<story><title>Privacy preserving attribution for advertising</title><url>https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/privacy-preserving-attribution-for-advertising/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>sgift</author><text>I am trying my best to not knee-jerk here, even though it&amp;#x27;s hard to see Mozilla working with Facebook of all companies.&lt;p&gt;In the end it seems to come down to one question everyone has to answer for themselves: Do you agree that advertising on the Internet should exist?&lt;p&gt;If the answer is no, that&amp;#x27;s it. This is a bad thing. Mozilla should instead built in an ad blocker today rather than tomorrow. This probably also means people have to be willing to accept that they have to pay for more things. Someone has to foot the bill after all.&lt;p&gt;If the answer is yes, it gets more complicated. Facebook is - in my mind - a bad actor. There&amp;#x27;s no way around it. But Facebook is also one of the biggest platforms for advertising in the world. So, if a proposal isn&amp;#x27;t somehow either accepted by Facebook or forced on them it is already dead. I don&amp;#x27;t think Mozilla has the market power for the second variant, so only the first one is possible for them. We then want to make ads as good citizens of the internet as possible: No tracking of users, no executing scripts (which then cryptomine ..) and so on. None of that crap. So, a protocol which is a) accepted by Facebook and b) leads to these outcomes could be a good idea. In theory. In practice people with appropriate knowledge will have to check the protocol, suggest ways to make it better etc.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>ProAm</author><text>&amp;gt; Do you agree that advertising on the Internet should exist?&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s not the advertising, is the intrusive, extensive, cross-site, cross-industry, non-opt-out, forever tracking that is the problem.&lt;p&gt;We&amp;#x27;ve normalized that the two go hand in hand and are ok.</text></comment>
<story><title>Privacy preserving attribution for advertising</title><url>https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/privacy-preserving-attribution-for-advertising/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>sgift</author><text>I am trying my best to not knee-jerk here, even though it&amp;#x27;s hard to see Mozilla working with Facebook of all companies.&lt;p&gt;In the end it seems to come down to one question everyone has to answer for themselves: Do you agree that advertising on the Internet should exist?&lt;p&gt;If the answer is no, that&amp;#x27;s it. This is a bad thing. Mozilla should instead built in an ad blocker today rather than tomorrow. This probably also means people have to be willing to accept that they have to pay for more things. Someone has to foot the bill after all.&lt;p&gt;If the answer is yes, it gets more complicated. Facebook is - in my mind - a bad actor. There&amp;#x27;s no way around it. But Facebook is also one of the biggest platforms for advertising in the world. So, if a proposal isn&amp;#x27;t somehow either accepted by Facebook or forced on them it is already dead. I don&amp;#x27;t think Mozilla has the market power for the second variant, so only the first one is possible for them. We then want to make ads as good citizens of the internet as possible: No tracking of users, no executing scripts (which then cryptomine ..) and so on. None of that crap. So, a protocol which is a) accepted by Facebook and b) leads to these outcomes could be a good idea. In theory. In practice people with appropriate knowledge will have to check the protocol, suggest ways to make it better etc.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>kvark</author><text>I don&amp;#x27;t think Mozilla is in the right to decide whether advertising should exist or not. Firefox provides a fair choice - you can install adblocking solutions and mess with your content view of the web as much as necessary. But there is still value in improving the ethics of advertising that other people see.</text></comment>