Lokjo - EU's Gmaps replacement (@Lokjo@mstdn.social)
mstdn.social
Attached: 1 image Firefox is just another US-corporate product with an 'open source' sticker on it. Their version 128 update has auto checked a new little privacy breach setting. If you still use a corporate browser, at least do some safety version! We mainly use @librewolf@lemmy.ml based on firefox. (yes, we know, a stable european or even non-US browser is still considered 'futuristic' in europe) #eu #browser #firefox #meh

… I mean, WTF. Mozilla, you had one job …

Edit:

Just to add a few remarks from the discussions below:

  1. As long as Firefox is sponsored by ‘we are not a monopoly’ Google, they can provide good things for users. Once advertisement becomes a real revenue stream for Mozilla, the Enshittification will start.
  2. For me it is crossing the line when your browser is spying on you and if ‘we’ accept it, Mozilla will walk down this path.
  3. This will only be an additional data point for companies spying on you, it will replace none of the existing methodologies. Learn about fingerprinting for example
  4. Mozilla needs to make money/find a business model, agreed. Selling you out to advertisement companies cannot be it.
  5. This is a very transparent attempt of Mozilla to be the man in the middle selling ads, despite the story they tell. At that point I can just use Chrome, Edge or Safari, at least Google has expertise and the money to protect my data and sadly Chrome is the most compatible browser (no fault of Mozilla/Firefox of course).
  6. Mozilla massively acts against the interests of their little remaining user base, which is another dumb move made by a leadership team earning millions while kicking out developers and makes me wonder what will be next.
  • gnuhaut@lemmy.ml
    47·
    5 months ago

    This does not prevent regular ad tracking, this provides additional data to advertisers. It also means Mozilla is now tracking me, and then Mozilla does this “anonymizing” on their servers. I do not trust Mozilla with this data, and I don’t trust that no way can be found de-anonymize or combine this data with other data ad networks already collect.

    This is not in my interest at all. This data should not be collected. The ad networks can suck it, why should I help them?

    https://blog.privacyguides.org/2024/07/14/mozilla-disappoints-us-yet-again-2/

    • Vincent@feddit.nl
      24·
      5 months ago

      Advertisers can already easily get this data without this setting, and any measures you take to block ads also by definition affect this setting.

      Meanwhile, if this works and becomes widely available, regulators will be able to take measures against user surveillance without having to succumb to the ad industry’s argument that they won’t know whether their ads work.

      And yes, this provides data to advertisers, but it’s data about their ads, not about users.

      • gnuhaut@lemmy.ml
        17·
        5 months ago

        Ah yes, the hypothetical second step, in which tracking is going to be outlawed (I’m not holding my breath), except, of course, for the third party services that do the aggregating, which will “sell” (literal quote) the aggregate data, so I guess these are by semantic sophistry not adtech companies but something else.

        I’m so glad this genius “plan” can be used to justify Mozilla funneling data to adtech firms right now, because in some hypothetical future timeline this somehow can be construed with a bunch of hand-waving and misdirection to be in my interest.

        How about instead we have a browser that only cares about the users, and not give a fuck about adtech? Its number one goal should be to treat adtech as hostile, and fight to ruin that whole industry.

        • Vincent@feddit.nl
          13·
          5 months ago

          for the third party services that do the aggregating, which will “sell” (literal quote) the aggregate data

          You’re saying you’re literally quoting the ISRG as planning to sell the data? Because that goes directly against what I’ve read about this, which I believe says that they wouldn’t even be able to because they can’t see the data.

          • gnuhaut@lemmy.ml
            5·
            5 months ago

            Ok, I misremembered it says “pay” for the aggregate results, not sell.

            Our DAP deployment is jointly run by Mozilla and ISRG. Privacy is lost if the two organizations collude to reveal individual values. We safeguard against this in several ways: trust in both organizations, joint agreements, and operational practices.

            A full solution will require that advertisers — or their delegated measurement provider — receive reports from browsers, select a service, submit a batch of reports, and pay for the aggregation results, choosing from a list of approved operators.

            For the trial, the results for each task will be sent to Mozilla’s telemetry systems, which will be used to access aggregated statistics.

            So it doesn’t say ISRG is going sell data, but the “full solution” will have other operators that get payed, i.e. they’re going to sell the aggregate data. Also, they envision multiple such operators, all of which it seems need to be “trusted”.

            https://github.com/mozilla/explainers/tree/main/ppa-experiment#end-user-benefit

            • Vincent@feddit.nl
              3·
              5 months ago

              Ah gotcha, thanks for bringing in the source - that does come down to the ISRG selling it. The thing I’d missed in your quote is that it’s referring to aggregate data. So yeah, how that meshes with what I’ve read is that the ISRG won’t be able to view user data, but indeed the ad performance data would be sold to advertisers.

      • gnuhaut@lemmy.ml
        2·
        4 months ago

        Can you imagine a world where Linux wasn’t directly getting paid by Amazon to hook all your machines up to AWS? You can’t! And how could vim possibly be developed without dropbox integration and sponsorship, that would never work. There is no way a world exists where Krita doesn’t sell all your drawings to OpenAI, how are they going to make any money?

        None of these nice things could exist if they weren’t selling out their users, that’s just reality.

        • sunbeam60@lemmy.one
          4·
          4 months ago

          Yes I get your point. Some software can run without a large income stream, on a volunteer basis.

          You’re using that fact to say that Firefox also can. And if you care to look at my profile you’ll see I’ve argued time and time again that Mozilla is an overblown organisation and should be slimmed down to a couple of hundred, working solely on the browser.

          I doubt, however, that you can build a modern, up-to-date browser on a volunteer basis.

          How many full-time people do you think it takes?

          • gnuhaut@lemmy.ml
            3·
            4 months ago

            Linux has full time developers. Blender has full time developers. Lots of other projects have full time developers. They still don’t sell my data to Google.

            A web browser is a very visible piece of software, relied upon by end users, businesses and governments alike. I’m sure enough people and organizations would donate their time and money to fund this, if it existed.

    • verdigris@lemmy.ml
      4·
      5 months ago

      … No, it does not. The ads are currently already tracking clicks and conversions, on top of a whole boatload of other personal data. This API instead provides them with just the click and conversion data, divorced from the personal data and then aggregated with all the other site visitors.

      Being against this proposal basically means you trust random websites and ad companies more with your data then you do Mozilla and LetsEncrypt.

      • gnuhaut@lemmy.ml
        11·
        5 months ago

        This API instead

        Instead of what? As I said, this is in addition to existing tracking, with some vague promise that if current tracking methods were banned or abandoned, this could be used instead. Except it’s not getting banned (Mozilla is not going to out-lobby Google) or abandoned (market forces prevent that), and why oh why would I want some alternative way for ad companies to get my data in that situation anyway? Let them die.

        Now if another person is going to repeat this nonsense talking point, which you have picked up strait from Mozilla’s corporate PR, I’m going to lose my mind. Have some critical thinking skills. They are giving away your data right now and they give you nothing in return except a nonsense promise of a fairytale future.

        Please I just want a browser that acts in the user’s interest only, does not work with Meta on adtech, and does not think it’s their duty to save the ad industry from itself.

        • verdigris@lemmy.ml
          2·
          5 months ago

          Again, no, that’s not true. This API is only used by sites that opt into it, and in so doing, they are disabling the normal tracking which is far more invasive.

          • UserMeNever@feddit.nlEnglish
            8·
            4 months ago

            Sorry but where does it say they will disable “normal tracking” if they use this API?

            • verdigris@lemmy.ml
              2·
              4 months ago

              In the entire pitch, the announcement, this clarification, and all the technical data? Read literally any of it again and you’ll see that this is the whole point of the API.

              • UserMeNever@feddit.nl
                7·
                4 months ago

                You are missing the point. websites WILL NOT STOP TRACKING YOU! Nothing in this API can do that.

            • verdigris@lemmy.ml
              2·
              4 months ago

              It’s enforced by the websites, they opt into this API. It says that everywhere you can read about this.

              • gnuhaut@lemmy.ml
                4·
                4 months ago

                I can’t find this in the announcements and stuff. Where does it say that exactly?

                  • gnuhaut@lemmy.ml
                    1·
                    4 months ago

                    You said:

                    Again, no, that’s not true. This API is only used by sites that opt into it, and in so doing, they are disabling the normal tracking which is far more invasive.

                    OK, your source for this:

                    A full version of an in-browser attribution API will offer strong privacy protections, while providing considerable flexibility in how to measure ad performance. Our long term goal is a standardized attribution solution. We believe that a good attribution system will give advertising businesses a real alternative to more objectionable practices, like tracking, which should allow browsers to further restrict those practices.

                    Nowhere does it say websites are disabling other tracking methods.

                    It says that browsers could (maybe, in the future) restrict other methods of tracking, if this gets widespread mainstream adoption. Why are these things related exactly? Mozilla could presumably implement these tracking restrictions right now. The reason they are related in the minds and PR of Mozilla drones is that they don’t dare do this without providing an alternative for the ad industry. Their corporate overlords won’t “allow” it.

                    But right now, this restricts and replaces nothing, they literally are giving you vague promises about future improvements, while already collecting your data, like I said.

                    I will remind you that you accused others of spreading misinformation in this thread. I will accept your little mea culpa song and dance now. Gimme!