mcc (@mcc@mastodon.social)
mastodon.social
Attached: 1 image So this, from Firefox, is fucking toxic: https://mstdn.social/@Lokjo/112772496939724214 You might be aware Chrome— a browser made by an ad company— has been trying to claw back the limitations recently placed on ad networks by the death of third-party cookies, and added new features that gather and report data directly to ad networks. You'd know this because Chrome displayed a popup. If you're a Firefox user, what you probably don't know is Firefox added this feature and *has already turned it on without asking you*
  • dan@upvote.au
    0·
    4 months ago

    I’m probably going to be downvoted for saying this, but since the ad supported internet is here to stay, wouldn’t you rather see ads that at least somewhat match your interests, if they use a technique that moves some of the attribution logic that used to run on third-party servers to instead be done in your web browser?

    There’s a few models that have worked well online:

    • You pay for the content/service directly
    • Paid users subsidise the free users (“freemium” services)
    • Someone else covers the cost (which is how a lot of Lemmy servers operate for example)
    • You don’t pay anything and it’s ad-supported

    The last is very common. People expect to get high quality content and services, but don’t want to pay anything for it (or can’t afford it), which is why the ad supported model is so prevalent. It’s not going away any time soon, and advertisers are already tracking you. Wouldn’t you want to use a system that involves less tracking?

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      0·
      4 months ago

      wouldn’t you rather see ads that at least somewhat match your interests

      No, that means they’re tracking me.

      if they use a technique that moves some of the attribution logic that used to run on third-party servers to instead be done in your web browser?

      The more of my data that stays on my system, the better. I’m not against ads or necessarily relevant ads, I’m against tracking.

      Wouldn’t you want to use a system that involves less tracking?

      Yes. I’m willing to disable my ad blocker if they don’t track me. If the browser places the ads and the only data that leaves my machine is deanonymized and can’t reasonably be used to identify me, that’s enough.

      However, I’d much prefer to just pay whatever the revenue from the ads I see is. Unfortunately, most services are either $5-10/month to remove ads, and there’s no way they make that much from me (it’s probably <$1/month, if not per year). I wish Firefox would do something like GNU Taler where I can load up a fund and websites take a faction of a cent for each page view or something.

      • MightyCuriosity@sh.itjust.works
        0·
        4 months ago

        Exactly this. I know a very good local tech website (Tweakers.net) which offers antonymous ads but they are still relevant because they’re tech related being on a tech related web site. That’s a way I could support!

    • makeasnek@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
      0·
      4 months ago

      I’d rather not have ads at all and just pay $5 a month and have all the websites I visit get a portion of that $5. Some people tried this years ago, but the payment infrastructure wasn’t ready for it. Nostr can do it now though, their users “zapped” (tipped) nearly 1M USD (950k) over the past two months alone to content creators on their platform (twitter clone). And there’s a feature to automatically split a set donation among all the posts you’ve liked. No reason that can’t be done for the entire web.

      Browser extension tracks what sites I visit and then at the end of the month send them all tips. Sites could detect such an extension and automatically not show ads if you have it installed.

      • dan@upvote.au
        0·
        4 months ago

        I like the idea. I used Flattr for a while maybe 10 years ago, which was a similar concept.

        Having said that, for many sites, a portion of $5/month wouldn’t be enough to cover all their expenses, and in some cases they’d make more money via advertising.

      • tyler@programming.dev
        0·
        4 months ago

        Wait, so you want a browser extension that tracks you… so you can avoid Mozilla not tracking you??

        I understand wanting the micropayments thing. I want that as well. But you’re literally advocating tracking here.

        • makeasnek@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
          0·
          4 months ago

          The difference is that such an extension isn’t reporting my traffic to a “trusted third party”. My browser is doing the tracking locally and sending micropayments to sites I visit.

          • tyler@programming.dev
            0·
            4 months ago

            You said browser extension. And how do you think those payments go through? Mozilla isn’t a payment provider. And even payment providers use downstream companies to actually move the money around. So either you trust Mozilla to choose a trusted third party……orrrr you trust a third party extension to choose another trusted third party, and that one is now handling your payment information.

    • palordrolap@kbin.run
      0·
      4 months ago

      can’t afford it

      Here’s a thicket of weeds: Why would you want to show ads to someone who can’t afford your product?

  • Melody Fwygon@lemmy.oneEnglish
    0·
    4 months ago

    I can already see how Advertisers AND Websites will collude and break this one.

    • Specifically placed ads; targeted at specific website pages which a majority of their target grouping will visit.
    • Generate an ad that will specifically reside on a page deep inside of the site; think 4+ clicks deep; which is intensely personalized to their target. 1
    • Ad will trigger; register “Impression” and be boxed up into Differential Privacy set by the DAP.
    • Since that’s the only ad targeted for that specific page, any impression is an answer of 1 or ‘True’.
    • Through microtargeting of these deep pages they can learn a lot about what people do online and could potentially break Differential Privacy.

    1 - In this example the URI being targeted could be something like https://www.example.com/zhuli/do/the/* in such a way that when you visit https://example.com/zhuli/do/the/thing/order.php is always recorded.

    • Vincent@feddit.nl
      0·
      4 months ago

      It’s pretty painful how quickly wrong information spreads. I’m sure it’s not intentional, but that doesn’t really make it better…

      • tyler@programming.dev
        0·
        4 months ago

        Even in this actual thread, under the comment you replied to, someone stills thinks that Mozilla is placing ads.

    • dan@lemm.eeEnglish
      0·
      4 months ago

      Interesting thread. But I don’t understand why the data needs to be collected and correlated by a thirds party, can’t the ads themselves detect views and clicks? (that’s what they need right?)

      Or am I missing something about the process?

      • tb_@lemmy.world
        0·
        4 months ago

        The advertiser’s don’t place the ads themselves. They say where and when they are placed, but the actual placing/integration is done by the likes of Google, Facebook, and, in this case, Mozilla.

        That’s the “third party” that’s doing the tracking.

    • Melody Fwygon@lemmy.oneEnglish
      0·
      4 months ago

      I can say confidently that even if you don’t conflate the two; the Mozilla implementation can be broken and abused just as easily as the Google one can be.

    • Vincent@feddit.nl
      0·
      4 months ago

      It’s not on mobile yet, it’s only on specific websites, and as I understand it, it doesn’t even do anything unless you click an ad.

      Which is completely different from Chrome’s system, which sends information about you to websites regardless - and they haven’t even fenced off third-party cookies yet!