. @disky00 @prettyhuman @cuchaz Take the fact you have a bank account as a sign of privilege in the global context (~top 75%) 🙂. But that's fair. @Schouten_B @prettyhuman @cuchaz Poverty across the world is relative, individual situations are relative. I'm sure you know that. I expect that I will work until I am dead and that I won't live as long as you, let's just put it that way. @disky00 @prettyhuman @cuchaz Which is exactly what the technology here does. Although it does track conversions (which is a higher value, more fundamental metric). @Schouten_B @prettyhuman @cuchaz Of course you know better than I ever will how this actually works, but a browser-based ad feature which tracks any amount of data is unnecessary and bad for users, as far as I'm concerned. Firefox used to at least appear to care about that, which is why I used it for so long. @disky00 @prettyhuman @cuchaz Firefox does care about that. But at the same time we also care about making sure content on to global web remains accessible to people unable to pay 20, 10, 5, or even 1 dollar a week for that content. So it's a complex position. I'd rather those people have privacy with some click through tracking than to be forced to have their preferences tracked as an individual. But I realize there's sacrifices being made here. @Schouten_B @prettyhuman @cuchaz No tracking is ever necessary. It may be the way things work now, but ad delivery doesn't have to include tracking/targeting, it's just a way for ad services to make boatloads of additional money. @disky00 @prettyhuman @cuchaz It'd the way you increase the value of an ad. Which allows you to make more money off wealthy people and make more content available for people you can't monatize. It's an equalizer. Not saying it's great, but it's a system that works to some extent. @Schouten_B @prettyhuman @cuchaz It's a way for ad services to make money off of wealthy people so they can increase their hegemony while serving their C-suite massive bonuses. The internet can exist without these systems and it can exist without the services which are dependent upon them. Just because things are the way they are doesn't mean they're how they have to be. @disky00 @prettyhuman @cuchaz I (sadly) can't see an economic reality in which it reasonably can. The math just doesn't work out unless there's huge collective action changes I don't see happening anytime soon. @Schouten_B @prettyhuman @cuchaz Well for a start, we can let the current ad-driven system break, and Firefox can help by not giving advertisers ways to track its users. I use community-supported alternatives to the major provider services every single day and they're just as good if not better. I see creators of all kinds making a good living through public funding. Meta, Alphabet, Amazon etc. have such a hold over the internet through measures of control, not because they're the best. @disky00 @prettyhuman @cuchaz While I Iargely agree with you, that experiment (when executed well) will mostly push the most vulnerable groups (and this is not just about income but many other factors) to Chrome, since sites would simply stop supporting other browsers. That's not a difficult road for them to take. Some small, educated, privileged group would almost certainly continue to use Firefox. But the reality is that group has plenty or options already @disky00 @prettyhuman @cuchaz Don't get me wrong, if someone were to build/fork the browser/services in a way you suggest, and it were to succeed, I'd be super happy, and wish them nothing but success. But until then, I need to think about the best possible avenues to offer benefits to the people most in need of those benefits. And the avenues by which web authors are facilitated in their advertising needs while user privacy is protected seems like the most feasible route to me. @Schouten_B @prettyhuman @cuchaz I am neither educated nor wealthy, and yet here I am. I'm sorry, but the narrative that this is a move for disadvantaged people feels disingenuous. I know Firefox has been struggling and tough choices need to be made, but I also believe that those who use Firefox do so because it is seen as the less evil alternative to Chrome/Chromium. Choices like this give the impression that this is changing. @disky00 @prettyhuman @cuchaz I don't think it is. Don't get me wrong. Working for Google or Facebook would allow me to make multiple times what I make at Firefox. If I didn't believe in the mission I'd be long gone. The Mastodon bubble (even if you are not educated as you say), is extremely unrepresentative of the web or society at large. That society at large and its most vulnerable, to me, are much more important than the savvy people here. @disky00 @prettyhuman @cuchaz If you think this is changing. Or that we are somehow beholden to Google. I can simply tell you, factually, that you're wrong 🙂. We may disagree on how to proceed with a web that is open and accessible to all, and that disagreement is okay! And I will assume you are in good faith, if you will accept that I am 🙂. This is -genuinely- the only route I see for helping protect the privacy of the most vulnerable people. Even if you disagree. @Schouten_B @prettyhuman @cuchaz I don't expect to change your mind, and the decisions you make are hopefully the best they can be for everyone involved. However, I do expect the choices made to bear out over time, and I will say that the closer Firefox grows to Chrome, the less distinct an alternative it becomes as well. Even if this isn't going to affect users to a significant extent, the optics do make it appear as though users have one fewer reason to put their trust in Mozilla. @disky00 @prettyhuman @cuchaz That's completely fair. And it's a difficult comms battle for us to fight (and this isn't my area of expertise!). When we tried not to support DRM, our users didn't go 'great! You go! Fight the awful systems!' People went: 'Wtf? We wanna watch Netflix.' And we lost tens of millions of users. I understand if someone says 'good riddance, they didn't understand the importance of the open web...' But in my mind, we need to be here for everyone. Somehow. @disky00 @prettyhuman @cuchaz And as you rightfully said, our challenge is to explain to people how we still offer value over alternatives. What we do for them that other browser's don't. I think you're spot on there and it isn't something we're great at. @disky00 @prettyhuman @cuchaz (I'm in Europe and really need to get some sleep, so may not reply for a while. Thank you for your respectful engagement. I appreciate it.) @Schouten_B @prettyhuman @cuchaz Of course. it's nice to have a civil conversation. Take care. @disky00 @prettyhuman @cuchaz I'll happily get back to it later. And if ever I can help at least understand why we make decisions, I will try to do so :). (Even in those cases where I may not agree with them myself. :p)  @disky00 @Schouten_B @prettyhuman @cuchaz tracking whether an ad was clicked or not is very necessary, that's the point where you bill the company for the click. So now you can do that by having an anonymised report of how many clicks there were or by the ad using one or more redirectors in between which will get access to your IP and can fingerprint your browser. Here's an explanation of how the feature works https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/privacy-preserving-attribution @juliank @disky00 @prettyhuman @cuchaz Thanks for helping clarify here. There appears to be a lot of confusion on this thread from people believing this is about ad targeting/tracking preferences, when it isn't. Of course this wouldn't be Mastodon if people would let informing themselves get in the way of having strong opinions on a topic :p. @r4start @disky00 @Schouten_B @prettyhuman @cuchaz well if you read the RFC you might know that Mozilla's market share doesn't matter much, after all, it's a draft internet standard developed by - Internet Security research group @Schouten_B @disky00 @prettyhuman @cuchaz Idle question: Why would anyone want to advertise to people unable to spend 1 dollar on their product? @chris_evelyn @disky00 @prettyhuman @cuchaz They don't. Advertising is an equaliser in that sense. Advertising (financially) comes at a greater 'cost' to people with greater financial means compared to people with fewer financial means.  @Schouten_B @chris_evelyn @disky00 @cuchaz @prettyhuman @chris_evelyn @disky00 @cuchaz Sure.. But a large amount of the content is only available to those with money. On a web driven by freedium models such as Patreon people with fewer means are at a fundamental disadvantage. It's fine to advocate for that model, as long as we realize, and are honest, about the increased privilege disparity that creates. @Schouten_B @disky00 @prettyhuman @cuchaz there is not only paid privacy or targeted ads. There are also product placements and similar sponsorships (which ruined quite a big part of the internet) and non-commercial stuff thats most of the time much better quality than commercial one. And even if everything was behind a paywall there still would be piracy. Money ruins everything. @disky00 @prettyhuman @cuchaz Journalists might disagree. Running a service like Wikipedia (even without Jimmy's spammy self-advertising) or Mastodon requires significantly less means than the flak jackets, helmets and equipments required to document what's going on in the Gaza Strip. @Schouten_B @prettyhuman @cuchaz Wikipedia holds a semi-annual funding drive which I wouldn't consider the same as advertising, especially not targeted advertising the likes of which are implemented by companies like Google and Meta. As for funding journalism, are these companies actually doing this? I don't think they are, but if I'm wrong then I'm not following their outlets anyway and yet I remain informed. @disky00 @prettyhuman @cuchaz I spend 'a lot' (by reasonable standards, not sacrificing anything to be clear, nothing virtuous here) of money on journalism outlets, and I'm very happy with the world they are doing. And indeed, Wiki's funding drive is not the same, but their model is generic enough and attracts enough privileged people to fund their business model. Not so much for most authors :-). |
@prettyhuman Yeah. It didn't use to be like this. It all just makes me sad now. :blobcatverysad: