<story><title>Firefox 128 enables &quot;privacy-preserving&quot; ad measurements by default</title><url>https://mstdn.social/@Lokjo/112772496939724214</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>no_way</author><text>Web needs to make money. Giving tools to advertisers while making sure user privacy is preserved is better than free reign of tracking we have before, no?&lt;p&gt;I myself do not like ads or tracking, but we need to be realistic and there needs a way to make web sustainable.&lt;p&gt;How to do that and making sure that monopolies like Google are in check is a valid concern though, but in these conversations is the only point I hear. Ironically Google does not even need these apis because it already has so much data on users, it is primarily for smaller companies.</text></item><item><author>account42</author><text>&amp;gt; The scare quotes here are uncalled for: it is privacy-preserving.&lt;p&gt;It is strictly less privacy-preserving than not implementing this &amp;quot;feature&amp;quot; that has zero benefit to the user running the browser. At the very least it pings yet another third party, most likely it effectively leaks much more.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; The best objection to these proposals isn&amp;#x27;t privacy, it&amp;#x27;s that a browser vendor is lifting a finger for advertisers. I guess the fundamental question there is if we prefer to outright shut down online advertising, or give it the tools it needs to be less bad. Opinions differ, but all major browser vendors are in the latter category.&lt;p&gt;That is a very very generous assumption of the browser makers&amp;#x27; goals. Particularily when one of them IS an online advertising company and another one is almost exclusively funded by said advertising company. They do not deserve the benefit of the doubt.</text></item><item><author>doe_eyes</author><text>The scare quotes here are uncalled for: it &lt;i&gt;is&lt;/i&gt; privacy-preserving. The approach allows measurement without disclosing who, specifically, did what with the ad.&lt;p&gt;The best objection to these proposals isn&amp;#x27;t privacy, it&amp;#x27;s that a browser vendor is lifting a finger for advertisers. I guess the fundamental question there is if we prefer to outright shut down online advertising, or give it the tools it needs to be less bad. Opinions differ, but all major browser vendors are in the latter category.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>worble</author><text>&amp;gt;Web needs to make money.&lt;p&gt;No, it doesn&amp;#x27;t. I have no issue with it making money, but that was neither the original purpose of the web nor is it an end goal for everyone using it.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; Giving tools to advertisers while making sure user privacy is preserved is better than free reign of tracking we have before, no?&lt;p&gt;This statement is unconnected to the first. The way people just link &amp;quot;web&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;money&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;advertising&amp;quot; without even stopping to think that there might be alternatives is exactly why everything online is in such a sad state of affairs.</text></comment>
<story><title>Firefox 128 enables &quot;privacy-preserving&quot; ad measurements by default</title><url>https://mstdn.social/@Lokjo/112772496939724214</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>no_way</author><text>Web needs to make money. Giving tools to advertisers while making sure user privacy is preserved is better than free reign of tracking we have before, no?&lt;p&gt;I myself do not like ads or tracking, but we need to be realistic and there needs a way to make web sustainable.&lt;p&gt;How to do that and making sure that monopolies like Google are in check is a valid concern though, but in these conversations is the only point I hear. Ironically Google does not even need these apis because it already has so much data on users, it is primarily for smaller companies.</text></item><item><author>account42</author><text>&amp;gt; The scare quotes here are uncalled for: it is privacy-preserving.&lt;p&gt;It is strictly less privacy-preserving than not implementing this &amp;quot;feature&amp;quot; that has zero benefit to the user running the browser. At the very least it pings yet another third party, most likely it effectively leaks much more.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; The best objection to these proposals isn&amp;#x27;t privacy, it&amp;#x27;s that a browser vendor is lifting a finger for advertisers. I guess the fundamental question there is if we prefer to outright shut down online advertising, or give it the tools it needs to be less bad. Opinions differ, but all major browser vendors are in the latter category.&lt;p&gt;That is a very very generous assumption of the browser makers&amp;#x27; goals. Particularily when one of them IS an online advertising company and another one is almost exclusively funded by said advertising company. They do not deserve the benefit of the doubt.</text></item><item><author>doe_eyes</author><text>The scare quotes here are uncalled for: it &lt;i&gt;is&lt;/i&gt; privacy-preserving. The approach allows measurement without disclosing who, specifically, did what with the ad.&lt;p&gt;The best objection to these proposals isn&amp;#x27;t privacy, it&amp;#x27;s that a browser vendor is lifting a finger for advertisers. I guess the fundamental question there is if we prefer to outright shut down online advertising, or give it the tools it needs to be less bad. Opinions differ, but all major browser vendors are in the latter category.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>prepend</author><text>&amp;gt; Web needs to make money&lt;p&gt;I don’t think this is true. No one “needs” to make money. Museums don’t need to make money. OSS doesn’t need to make money.&lt;p&gt;The web has value without making money.&lt;p&gt;But even if it does make money, it doesn’t need to maximize profits at the expense of user privacy and joy.</text></comment>