Original toot:

It has come to my attention that many of the people complaining about #Firefox’s #PPA experiment don’t actually understand what PPA is, what it does, and what Firefox is trying to accomplish with it, so an explainer 🧵 is in order.

Targeted advertising sucks. It is invasive and privacy-violating, it enables populations to be manipulated by bad actors in democracy-endangering ways, and it doesn’t actually sell products.

Nevertheless, commercial advertisers are addicted to the data they get from targeted advertising. They aren’t going to stop using it until someone convinces them there’s something else that will work better.

“Contextual advertising works better.” Yes, it does! But, again, advertisers are addicted to the data, and contextual advertising provides much less data, so they don’t trust it.

What PPA says is, “Suppose we give you anonymized, aggregated data about which of your ads on which sites resulted in sales or other significant commitments from users?” The data that the browser collects under PPA are sent to a third-party (in Firefox’s case, the third party is the same organization that runs Let’s Encrypt; does anybody think they’re not trustworthy?) and aggregated and anonymized there. Noise is introduced into the data to prevent de-anonymization.

This allows advertisers to “target” which sites they put their ads on. It doesn’t allow them to target individuals. In Days Of Yore, advertisers would do things like ask people to bring newspapers ads into the store or mention a certain phrase to get deals. These were for collecting conversion statistics on paper ads. Ditto for coupons. PPA is a way to do this online.

Is there a potential for abuse? Sure, which is why the data need to be aggregated and anonymized by a trusted third party. If at some point they discover they’re doing insufficient aggregation or anonymization, then they can fix that all in one place. And if the work they’re doing is transparent, as compared to the entirely opaque adtech industry, the entire internet can weigh in on any bugs in their algorithms.

Is this a utopia? No. Would it be better than what we have now? Indisputably. Is there a clear path right now to anything better? Not that I can see. We can keep fighting for something better while still accepting this as an improvement over what we have now.

  • Phegan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Do you donate to FOSS software you use?

    Your options are ads or donations. As it costs money to develop and host a lot of FOSS, in our capitalist world, it’s impossible to offer a service without somehow receiving money to continue to provide that service.

    • modulus@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Yes, for example I donate to thunderbird since I find it useful. And I wouldn’t mind donating to Firefox either provided they wouldn’t do this sort of fuckery.

      though in the long run we need to overturn capitalism of course, and that an economic model is viable doesn’t mean we should sustain it or justify it.

    • Ledivin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Do you donate to FOSS software you use?

      I do. Are there any other strawmen you’d like to throw at me?

      • IzzyScissor@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        “at me”?

        Bruh, you’re not who they were responding to. You don’t have to insert yourself and then get defensive.

        • communism@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          The top level comment is a pretty generic and widely agreeable within privacy circles statement, so yeah the reply was reasonably interpreted to be directed at people who agree with the top level comment, not just the author of the comment specifically.