Kola
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2024
Here's an experiment I found among Mozilla's recent explainers: https://github.com/mozilla/explainers/tree/main/ppa-experiment
This is a way for the jews to track you across different website and fix a big problem (from their perspective) where they don't know if watching their ads has any effect on you. This API makes it so that they will be able to tell, directly, that you saw an ad for product X, then bought that product.
A "privacy-first" API that invades your privacy to let them track you more effectively
So there are no benefits to you, and they know it, but they're still going to do it. Note that they're building it directly into the browser, wasting resources that could have went into making Firefox better.
Oh no, when you're forced to ask the dumb goyim cattle for permission, turns out they don't want to be tracked. That is why this feature is opt-out, and enabled by default, so that most people won't even know it's there and will be tracked:
You can read the whole thing, including the technical details, at the link I also pasted above:
This is a way for the jews to track you across different website and fix a big problem (from their perspective) where they don't know if watching their ads has any effect on you. This API makes it so that they will be able to tell, directly, that you saw an ad for product X, then bought that product.
Mozilla is working with Meta and other actors on defining an in-browser attribution API. The purpose of this API is to provide a privacy-first design for advertising companies to be able to measure how advertising drives conversions. That is, answering the question of whether advertising effectively achieves its goals, such as increased sales.
A "privacy-first" API that invades your privacy to let them track you more effectively
Users largely benefit indirectly from the use of this API. That’s a hard fact, but an important one.
Any benefit people derive from this feature is indirect. The sites they visit are often supported by advertising. Making advertising better makes it possible for more sites to function using the support that advertising provides.
So there are no benefits to you, and they know it, but they're still going to do it. Note that they're building it directly into the browser, wasting resources that could have went into making Firefox better.
The first point here is hard to measure objectively, but we have at least one example to draw on. Meta famously reported USD10 billion of losses as a result of Apple’s Ad Tracking Transparency feature, which resulted in them being unable to perform attribution for a sizable portion of iPhone users.
Oh no, when you're forced to ask the dumb goyim cattle for permission, turns out they don't want to be tracked. That is why this feature is opt-out, and enabled by default, so that most people won't even know it's there and will be tracked:
This feature will be enabled by default with an option to disable it.
Having this enabled for more people ensures that there are more people contributing to aggregates, which in turn improves utility. Having this on by default both demands stronger privacy protections — primarily smaller epsilon values and more noise — but it also enables those stronger protections, because there are more people participating. In effect, people are hiding in a larger crowd.
An opt-in approach might enable weaker privacy protections, but would not necessarily provide better data in exchange. Having more data means both better measurement accuracy and an ability to add more noise on a per-person basis, meaning better privacy.
You can read the whole thing, including the technical details, at the link I also pasted above: