this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2024
105 points (90.7% liked)
Asklemmy
44293 readers
988 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Mozilla isn't doing anything to Firefox. The Anonym purchase you linked to was literally to acquire a technology they developed which would, if implemented web-wide, end the dystopian nightmare of privacy invasion that is the current paradigm where a few dozen large companies track everything everyone does on the internet all the time. "Privacy preserving" isn't just a buzzword in that article - privacy is actually preserved, and the companies involved (including Mozilla) learn nothing at all about you - not your name, not an "anonymous" identifier, not your behavior, nothing. Moreso, Anonym didn't just create this technology, the entire company was purpose-founded to create this technology.
There's a lot of misinformation floating around about Mozilla in particular at the moment. Very little of the animosity they receive is truly deserved once you dig past the narrative and find out what Mozilla's actually up to, and why.
Continuous Mozilla hit pieces coming out….
I wonder which company motivated only by greed and the fact that their entire business model is “obliterating your privacy” is behind them
It's the one that will "do no evil" - right?
Either you make a deal with the devil or use the company that made the deal so you don't have to
Limited Liability Corporations exist for that very reason. I think a dude in France made a deal with a cave lion of some sort.
It's absolutely unnecessary.
Ads should be tailored to the content of the website they are on. Not to me in any way whatsoever.
Then you might be interested in this new technology being tested by Mozilla that aims to replace tracking cookies.
No, that's the thing. I don't need to be tracked, not even if it's privacy safe.
Then we continue to use anti-tracking extensions and block all ads. This is not for you.
I don't need ads either though. But showing ads isn't really immoral. However, tracking you wherever you go to manipulate you into buying stuff by using psychological profiles is a totally different evil.
Like it or not, ads are still the most popular way to pay for online content. I despise ads and I hope some kind of micro-payment solution catches on and offers an alternative, but until then there needs to be a way to reward people for their work, so ads and full-on subscriptions it is.
Thanks for sharing this, hope ya continue 🤙
But the people employed to create content on all the websites and YouTube channels you use regularly care quite a great deal about advertisement or they’d have to do something else for a living.
What, you don’t use free services online?
We sound similar. I’ve also been happy to pay for the services I use.
Although I hope you’ll agree that your second comment is a lot more moderated than the first :)
Then your browser will have no money to develop itself.
Somehow I doubt you're giving them as much as Google is. I despise ads but the current market realities mean that developing and maintaining a browser engine is not feasible without corporation-level resources.
We know because no one else is doing it.
So instead of multiple providers tracking people all the time there will be a single company doing it, but it's okay because I should trust them for what reason? Why wouldn't tracking companies just use their own tracking on top of this new technology?
I didn’t read too much into it, but roughly speaking: Because the technology by design aggregates data immediately and drops any personal identifiers/ the unaggregated data in the process. Other companies can build whatever they want on that, but if done properly, it is impossible to reconstruct user-specific data points and profile the users that way.
This type of privacy-preserving aggregation technique is not new, it is fairly common for things like demographic data, where you want to know things like population density and incomes for some area, without just publishing an exact address with corresponding income for every person (as an example).
Edit: I think I missed your point a little bit. I am unsure, but it seemed that Anonymous is responsible for designing the framework, not doing any tracking (i.e. it wouldn’t necessarily be “put all trust into them collecting it”). Maybe rolling out that technology could be done in a way of blocking other tracking, or maybe it is intended as a basis for regulations to take up. Maybe someone else can give more informed input on that.