• Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    66
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    Digital advertising is not going away, but the surveillance parts could actually go away if we get it right. A truly private attribution mechanism would make it viable for businesses to stop tracking people, and enable browsers and regulators to clamp down much more aggressively on those that continue to do so.

    Dear CTO,

    What makes you think that advertisers would drop any existing privacy intrusion software just because you just gave them another, less useful data set on top of what they already collect? For them, more data means better targetting which in turn means more profit. Do you expect those people to suddenly stop profiling everyone and make less profit out of the goodness of their heart? Well, then you are probably heading for a big surprise.

      • Treczoks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

        Yep. Common sense would tell one that this is a stupid idea from the word go, but sadly common sense is way less common than the name implies.

    • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      It could make it easier to get privacy preserving legislation through if there’s a technical solution to the part they actually need.

      I hate ads, and hate tracking, and do my best to prevent exposure to either. But internet ads need to know what sites are driving clicks to function. Unless you want to ban ads (which I’m all for, but isn’t realistic), technology like this, then banning additional tracking is your best bet.

      • Treczoks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        I believe in “privacy preserving legislation” when I actually see it work. Legislation is Theory-Space, and quite often has no connection to online reality, as the net is international, but laws are not.

        I, too, would like to ban ads, but banning them by law will not work unless it is an international law without any holes. Sadly, forcing advertisers into a less invasive mode and make them just rely on the firefox-defined technology is just as illusionary.

        • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          5 months ago

          But the bottom line is that tech like this, that gives them the minimum they need without extra, is a hard prerequisite to any such laws even being genuinely considered. It’s easy to disable, and doesn’t give any extra information on default use case users because of all the other tracking. Advanced users who block that can block this easily. There’s no real downside.

          There’s no legitimately plausible path to just banning their data collection without allowing for attribution of transactions. It won’t happen.

          Banning them in the US or the EU would have a huge impact, because it would preclude businesses that operate in those countries legitimately from participating in the market for those countries. But it isn’t something that’s going to happen.

      • Zedstrian@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Legislation like that might happen in places like the EU, but in the US at least, unless lobbying rules are amended, consumers stand next to no chance against the commercial interests of advertisers.