Felix Mikolasch, data protection lawyer at noyb: “Mozilla has just bought into the narrative that the advertising industry has a right to track users by turning Firefox into an ad measurement tool. While Mozilla may have had good intentions, it is very unlikely that ‘privacy preserving attribution’ will replace cookies and other tracking tools. It is just a new, additional means of tracking users.”
Sigh… I cannot for the life of me figure how anyone could think that enabling PPA (even by default) means that advertising industry has somehow right to track folks. Like dude, the entire point of PPA is that advertisers could then get to know if/when their adverts are working without tracking people.
The argument that “It is just a new, additional means of tracking users” also doesn’t really make sense - even if we assume that this is new means of tracking. I mean, sure it technically is new addition, but it’s like infinity+1 is still infinity - it doesn’t make a difference. The magnitude of this one datapoint is about the same as addition of any new web api (I mean there are lots that shouldn’t exist - looking at you chromium… but that’s besides the point).
File a complaint over use of third-party cookies and actual tracking if you want to be useful - this complaint just makes you look like an idiot.
The argument that “It is just a new, additional means of tracking users” also doesn’t really make sense - even if we assume that this is new means of tracking.
It is a new means of tracking. It is extra telemetry provided by Mozilla to advertisement partners.
it doesn’t make a difference.
It makes a difference because Mozilla went out of its way to inject this tracking into a browser that is supposedly made for users.
It does not escape me, by the way, that Mozilla is now a de jure advertising corporation: since FakeSpot they’ve sold private data to third party advertisers, and since Anonym they’ve operated an advertising-specific wing.
Because of this this, Mozilla can no longer make any statements about online advertising without a huge conflict of interest, which they should disclose.
I’m not a fan of Mozilla accepting money from Google, but it’s absolutely preferable to having a clause in their privacy policy that allows them to sell geolocation data directly to advertising partners. Pre-2023, I don’t think they did that.
This isn’t the first time a company funded its competitor to avoid monopoly accusations. Microsoft did it to Apple. So it’s not like Google is simply returning the wealth Mozilla is providing it out of some generosity. Maybe they are, but I find the desire to remain out of the clutches of regulators to be an equally compelling explanation.
And given the fact that (despite Mozilla’s best attempts to the contrary) Firefox users tend to be on the nerdy and privacy oriented side, and they have both the proclivity and capacity to block ads, I imagine that Google probably pulls from the revenue sucked out of Chrome users rather than Firefox ones. But that’s just a theory, a browser theory.
It’s conspiratorial that Google gets ad clicks through Firefox, and pays Mozilla some of the money it makes from that?
And I suppose it’s also conspiratorial to claim it’s doing the same for Safari users - instead it’s more likely that it’s paying Apple 20 billion a year to remain out of the clutches of regulators?
I don’t believe Google sets aside the money made through Firefox exclusively for Firefox. (If you believe this is the case, good luck demonstrating it, I guess.) Google’s money probably goes into a big pool named “ad revenue”, and that pool is probably filled disproportionately with Google’s own Chrome users.
Again, Google is doing to Mozilla what Microsoft did for Apple: hurling money at them with the facade of an exchange of something, in order to stave off regulators.
Sigh… I cannot for the life of me figure how anyone could think that enabling PPA (even by default) means that advertising industry has somehow right to track folks. Like dude, the entire point of PPA is that advertisers could then get to know if/when their adverts are working without tracking people.
The argument that “It is just a new, additional means of tracking users” also doesn’t really make sense - even if we assume that this is new means of tracking. I mean, sure it technically is new addition, but it’s like infinity+1 is still infinity - it doesn’t make a difference. The magnitude of this one datapoint is about the same as addition of any new web api (I mean there are lots that shouldn’t exist - looking at you chromium… but that’s besides the point).
File a complaint over use of third-party cookies and actual tracking if you want to be useful - this complaint just makes you look like an idiot.
It is a new means of tracking. It is extra telemetry provided by Mozilla to advertisement partners.
It makes a difference because Mozilla went out of its way to inject this tracking into a browser that is supposedly made for users.
It does not escape me, by the way, that Mozilla is now a de jure advertising corporation: since FakeSpot they’ve sold private data to third party advertisers, and since Anonym they’ve operated an advertising-specific wing.
Because of this this, Mozilla can no longer make any statements about online advertising without a huge conflict of interest, which they should disclose.
How do you think Mozilla was funded before Fakespot and Anonym were acquired?
I’m not a fan of Mozilla accepting money from Google, but it’s absolutely preferable to having a clause in their privacy policy that allows them to sell geolocation data directly to advertising partners. Pre-2023, I don’t think they did that.
And where did that Google money come from?
(It’s a rhetorical question of course: it came from Firefox users clicking on ads.)
This isn’t the first time a company funded its competitor to avoid monopoly accusations. Microsoft did it to Apple. So it’s not like Google is simply returning the wealth Mozilla is providing it out of some generosity. Maybe they are, but I find the desire to remain out of the clutches of regulators to be an equally compelling explanation.
And given the fact that (despite Mozilla’s best attempts to the contrary) Firefox users tend to be on the nerdy and privacy oriented side, and they have both the proclivity and capacity to block ads, I imagine that Google probably pulls from the revenue sucked out of Chrome users rather than Firefox ones. But that’s just a theory, a browser theory.
It’s conspiratorial that Google gets ad clicks through Firefox, and pays Mozilla some of the money it makes from that?
And I suppose it’s also conspiratorial to claim it’s doing the same for Safari users - instead it’s more likely that it’s paying Apple 20 billion a year to remain out of the clutches of regulators?
Language removed so I can elaborate:
I don’t believe Google sets aside the money made through Firefox exclusively for Firefox. (If you believe this is the case, good luck demonstrating it, I guess.) Google’s money probably goes into a big pool named “ad revenue”, and that pool is probably filled disproportionately with Google’s own Chrome users.
Again, Google is doing to Mozilla what Microsoft did for Apple: hurling money at them with the facade of an exchange of something, in order to stave off regulators.