Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Jeffrey Yasskin (jyasskin@hachyderm.io)'s status on Saturday, 13-Jul-2024 23:13:55 JST Jeffrey Yasskin

   • Don Marti

   I'm seeing some rage about Firefox's origin trial for "Privacy-Preserving Attribution" (https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/privacy-preserving-attribution) (largely thanks to @dmarti boosting it). I think this comes down to a difference in threat models. I'm bound to get these somewhat wrong, but roughly: ... 1/

   • Embed this notice
     Aral Balkan (aral@mastodon.ar.al)'s status on Saturday, 13-Jul-2024 23:13:52 JST Aral Balkan

     in reply to

     @jyasskin Gosh this is rich given the threat here is Google and surveillance capitalists in general and the global panopticon you folks have built with your trillion-dollar corporations. But yes, let’s talk about “angry people” misunderstanding the threat models of their browsers.

     *smh*

     It’s like watching the fox teach a security class to sheep. You’re the threat.

   • Embed this notice
     Jeffrey Yasskin (jyasskin@hachyderm.io)'s status on Saturday, 13-Jul-2024 23:13:53 JST Jeffrey Yasskin

     in reply to

     5/5
     These are all valid threat models, and browsers should exist to support them all, but people get angry when they thought their current browser had a different threat model than it actually does.

   • Embed this notice
     Jeffrey Yasskin (jyasskin@hachyderm.io)'s status on Saturday, 13-Jul-2024 23:13:54 JST Jeffrey Yasskin

     in reply to

     3/🧵
     Firefox: We must prevent websites from correlating personal data, but if we can let websites maintain their revenue given that constraint, it's worth doing. Hence the attribution API that doesn't expose personal data. (https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/privacy-preserving-attribution)

     [Apologies if I've misrepresented Firefox's position.]

   • Embed this notice
     Jeffrey Yasskin (jyasskin@hachyderm.io)'s status on Saturday, 13-Jul-2024 23:13:54 JST Jeffrey Yasskin

     in reply to

     4/🧵
     Angry people: Advertising itself (or perhaps any advertising targeted better than website Nielsen ratings) is a risk, either to our personal eyeballs or to the web ecosystem, where it can fund spammy or malicious websites. Ads (or targeted ads) should just be blocked, and websites should find other funding models.

     [More apologies to the angry folks whose position I've misrepresented. This is a diverse group, so I'm bound to have missed some of them.]

   • Embed this notice
     Jeffrey Yasskin (jyasskin@hachyderm.io)'s status on Saturday, 13-Jul-2024 23:13:55 JST Jeffrey Yasskin

     in reply to

     [Thread comparing browser threat models around advertising]

     Chrome: The risk of defunding the web and taking content away from people who can't afford to pay is worth the risk of websites correlating personal data (but also it's worth removing both risks when we can: https://privacysandbox.com/intl/en_us/open-web/). The folks raging at Firefox have already left Chrome.

     (Again, this is my personal take, not Chrome's official position.)
     2/🧵