this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2024
295 points (96.2% liked)

Firefox

17902 readers
40 users here now

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

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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
[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Why wouldn't you bring all this up before you shove it into the browser to be discovered later, and make it the default? Whoever thought this was a good idea should be shot with a ball of their own shit.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Mozilla has been working on anonymized advertising for quite some time now, there were news and job postings.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

OK, I'll watch their job postings like a hawk to learn what their strategies are going forward. Thanks for the tip!

I'm pretty active in FOSS news, never saw a thing about this before it was rolled out. Maybe that's on me and I just missed the obvious, but probably not. I don't seem to be the only one taken by surprise.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

I guess they should've been more transparent about it.

This is one of the publications from 2022 where they mentioned working on privacy-preserving advertising: https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/privacy-preserving-attribution-for-advertising/

Maybe it wasn't as popular in the media because there's nothing exciting about it for the public.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

They should've brought it up before. Yes. They had to make it the default though. That was unavoidable.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

They had to make it the default though. That was unavoidable.

For it to be useful at scale, sure, but reading this it sounds like Chrome's version of it is still "experimental" and opt-in. Hopefully the backlash prevents it from being developed further.