this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2024
154 points (96.4% liked)

Technology

35123 readers
136 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] sylver_dragon@lemmy.world 79 points 6 months ago

By combining Mozilla’s scale and trusted reputation with Anonym’s cutting-edge technology....

Ya, that reputation is taking a big hit right now.

[–] w00t@lemmy.ml 62 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Smells like there's BIG enshittification ahead...

[–] trevor@lemmy.blahaj.zone 22 points 6 months ago

Servo cannot come soon enough. And yet... it's so far from being even close to ready for real usage.

[–] Blizzard@lemmy.zip 56 points 6 months ago

I, for one, do not welcome any form of advertising.

[–] drspod@lemmy.ml 53 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I've been using Firefox since the beginning, before that Mozilla, and before that Netscape Navigator.

But I think it's finally time to switch to Librewolf.

I don't want digital advertising of any kind, even if my privacy is "preserved" through fancy data-laundering.

[–] GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml 11 points 6 months ago (1 children)

They could just use non-personalized ads instead tbh. They do need to earn some money after all

[–] grue@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago (13 children)

They do need to earn some money after all

If every ad-supported website went dark today, nothing of value would be lost.

[–] kevincox@lemmy.ml 15 points 6 months ago

I don't agree. As a single counter example of many YouTube has a huge wealth of information and content.

Maybe that value isn't worth the ads, that is much harder to say for certain. But it is clear that there is some valuable information on some sites that are supported by ads.

[–] pineapplelover@lemm.ee 9 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Duckduckgo manages to have privacy respecting ads. I really value that. If you're searching cars, cars pop up, they don't look at your history or anything else. Unobtrusive and you can look away

[–] chris@lemm.ee 8 points 6 months ago

And you can just… Turn them off. No questions asked. DuckDuckGo is a great example of how an advertising company can be both financially viable and respecting of user-choice.

Google could let users choose to opt out of seeing any ads across their network for free today and still be one of the most profitable companies in existence. A huge percentage of users wouldn’t know or care to turn ads off, another percentage actually wants them, and for advanced users they could offer more advanced, useful features for money.

But try pitching that to stakeholders and upper-management lol

[–] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 6 points 6 months ago

Wikipedia’s source links? Lemmy’s news links? KnowYourMeme, GIF websites?

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] jet@hackertalks.com 35 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (4 children)

Here’s how it works:

  • Secure Environment: Data sets are matched in a highly secure environment, ensuring advertisers, publishers, and Anonym don’t access any user level data.
  • Anonymized Analytics: The process results in anonymized insights and models, helping advertisers measure and improve campaign performance while safeguarding consumer privacy.
  • Differential Privacy Algorithms: These algorithms add “noise” to the data, protecting it from being traced back to individual users.

Okay. It's still boils down to give us all the data and trust us. But hopefully they're more trustworthy than other people, and not corrupted by influence and money like other humans are?


By combining Mozilla’s scale and trusted reputation with Anonym’s cutting-edge technology, we can enhance user privacy and advertising effectiveness, leveling the playing field for all stakeholders.

I was surprised they said they're so explicitly, but yeah they're trying to monetize the Mozilla reputation for things that I'm not sure stick to their core philosophy

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 22 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

To me, this only makes sense if it's integrated advertising in the browser. Trying to get third party websites to use their advertising network probably will be a very difficult sale.

It could be a way of greenwashing, or whatever the expression is for privacy washing, businesses like meta, Google, by letting them license a "privacy friendly" advertisement platform.

As far as I'm aware, there's only two major online advertising platforms, meta and Google. So breaking in is a third platform would be difficult, unless they could integrate into apps directly through Mozilla's app footprint

https://www.anonymco.com/

driving advertising performance requires privacy-enhancing approaches to data driven marketing. Anonym’s privacy preserving solutions allow you to take full advantage of your data assets.

Fundamentally, privacy and data-driven marketing are diametrically opposed

[–] GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml 12 points 6 months ago

Fundamentally, privacy and data-driven marketing are diametrically opposed

This is so true

[–] neo@lemy.lol 6 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Basically I see two options:

  1. This works for advertisers and based on your "profile" you are strongly influenced by the ads shown to you. So might just as well give your data to Meta and Google, who already sell profiled (and not individualised) ads.

  2. This doesn't work for advertisers and you are not strongly influence by the ads shown to you. So the advertisers could just as well put a link somewhere and hope it is found by their target audience.

Also I don't my browser, my OS or any other core component on my system to be in bed with people who are trying to extract as much money as possible from me.

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 4 points 6 months ago

100%. Conflict of interest is a very real problem

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 3 points 6 months ago

Sounds like Chrome's Privacy Sandbox.

[–] antihumanitarian@lemmy.world 34 points 6 months ago (3 children)

Well this is a tremendous step in the wrong direction. The economic problem is the ad supported model in the first place, no matter how it's run. This is the same thing Google does, they keep user data to themselves and sell the ad placement. So now Mozilla has the same economic incentives as Google. Unfathomably bad move.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] geography082@lemm.ee 27 points 6 months ago

Bla bla bla …… advertising … bla bla bla For me advertising = Block

[–] CalcProgrammer1@lemmy.ml 25 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Mozilla is going to absolute shit lately. Partnering with a fucking ad network? You've got to be kidding me. Firefox is still the better browser, but it's time to abandon Firefox proper for forks that get rid of Mozilla's bullshit. I have been using Librewolf for a while and unlike Firefox, it's not adware.

[–] SomeGuy69@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

I just switched to Firefox to get away from Browser who prevent me from using an adblocker extension. sigh

[–] GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml 21 points 6 months ago

Data anonymization is a good thing. If websites start using this solution instead of Google ads that'd be quite good. Well better than Google at least. But people seem to be afraid of ads getting added into Firefox. If it happens it will be a ticking bomb because the hunger for data and profit will rise every day.

[–] RustyNova@lemmy.world 20 points 6 months ago

Let's just hope that they won't use it as a justification to put ads in your browser, or go the brave route.

[–] Eggyhead@lemmy.world 17 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

An argument I frequently make about using an ad blocker is that I’d be more comfortable with ads if they weren’t so thirsty for personal information. I still stand by that, and I’m not completely convinced this satisfies that concern. Personal data is still getting slurped up, but now we have the privilege of trusting it’s completely anonymized.

[–] sunzu@kbin.run 9 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Timing is a bit sus... While google making chrome straight up ad serving client .... Firefox does something shiti?

Collusion or not, can't even get the clock is broken twice a day from these "businesses" jfc

These people never skip a time to fuck the user.

[–] ajsadauskas@aus.social 6 points 6 months ago

@sunzu @dvdnet62 Oh come now. If there's one thing Mozilla doesn't need anyone's help with, it's shooting itself in the foot with its own gun.

Now excuse me, I have some Pocket articles to read on my Firefox OS phone...

[–] IllNess@infosec.pub 8 points 6 months ago

I'm going to hope for the best and assume this has nothing to do with their browser. Mozilla has a lot of other products.

[–] 001Guy001@lemm.ee 5 points 6 months ago

for anybody that wants to disable it, go to the settings and search for "Allow websites to perform privacy-preserving ad measurement"

(or through the dom.private-attribution.submission.enabled flag in about:config)

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/privacy-preserving-attribution

[–] Unskilled5117@feddit.de 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

While there are a lot of critics of this, ask yourself: for how many services and apps you use (e.g. messenger, cloud storage, email, operating system, web browser…) are you willing to pay recurrently? If that answer is not for every single one of them, then this move is the answer.

The internet desperately needs a way to fund things and advertising seems to be the only viable solution on a bigger scale. And I don’t think that there is anyone better suited than mozilla for the job of pushing a privacy respecting way of doing so. Sure this needs to be done the right way, but they should be given the benefit of the doubt.

And this doesn’t mean that everything needs to be cluttered with ads. You could still pay a bit to remove them.

Even if the answer to the question above was yes, consider the masses. Other people might not care enough/have the same awareness about privacy to pay, but they could gain a lot with this. Consider people in less fortunate circumstances monetary wise. Don’t they deserve privacy if they can’t afford to pay for services?

[–] neo@lemy.lol 14 points 6 months ago (1 children)

There are radio stations, financed through ads. And they check if people are listening by calling random persons to ask them what station they are listening to.

So this is a viable business model and nobody is stopping anybody from putting plain pictures and links on sites and just estimate the page visits, but online advertisers want to know more. They always want more.

At the same time, a browser is the essential software to browse the web. So this is as if your TV was like:

Yo, many people mute their TV during commercials and don't pay attention, which kills the poor networks. So I made a deal with advertisers and will check what your doing, while I provide unmutable ads , but don't worry, your privacy is very important to us and we only care about providing to you the best TV experience possible.

[–] Unskilled5117@feddit.de 3 points 6 months ago

So do i understand it correctly, that ads are ok for you, but not targeted ads, because the advertisers always want to know more? Then that seems to be what mozilla is trying to achieve here: to limit what advertisers can know about you.

The technology for targeted ads are already in place, this could be an alternative that preserves more privacy than current ad networks.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago (6 children)

It is a bullshit false dichotomy to claim that the only options for business models are charging fees or showing ads. Knock it off with the misinformation.

[–] Syn_Attck 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

What are your suggestions besides ads and subscriptions, professor?

[–] grue@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Go ask Wikipedia about their business model. Or the Linux kernel. Or any number of other Free Software projects that neither charge users a fee nor show ads.

[–] Syn_Attck 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Those are not businesses. They are free projects which a dedicated person (or group of people) donate their time and energy to produce.

Wikipedia has their semi-annual donation drives and many (not most, but enough worth mentioning) FOSS devs are salaried by companies like Google and Microsoft and are allowed to work on patches to out-of-scope projects on company time provided they're still fulfilling their main roles. There are also Liberapay, Open Collective, Ko-fi and such but for the majority of FOSS devs not funded by large corps, just developing a large and widely-used program because they want to, donations rarely ever cover as much as they would make at a 9-5. There are also nonprofits that distribute donations to FOSS devs. For most it is a money pit, but to them the passion is worth more. They do it for the love, not the money.

These are not businesses.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Those are not businesses. They are free projects which a dedicated person (or group of people) donate their time and energy to produce.

...and? That's what makes them the best part of the Internet!

For most it is a money pit, but to them the passion is worth more. They do it for the love, not the money.

And it doesn't stop them from existing, proving that the Internet does not actually have to run on profit.

[–] Syn_Attck 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Yes, we could have an internet without businesses. See here.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›