301
submitted 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by sabreW4K3@lazysoci.al to c/firefox@lemmy.ml

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
[-] GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org 9 points 4 months ago

That does nothing to deal with malware distribution, which has been a problem in pretty much every ad network. It does nothing to address the standard practice of making ads as obtrusive and flashy as possible.

I do not accept the premise that advertising is the only possible business model for quality web sites. History suggests the opposite: that it is a toxic business model that creates backwards incentives.

[-] Tywele@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 4 months ago

So because it's not THE perfect solution to every problem related to ads ever we should just not do anything?

It doesn't always have to be black and white.

[-] GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 4 months ago

Not at all. But I want to see advertisers make some goddamn effort of their own, and accept some responsibility for the shitshow that they have created.

And until that happens, I'm certainly not going to feel bad about blocking ads across the board.

[-] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 3 points 4 months ago

It sounds like they're suggesting we block ads, not do nothing.

this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2024
301 points (100.0% liked)

Firefox

17938 readers
2 users here now

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

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS