|
Top-level
 @mcc The feature is currently only for specific providers. And probably more importantly is -completely- different from Chrome's, featuring -far- less information. Unlike Chrome's feature for example, advertisers know nothing about who the likely user of the browser is. See more technical details here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KpdSKD8-Rn0bWPTu4UtK54ks0yv2j22pA5SrAD9av4s Edit: I incorrectly stated this was not on release yet. 10 comments
 @Schouten_B And now that you mention it, if you look you will find I mention the "only for specific providers" matter later in this same thread. In my view, this makes the implementation *worse* than Google's. Google's implementation is open to all, whereas Firefox's is limited to partners whose identities *Firefox does not disclose*, at least in its public messaging about the feature. Practically better maybe, but morally worse. @Schouten_B I do not agree that this system is "completely different" from Google's. It is hard to tell because Firefox has disclosed less information than Google has (perhaps there is another document with technical details somewhere else) but my initial read of the information I have is that Google's "Ad Lab"/"Ad Privacy" comprises three reporting features and Firefox has implemented a specific one of them wholesale, apparently (per their statement) with an eye to formalizing it as a standard. @mcc I believe that is because the list of sites enrolled is not set, but any site can request a token to participate. I.e. it is open, but with some additional safeguards. I believe the currently enrolled sites are available publicly, but I'd need to check. @mcc Hmm. Can't find the list. In any case, one of the unfortunate side-effects of the way privacy is guaranteed in the system, is by having larger amounts of submissions. The more submissions, the more noise can be added and the better individual privacy. This is the reason for an opt-out model. Now I realize if your stance is 'ads are bad and should go away', that is not a convincing argument. But it's still relevant :-). @mcc (Oh, and more technical details can be found here as well: https://github.com/mozilla/explainers/tree/main/ppa-experiment) @mcc You are right. I apologize. I confused the limitation to specific domain with where it rode the trains. @mcc It is easy to see why wealthy privileged people would prefer a web without advertising, where they can simply pay for the content they consume. And for most of us here on Mastodon, the amount of money we'd need to give up for accessing all of the content we care about through a payment model is probably trivial. And in many ways would be a preferred experience (certainly would be for me. €50/month and no more ads. Hell yeah.). However to most people using the web.. that is a lot. @mcc 'I understand why Google is lying to me to protect their own business, but Firefox is supposed to be a nonprofit.' This is a question you asked. I attempted to answer it. Mozilla's first and foremost mission is a web open and accessible to all. That is a phrase prone to interpretation obviously. But in my view, at least, that means a web rich with content people don't need to have money to access. And that, sadly, means meadurable ads. Preferrably with preserved privacy. |
Gregory's Server
@Schouten_B The above screenshot was taken on my personal computer which I am typing into right now. I am not using Nightly. I am using the Ubuntu Snap distribution, in other words the default web browser for my operating system