this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2024
205 points (96.8% liked)

Firefox

18068 readers
9 users here now

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

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

MARK SURMAN, PRESIDENT, MOZILLA Keeping the internet, and the content that makes it a vital and vibrant part of our global society, free and accessible has

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ziviz@lemmy.sdf.org 46 points 2 months ago (5 children)

A fundamental flaw in this, is it still involves user data, even if "anonymized". You can advertise without any user data. We do it all the time. Does a television channel know your gender? Does a radio station know if you bought a car recently? Does the newspaper know your hobbies?

[–] abbenm@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago

A fundamental flaw in this, is it still involves user data, even if “anonymized”. You can advertise without any user data.

Right. The reassurance is supposed to be: "don't worry, no personalized data is retained." So, ideally, no individual record of you, with your likes, your behaviors, your browser fingerprint, aggregated together with whatever third party provider data might be purchased, and machine learning inferences can be derived from that. Instead, there's a layer of abstraction, or several layers. Like "people who watch Breaking Bad also like Parks and Rec and are 12% more likely to be first generation home buyers". Several abstracted identity types can be developed and refined.

Okay, but who ordered that? Why is that something that we think satisfies us that privacy is retained? You're still going to try and associate me with an abstract machine learned identity that, to your best efforts, closely approximates what you think I like and what is most persuasive to me. I don't think people who are interested in privacy feel reassured at anonymized repurposing of data.

It's the model itself, it's the incentives inherent in advertising as an economic model, at the end of the day. I don't know that there's a piecemeal negotiation that is supposed to stand in for our interests to reassure us, or whose idea was that this third way was going to be fine.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Non targeted advertising isn't as profitable. (It lacks dark patterns)

For what its worth I still watch over the air TV

[–] refalo@programming.dev 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yes, they actually CAN know those things.

[–] Far@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] Scolding7300@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago

Maybe they're referring to demographic statistics of listeners/watchers (via surveys or something)

[–] Blisterexe@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Thats a good point, those ads are far less profitable though, and as a result if mozilla offered that kind of service nobody would use it

[–] Gay_Tomato@hexbear.net 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Which will lead to more and more pressure to drop privacy protections for profit until there is no real reason to not just use chrome.

[–] Blisterexe@lemmy.zip -2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Did you read about the system their ads use? Their system uses a new, anonymised system that has NOTHING TO DO with the current way tracking works

[–] abbenm@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You're completely right and I'm terribly disappointed that nuances like these get reflex downvoted.

[–] Blisterexe@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 months ago

tbf my comment was shittily and rudely phrased, i dont blame them

[–] HappyStarDiaz@real.lemmy.fan -2 points 2 months ago

Yes they have known these things for decades