The only way to get them to stop using the old mechanisms is to block those mechanisms.
If you can't block those mechanisms then you're just giving more ways for advertisers to track people, not taking away the old ones.
And if you can block those mechanisms, then just block them, you're done, stop there.
Whether it's worthwhile and/or will help reduce industry tracking practices is a good & separate question, but it's not reasonable to describe this as anything akin to a attack on privacy.
It's an attack surface with no redeeming value for end users. There is no value gained by compromising with advertisers.
And of course the data is useful. That's why this is being done. That in itself is not a argument against it.
What is the reason this is good for users? It's not "this is better than other tracking", because this does nothing to take away other tracking so it's not an either-or. Other tracking won't go away until it's blocked. There is no requirement to provide a replacement.
"We've should eliminate toxic waste being dumped in the water!" "What do you propose to replace the toxic wastewith? Why don't we provide a less toxic waste? Maybe if we offer the option of dumping a less toxic waste, that'll incentivize factories to dump that instead of the more toxic waste?"
GP was very clear in what he considered "black and white thinking" and you very clearly avoided addressing what GP wrote.
> What is the reason this is good for users?
Did GP said it was good, no. So why are you even asking this question?
I never said this proposal is any good. I don't know if is as I just looked at the general overview, and that's not really enough to make a judgement one way or the other. As a general point I do think it's a problem with solving.
What I am saying your case for "it's bad" is entirely without substance and seems to be based on axiomatic black/white thinking.
Once you have a non-zero number of bits flowing from the browser to advertisers, that's a path to try to extract more bits of identifying information than the browser intended to provide, by any number of means.
There will be lots of people trying to deanonymize users from the data. There will be warrants served to the intermediary. There will be attempted security breaches on the intermediary. Those are just a few bits of potential attack surface, all of which is entirely unnecessary.
I mean, there's the part where advertisers pay for a huge chunk of the web? Maybe you're ideologically opposed to that and think websites should only have crowdsourcing-type revenue sources, but in the meantime website owners need to pay the bills.
They don't. Most of the web is unpaid UGC.
> Maybe you're ideologically opposed to that and think websites should only have crowdsourcing-type revenue sources, but in the meantime website owners need to pay the bills.
That's up to those website operators to figure out and not the concern of the user's browser. It only becomes the browser's concern when those website operators try to enrich themselves by manipulating the user into acting against their best interest via ads, in which case the only correct response is to block those ads. For the most part, the website operators that are in it to make a living are simply scammers that will not be missed.
Ad supported content is worth something and eliminating that business model overnight would be bad as a bunch of things would be less accessible.
"competition law" is a problem for Chrome; as a browser run by a massive advertising company, interfering with other advertising companies raises antitrust concerns. It is not a problem Firefox needs to care about. (Also, it's not a problem that a browser with a tiny fraction of market share needs to worry about.)
"web ecosystem issues" is a fascinating euphemism. Let's cause more "issues" for advertisers.
> Ad supported content is worth something and eliminating that business model overnight would be bad as a bunch of things would be less accessible.
It's not going to go away overnight; it will take a long lingering time to die, and that time gets longer every time someone hesitates to kill it. In the meantime, as it becomes less effective, other models will become more effective.
I use an adblocker, I have no need for "Privacy preserving ads".
Any idea what a transaction will look like. Who will pay them for this and how? I guess ad networks would pay so they can still attribute and do retain their customers better? I wonder what the fee is per
It's actually developed together with Meta/Facebook: https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/privacy-preserving-attri...
> Anonym was founded in 2022 by former Meta executives Brad Smallwood and Graham Mudd.
https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/mozilla-anonym-raising-t...
It is plausible for example that you could form a statistical cohort around people that work in an organization and determine that they have become interested in a topic that reveals internal plans.
Even as an individual, I can only see more accurate modeling of my interests as a tool to be used against me. I do not consent to sharing those correlations. They are private.
The ad agency is only able to see: their add (y), published on source z, led to x conversions, over a period of time (p).