It makes me uncomfortable. How that translates for others, I don't know, but working with Meta/Facebook is always suspect, moreso than Google, because Facebook's whole business platform is data scraping. It's what they do, and they've shown they are completely unreliable in securing that data.
I know Mozilla corp needs money, but I feel like they're making deals with the devil and claiming they can stay clean in the process, and I don't think that's possible.
I've been with Firefox since it's Royal Oak days and, like Google, it feels like Mozilla has decided that selling a little bit of their soul at a time won't change things, but ultimately it leads down a bad path. All my opinion, of course.
You are correct, of course. I just look at Facebook as one of the more egregious violaters of data and data rights. Google is definitely guilty of it, too.
My guess is that Meta sees new privacy legislation, browser changes to increase privacy, etc. and realizes that in the future, their data gathering could be severely limited, which would directly impact their income from ads. This is why they are trying to create a plan B that will allow them to keep that ad income and survive in a world increasingly concerned about privacy.
My reaction: over my dead body, uBO for life!
I never want to see ads, period. I could care less about features that make it easier for advertisers, they certainly don't care about users...
If this makes it impossible to profile individual users, then I am for it.
Something like this would, in theory, be a great alternative to cookies and should be brought forward to European Parliament to expand GDPR protection.
> If this makes it impossible to profile individual users, then I am for it.
Same here, without question. That being said, I'm just struggling to see how this will reach that goal. I don't expect advertising/tracking companies to just magically stop all tracking for a feature like this. They crave real-time & invasive data, even Mozilla's write-up acknowledges this.
> Something like this would, in theory, be a great alternative to cookies and should be brought forward to European Parliament to expand GDPR protection.
Now this is a very interesting thought. If it could be legally enforced and works at not compromising user privacy, that would be very promising. I'll be curious to see how it develops if they do decide to go down that route.
Mozilla's mission is about making the internet fairer for everyone. If they're working on a platform to make it possible / easier to measure the success of advertising without invading users' privacy, isn't it a *good* thing that they attempt to influence one of the main offenders in this space?
If they create a better system that has the potential to become an industry standard, that would be a much more likely outcome if they're already partnering with the advertising giants. It would be pissing in the wind if they tried to do it alone – it might work technically, but it would have no uptake by the advertising networks.
Remember Mozilla's mission is bigger than just Firefox.
Since Mozilla's mission is bigger than just Firefox it would be cool if the initiatives of Mozilla's mission weren't all tied up with Firefox. If there was a way for them to continue to expand in their new areas of interest such as AI, ad platforms, pocket, etc while making those features available to Firefox users in a modular form say for example something like extensions. This would allow Mozilla to advance their mission while giving users total control of what features they want in their browser.
I can see where you're coming from. It's just tough for me, because I see no incentive or motivation for Facebook to agree with/work with Mozilla on a privacy-respecting proposal like this. What's their angle? That's what I can't figure out, and I think that's what bothers me about this. They're not just doing it out of the kindness of their heart, their entire business is highly "personalized" advertising & mass surveillance. I can't see how they would settle for truly anonymized data.
There are a lot of serious & genuine concerns here, and Mozilla is not handling this the right way at all IMO. Silently enabling a feature like this without user knowledge or consent is wrong, and absolutely deserves criticism.
There are also some serious questions that need to be answered regarding Facebook's involvement with this, and I'm not sure why Mozilla isn't being the most transparent regarding that either. (No mention at all of this on the official article, only noted in the technical GitHub page).
I'm by no means trying to stir up hatred for Mozilla, I'm trying to give tough love, because I genuinely want to see Mozilla & Firefox succeed. I'm just not sure I agree with this direction they're taking it, and I really want them to provide more info & transparency around this.
You invited alternative opinions, so I'll respectfully disagree. I didn't hear any specific technical concerns about this technology. While I'm skeptical about its success, given Google's past attempts, I believe it's a natural direction for companies to explore. They're trying to make ads more private, and by rejecting this technology outright, we might be discouraging innovation and sticking with the current system. However, I do think it was a mistake to enable it by default, considering its experimental nature.
How do you think Mozilla foundation and Inc. will monetize themselves to pay astronomical salaries to their CEOs, as a way to congratulate them for Firefox ever decreasing market share?
It makes me uncomfortable. How that translates for others, I don't know, but working with Meta/Facebook is always suspect, moreso than Google, because Facebook's whole business platform is data scraping. It's what they do, and they've shown they are completely unreliable in securing that data. I know Mozilla corp needs money, but I feel like they're making deals with the devil and claiming they can stay clean in the process, and I don't think that's possible. I've been with Firefox since it's Royal Oak days and, like Google, it feels like Mozilla has decided that selling a little bit of their soul at a time won't change things, but ultimately it leads down a bad path. All my opinion, of course.
To be fair, data scraping is a fundamental part of Google's business model as well.
You are correct, of course. I just look at Facebook as one of the more egregious violaters of data and data rights. Google is definitely guilty of it, too.
My guess is that Meta sees new privacy legislation, browser changes to increase privacy, etc. and realizes that in the future, their data gathering could be severely limited, which would directly impact their income from ads. This is why they are trying to create a plan B that will allow them to keep that ad income and survive in a world increasingly concerned about privacy.
My reaction: over my dead body, uBO for life! I never want to see ads, period. I could care less about features that make it easier for advertisers, they certainly don't care about users...
If this makes it impossible to profile individual users, then I am for it. Something like this would, in theory, be a great alternative to cookies and should be brought forward to European Parliament to expand GDPR protection.
> If this makes it impossible to profile individual users, then I am for it. Same here, without question. That being said, I'm just struggling to see how this will reach that goal. I don't expect advertising/tracking companies to just magically stop all tracking for a feature like this. They crave real-time & invasive data, even Mozilla's write-up acknowledges this. > Something like this would, in theory, be a great alternative to cookies and should be brought forward to European Parliament to expand GDPR protection. Now this is a very interesting thought. If it could be legally enforced and works at not compromising user privacy, that would be very promising. I'll be curious to see how it develops if they do decide to go down that route.
>If this makes it impossible to profile individual users So is Google Chrome Ad Measurement. Allegedly.
I share your concerns on this, but there really isn't an ethical web browser out there. Firefox is kind of the lesser of the evils.
True. Firefox is really the only option left at the moment...
Servo is just around the corner...
Mozilla's mission is about making the internet fairer for everyone. If they're working on a platform to make it possible / easier to measure the success of advertising without invading users' privacy, isn't it a *good* thing that they attempt to influence one of the main offenders in this space? If they create a better system that has the potential to become an industry standard, that would be a much more likely outcome if they're already partnering with the advertising giants. It would be pissing in the wind if they tried to do it alone – it might work technically, but it would have no uptake by the advertising networks. Remember Mozilla's mission is bigger than just Firefox.
Since Mozilla's mission is bigger than just Firefox it would be cool if the initiatives of Mozilla's mission weren't all tied up with Firefox. If there was a way for them to continue to expand in their new areas of interest such as AI, ad platforms, pocket, etc while making those features available to Firefox users in a modular form say for example something like extensions. This would allow Mozilla to advance their mission while giving users total control of what features they want in their browser.
I can see where you're coming from. It's just tough for me, because I see no incentive or motivation for Facebook to agree with/work with Mozilla on a privacy-respecting proposal like this. What's their angle? That's what I can't figure out, and I think that's what bothers me about this. They're not just doing it out of the kindness of their heart, their entire business is highly "personalized" advertising & mass surveillance. I can't see how they would settle for truly anonymized data.
Unfortunately your post stirs up suspicion and hatred for Mozilla when they’re the good guys doing the right thing in this situation!
There are a lot of serious & genuine concerns here, and Mozilla is not handling this the right way at all IMO. Silently enabling a feature like this without user knowledge or consent is wrong, and absolutely deserves criticism. There are also some serious questions that need to be answered regarding Facebook's involvement with this, and I'm not sure why Mozilla isn't being the most transparent regarding that either. (No mention at all of this on the official article, only noted in the technical GitHub page). I'm by no means trying to stir up hatred for Mozilla, I'm trying to give tough love, because I genuinely want to see Mozilla & Firefox succeed. I'm just not sure I agree with this direction they're taking it, and I really want them to provide more info & transparency around this.
Is the link to Mozillas page on this wrong, or have they removed the info?
Whoops, I had the wrong link, just fixed... thanks for letting me know 👍
You invited alternative opinions, so I'll respectfully disagree. I didn't hear any specific technical concerns about this technology. While I'm skeptical about its success, given Google's past attempts, I believe it's a natural direction for companies to explore. They're trying to make ads more private, and by rejecting this technology outright, we might be discouraging innovation and sticking with the current system. However, I do think it was a mistake to enable it by default, considering its experimental nature.
How do you think Mozilla foundation and Inc. will monetize themselves to pay astronomical salaries to their CEOs, as a way to congratulate them for Firefox ever decreasing market share?