Mozilla’s system only measures the success rate of ads—it doesn’t help companies target those ads—and it’s less susceptible to abuse, EFF’s Lena Cohen told @FastCompany@flipboard.com. “It’s much more privacy-preserving than Google’s version of the same feature.”

https://mastodon.social/@eff/112922761259324925

Privacy experts say the new toggle is mostly harmless, but Firefox users saw it as a betrayal.

“They made this technology for advertisers, specifically,” says Jonah Aragon, founder of the Privacy Guides website. “There’s no direct benefit to the user in creating this. It’s software that only serves a party other than the user.”

  • sabreW4K3@lazysoci.al
    42·
    7 months ago

    There’s a lot of people that trust the privacy guides website and yet the founder is just spewing emotional bullshit that’s not even grounded in facts. A bunch of smart people can see the benefit to the average end user and then Jonah is putting out bullshit. I’m disappointed in him and privacy guides.

    • Vincent@feddit.nl
      1·
      7 months ago

      As the other comment mentioned, it’s about caring about principles in theory vs. real-world effect. He still says that you should use Firefox (with some tweaks - installing uBlock Origin is the most important one, of course) if you want the most privacy-friendly browser, but I’m sure his ruckus will have caused people to just give up and stay with Chrome too.

        • jet@hackertalks.comEnglish
          1·
          7 months ago

          I think a reasonable person would say better ad-tracking does not provide a direct benefit to a user.

          The argument is that better ad-tracking means that companies such as mozilla can make money from advertisements while providing “better” privacy then the cookies/fingerprinting everywhere model.

          That is a indirect benefit for the user. If they don’t use the new ad-tracking how does their experience change? Not at all. So any benefits are down the line.