eupolicy.social is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
This Mastodon server is a friendly and respectful discussion space for people working in areas related to EU policy. When you request to create an account, please tell us something about you.

Server stats:

242
active users

I have seen a lot of anger about and criticism of @mozilla's new attribution system introduced in 128. I totally understand why people are worried about this but I'd be curious if anyone has provided *technical* reasons for why the proposed attribution system isn't in fact -preserving or other reasons why it's bad (beyond "Firefox shouldn't do " or "opt-out is not enough").

I mean there are good reasons to oppose as such (including online) but, if one acknowledges that ads play at least some legitimate role in financing online services, isn't Mozilla's proposal a good attempt in building a system? If not, why (real question)?

@ilumium The problem is that most real-world privacy threats from advertising are at the group level, not the individual level. Tracking at the group level (with all the interesting math properties of "privacy-preserving" systems) can still help

* match scammers to likely victims

* enable price discrimination

* make housing and job ads disappear for members of protected groups

The math in the new #firefox ad feature is neat but doesn't address the fundamental issues

@ilumium you're welcome. Privacy-preserving math looks useful for features like #firefox telemetry where all users get the same bug fixes and it isn't used to make decisions that treat users differently, but fixing advertising is a harder problem

blog.zgp.org/pet-projects-or-p

blog.zgp.orgPET projects or real privacy?