337
"Privacy-Preserving" Attribution: Mozilla Disappoints Us Yet Again
(blog.privacyguides.org)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2024
337 points (83.9% liked)
Technology
59197 readers
2380 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
WTH, Mozilla 🤦🏼♀️
Also, fuck you, dude:
One Mozilla developer claimed that explaining PPA would be too challenging, so they had to opt users in by default.
"You're too dumb to understand so we make decisions for you"
Fuck that condescending prick with a pineapple.
Chill; he’s probably not talking about you. He is talking about “your mom”. If you want her to use Firefox, it’s got to be simple.
Opt-in IS simple. Mom just won't opt in.
But this PPA stuff doesn't need to be enabled by default. They are opting-in all Firefox users to something they don't understand.
IMO that just means they barely understand it themselves. Anyone that understands something with an amount of proficiency can explain it to a ~~child~~ layman and it'll make sense, given they don't use technical nomenclature.
*Layman is a better term. Children are... complicated.
The difficulty is in spinning it to sound non invasive. And of course takes a level of self corruption to even want to do that, since PPA is invasive and you have to delude yourself into thinking otherwise.
i read that as more like "nobody would opt in if it was opt-in".
It's not that difficult to explain. "When you visit the website of a participating advertiser whose ads you've seen, do you want us to tell them that someone saw their ads and visited their site, without telling them it was you? Y/N"
But if they asked such a question almost all of the small fraction of users who bother to read the whole sentence would still see no good reason to want to participate. Coming up with one is that hard part. It requires some pretty fancy rationalizations. Firefox keeping track of which ads I've seen? No, thanks.
If there was an option to make sure that advertisers whose ads I've blocked know that they got blocked, I might go for that.
The writer apparently thinks that the previous Mozilla misstep into advertising land was the Mr. Robot thing six years ago, which seems to confirm my impression that this one is getting a bigger reaction than their other recent moves in this direction. We'll see if the rest of the tech press picks it up. Maybe one day when the cumulative loss of users shows up more clearly in the telemetry they'll reconsider.
Let's not forget when they shipped a full page ad for a Disney movie into a browser update
Lol what? I gotta find this
If you can't explain a difficult concept in a simple way, then you don't truly understand it.
Bah, that’s such a lame hot take.
Tonnes of things are really complicated to explain because they’re complicated.
It's a paraphrased quote from Richard Feynman
I know. But it’s wrong.
String theory. Go.
How long is it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8