85
"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
85 points (82.0% liked)
Firefox
17302 readers
28 users here now
A place to discuss the news and latest developments on the open-source browser Firefox
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
i think the goal is to come up with a 'better' solution than what google has already rolled-out to the majority of web users.. but with firefox's too-low adoption rate, it won't do anything significant.
The thing is, what Google has rolled out is really fucking good already. Sites only get to know general "topics", and only ones you've used recently. It's controlled by your own browser so you can easily opt out entirely or block certain topics you don't want from being associated with you. They also specifically decided not to add topics for sensitive topics from even being available in the Topics API.
It's really fucking good for privacy, unless you're an extremist who believes there shouldn't be anything even vaguely resembling relevant advertising. Which is the exact same group of people criticising Firefox here. And also the exact same group of people inadvertently extending the life of 3rd party cookies that Google is trying so desperately to kill off. But they can't kill it off because the privacy extremists have meant take-up of Topics isn't high enough.
the thing is, i don't trust google. they're an ad company. now that they have the marketshare, they've been leveraging it, hard. they're changing the game for their own selfish, profit-driven purposes--not for users or users privacy and security, not for the health of the web, or anything else they may try to claim. it's all about them making as much money as they can off you, your eyeballs, and your data.
You don't have to "trust" them. You can just read the spec. See what it actually does for yourself.
I have no doubt that Google did not create this out of the good of their heart. They know 3rd party cookies are a dying tech and they need a replacement. But FLoC, their earlier attempt at a replacement, received a lot of very justified pushback for being a privacy nightmare. And they abandoned it, realising their error. In creating Topics, they've done a really good job of coming up with something that can support advertiser-funded business models while still respecting people's privacy by design.
Extremist: Someone who doesn't want to be tracked or reported on.
It's someone not willing to make any modest concessions in order to make the vast array of free content available viable to create. Modest concessions like your browser saying "here's a small subset of topics the person might be interested in". You've got to be pretty extremist to suggest that that's privacy-invading.
If the concession removes somebody's privacy, it is a privacy invalidating concession. Your definition not mine
Software running on my computer, should be my agent, representing my interests, and if I just want to display data transmitted over the network, and not send any data back, that should be within my explicit control. Not even talking about privacy, talking about agency.
If open source software, written by a non-profit, wants to violate my agency with opt outs rather than explicit consensual opt-ins. At the very least it's not respecting my privacy, and at worst it's trying to lie to me, remove my agency from my own devices.
You can say there's a social contract, that people online have to feed the advertising machines, and I'm happy to debate you about that. There is utility there for sure, but saying you're an extremist if you don't want to participate is also an extreme position. And I don't think it's reasonable
Topics is in your control. It's all in your control. You can turn off specific topics you don't want, or disable it entirely if you really want to. Browsers choosing not to implement it has nothing to do with agency, and appeals to that notion merely belie either ignorance or bad faith.
You are poorly mannered debate partner. You have just said I am either ignorant or arguing in bad faith. You have denied me agency of my own opinions.
I will no longer converse with you
Not ignorant in general, and I'm sorry if it came across that way.
But ignorant about how Topics works, yes. To assert that Topics takes away agency can only be bad faith or ignorance.
Then why did Mozilla deploy this silently, with it enabled silently?
If it's so good for end users, wouldn't they shout it from the rooftops?
Further, Google, et al, created the battlefield by 2000, and now you're sitting here blaming users for being suspicious of people who've repeatedly, over TWO DECADES, made it clear they have, at best, an antagonistic attitude towards web users.
At this point, no, fuck them. I will block everything, at every turn. Just the same as I'll never let the guy who stole half my CD collection back into my house.