Firefox

17941 readers

14 users here now

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

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

143

EFF Says Mozilla's PPA is better than Google's Solution (www.fastcompany.com)

submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

68 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Mozilla’s system only measures the success rate of ads—it doesn’t help companies target those ads—and it’s less susceptible to abuse, EFF’s Lena Cohen told @[email protected]. “It’s much more privacy-preserving than Google’s version of the same feature.”

https://mastodon.social/@eff/112922761259324925

Privacy experts say the new toggle is mostly harmless, but Firefox users saw it as a betrayal.

“They made this technology for advertisers, specifically,” says Jonah Aragon, founder of the Privacy Guides website. “There’s no direct benefit to the user in creating this. It’s software that only serves a party other than the user.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago (2 children)

If people aren't ready to see an ad or pay to support something. Then maybe they don't deserve that thing.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago

Fine.

But today they want us to pay and collect everything about us.

I highly recommend "Taking Control of Your Personal Data" by prof. Jennifer Golbeck, published by The Teaching Company, ISBN:978-1629978390, likely available at your local library as a DVD or streaming.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Exactly. I am happy to pay a reasonable price for content (I'm paying a bit for Nebula, for example), and my hope is that transitioning advertising to a privacy-friendly system run by clients will encourage more options to pay for content in lieu of ads.

I'd pay a few dollars a month to avoid ads on most sites, and I'm guessing that's about what advertisers are making from me, but instead the options are:

pay 10x what they'd make from ads
see ads and get my privacy absolutely violated
don't interact with the thing

So the more we move toward privacy-respecting ads, the more likely we are to see more options than the above. At least that's my take.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

exactly. If the price was as much as ads pay it would cost users fractions of pennies per view. They just charge paid users so much more then that for the same thing. Since google ads is one of the biggest ads supplier we could technically have a wallet that substracts the ad value to not see it directly with google.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I just sent feedback to google from the "my ad center" page describing the wallet idea to pay the ad price instead of watching the ad. Last time i sent youtube feedback they didn't come back to me but they did apply the change i was asking for. So we never know.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Cool, but I doubt Google honestly cares much. If they do it, it'll be something much higher than the actual amount that ad is worth as a way to nudge users to pay for some kind of subscription.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

Yea. That's also what i think would happen if anything.