But why appease advertisers, I don’t see the point? The current ad business only exists because it’s been possible to track people. It does not mean it’s impossible to do advertising without it. It’s not like it’s a right for advertisers to know in detail how their ads are performing.
Why wouldn’t Mozilla just disable all tracking? Why do they see any need to give anything back when minimizing another form of tracking?
You can be the enemy of the advertisers and they will do everything in their power to destroy you. Or you can not entirely piss them off and actually continue to exist and try to do as much good as you can.
But Mozilla is not in the ad business so why are they appeasing advertisers?
I could see Mozilla thinking advertisers will back off when they give them a more integrity-respecting tool, but my expectation is that advertisers will keep doing what they already do. Because why not?
Either way, distributing reports about my (anonymized) behavior, to advertisers, is still a slight breech of trust.
And even if it’s aggregated and mixed with others to a point of pure anonymity, it’s still a tool to manipulate your behavior on a large scale. I can see others not having a problem with it but I do.
By default they do block quite a bit. The “Standard” tracking protection option in their Settings page says it blocks Social media trackers, Cross-site cookies in all windows, tracking content in private windows, cryptominers, and fingerprinters. They have a strict option with a disclaimer that it may break some sites or content that does a bit more.
So they’re already blocking as much as they reasonably can without affecting legitimate functionality, and they have an option to block even more.
As for “Why offer them anything?”, my guess is pragmatism. They’re a lot more likely to succeed if they propose a system where the users give up nothing but companies can thrive anyways, vs. a system where the users give up nothing and the companies in charge of everything just burn to the ground and die.
I notably don’t have a strong opinion on whether or not I think they’ll succeed with this feature. I think their intentions are pure, though, and that it legitimately offers no privacy risk to users at all. I think the best chance it has is something like government mandates. Maybe there’s also a future where they somehow get Google on board for PR reasons or something. I wish them the best of luck.
But why appease advertisers, I don’t see the point? The current ad business only exists because it’s been possible to track people. It does not mean it’s impossible to do advertising without it. It’s not like it’s a right for advertisers to know in detail how their ads are performing.
Why wouldn’t Mozilla just disable all tracking? Why do they see any need to give anything back when minimizing another form of tracking?
You can be the enemy of the advertisers and they will do everything in their power to destroy you. Or you can not entirely piss them off and actually continue to exist and try to do as much good as you can.
But Mozilla is not in the ad business so why are they appeasing advertisers?
I could see Mozilla thinking advertisers will back off when they give them a more integrity-respecting tool, but my expectation is that advertisers will keep doing what they already do. Because why not?
Either way, distributing reports about my (anonymized) behavior, to advertisers, is still a slight breech of trust.
And even if it’s aggregated and mixed with others to a point of pure anonymity, it’s still a tool to manipulate your behavior on a large scale. I can see others not having a problem with it but I do.
By default they do block quite a bit. The “Standard” tracking protection option in their Settings page says it blocks Social media trackers, Cross-site cookies in all windows, tracking content in private windows, cryptominers, and fingerprinters. They have a strict option with a disclaimer that it may break some sites or content that does a bit more.
So they’re already blocking as much as they reasonably can without affecting legitimate functionality, and they have an option to block even more.
As for “Why offer them anything?”, my guess is pragmatism. They’re a lot more likely to succeed if they propose a system where the users give up nothing but companies can thrive anyways, vs. a system where the users give up nothing and the companies in charge of everything just burn to the ground and die.
I notably don’t have a strong opinion on whether or not I think they’ll succeed with this feature. I think their intentions are pure, though, and that it legitimately offers no privacy risk to users at all. I think the best chance it has is something like government mandates. Maybe there’s also a future where they somehow get Google on board for PR reasons or something. I wish them the best of luck.