this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2024
-20 points (29.2% liked)
Technology
59534 readers
3195 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't think that's the case. If you have e.g. uBlock, the API for this new feature won't be called, even if enabled, according to Colin (developer for Multi-Account Containers) in the Mozilla General matrix chat. I'd lean towards trusting Colin over you, here.
And, please, don't bother Colin over this. I only mention him because if I didn't, I just know some people would downvote without even bothering to ask for a source, despite never providing any source for the opposite themselves.
I get your point, and your frustration, but please don't talk so confidently about things you aren't actually certain of.
Maybe, but I'm not seeing anything that suggests that would be possible.
Here is the technical documentation for how this feature works. The short version is that it exposes some new JS functions that sites can invoke to register various ad related activities. That data in turn gets forwarded by the browser to a 3rd party using a protocol called DAP which can be considered out of band for the purposes of website interactions. I see no evidence at all that uBlock would be able to block the DAP calls, and limited evidence it could effectively block the JS functions.
uBlock works primarily by blocking network requests using a series of rules. Here is the syntax supported by uBlock for defining its blocking rules. It primarily works by inspecting hostnames, although there is some capability to match on things like HTTP headers, or raw text. There is the capability of blocking an entire
scriptelement if it matches specific text E.G.navigator.privateAttribution, however doing so is likely to break sites quite drastically. There is very limited ability to surgically remove such things. Maybe if you injected some JS into each page that overwrites thenavigator.privateAttributionnamespace with stub functions that do nothing (I believe this is actually what the browser does when you opt-out of that feature), but I'm not sure if that's even possible or if the browser would simply ignore attempts to write to that namespace.It's possible Firefox is being "smart" and if it sees you have uBlock or similar ad blocking extensions loaded it disables this feature. It's possible that there's some extra tricks uBlock or other extensions can pull to block this at a more fundamental level that just aren't obvious from looking at their documentation. But nothing in the documentation for this feature seems to guarantee any of that, and it's frustratingly vague in several areas. Regardless none of that changes the fact that this should have been opt-in from the start instead of opt-out. Mozilla argues that they made this opt-out because they wanted to insure a large enough user base to anonymize the collected data, but that alone suggests there might be privacy problems with this entire thing. This wouldn't be the first time that a supposedly anonymized data set could be at least partially de-anonymized.
If I understand this properly, I believe you're missing the point. I'll explain my reasoning so you can point out any flaws you perceive in my reading of your comment or my argument.
You've focused too much on how uBlock could theoretically (or not) block outgoing DAP calls and JS code execution. This is way past the point where UBo would've done its job. You need to consider the order in which these events may happen and how they depend on one another.
From the explainer:
If the ad is never downloaded, something UBo is great at guaranteeing using filter lists, the user could never reach impression time. The JS code is likely never downloaded. An impression is never generated. There is no point in generating impressions for nonexistent, unseen ads. That would be garbage data, which is actually worse for advertisers. No impression data is ever generated, thus there's nothing to send to the aggregate either.
The user does not participate in the system, at all, because it depends on actually engaging with its components, and UBo users have freed themselves from this system completely long ago.
Remember, this is not a privacy enhancer targeted at people who use UBo, but at people who don't, which is still most people, sadly.
There is no need to do so. UBo removes ads with prejudice.
I'm still on the fence about this. Currently, the way I see it, Mozilla's biggest sin is being awful at effective communication. Worse than Google, but Google has intent to deceive, while Mozilla seems like they're actually trying to do it properly and just... not getting it right. Spectacularly. Multiple times in a row.
Assuming user consent really stinks, though.
I'm not sure if this is a good argument. This is by design, aggregate anonymization works with quantity. I don't think that means it's necessarily a bad design. We use lots of faulty, problematic tools everyday—so long as this one is better than what it's trying to replace, I believe it deserves a chance.
Yes, that's true. I'm choosing to both hope all these experts make it work, while also keeping a careful eye on the project, to the extent of my ability. Maybe you could call it a lazier version of trust, but verify.
Assuming both the ad and the JS to track said ad are served from a 3rd party (or at least a different domain) that would hold at least so far as recording impressions goes. On the other hand there's still the conversions part of this to consider, although without recordings of impressions the utility of that (and privacy risk) is debatable.
Ultimately I don't like being opted into anything that collects data, theoretically anonymized or not. I don't like that this DAP process is running in the background and randomly sending data to some 3rd party (once I figure out that hostname it's absolutely getting blackholed at the network level).
Ads are a plague, you give them even an inch and they'll eventually take everything. It started with broadcast TV, then ads overran it. So they introduced cable. Sure it was expensive, but no ads! Then ads started creeping in and before you knew it cable was a complete ad infested shitshow. Then along comes streaming, a breath of fresh air. Watch what you want, we you want, and best of all no ads. Where are we now? The ads are slowly creeping back in and before long it will be just as bad as cable, 40 minutes of ads in every hour of video.
For a while we've been winning the war on the internet, able with some effort to hold back the tide, and Firefox was one of the last bastions that seemed to be working with us instead of against us. This though looks like a crack in the armor. It's the first step along a path we don't want to go down. I don't want Mozilla wasting development time pandering to ad companies, I want them improving the browser for us the users. The only ad related content I want to see from Mozilla is improved ad blocking.
Yes, that's what I'm saying. I believe that's mostly the case, especially because websites serve ads from ad networks owned by others. Even in the same company, they'll often be served from specific domains due to technical decisions.
If there's no impression, there's never any conversion. As long as uBlock is doing its job, you pretty much don't have to worry about PPA... though, feel free to simply turn if off anyway. That's why they added a toggle, after all.
Oh, on that we agree. Billboards don't track physical eyeballs that land on them, so why would virtual ads deserve all these privileges? I think they only manage because they normalized the practice before anyone could stop them, and now we're all stuck in this hell.
I trust it still is. Or, at bare minimum, it remains much better than most alternatives.
I try to always be fair in discussions, even if it means sharing crappy stuff. So I'm very sorry to tell you, but it really isn't. Back when DRM was implemented, for example, that was an entire mess, with Firefox eventually moving forwards with the implementation in a great compromise. As in, one that left everyone unsatisfied, but allowed users to watch Netflix.
Here's something interesting to keep in mind when trying to understand Mozilla's actions, from the Manifesto: