A word about private attribution in Firefox
Mozilla’s decision to enable a “privacy‑preserving” ad measurement feature by default in Firefox has triggered strong pushback from users who see any browser-level ad tech as incompatible with a genuine privacy stance. Supporters argue that aggregate, differentially private conversion data could reduce the incentive for invasive tracking and fingerprinting, while critics counter that even statistical data extraction without explicit opt‑in still serves advertisers’ interests and erodes user trust. The debate broadens into concerns about Mozilla’s funding ties to ad companies, opaque defaults and consent practices, and the lack of truly ad‑independent browser options.
Overall sentiment
- Thread is largely critical of Firefox’s new “privacy-preserving” ad attribution, especially the opt‑out default.
- Many see it as Mozilla drifting toward ad‑tech, conflicting with its privacy‑centric image.
- A minority finds the technical design and stated goals convincing enough to keep or re‑enable it.
Consent, defaults, and telemetry
- Strong objections to enabling ad‑related features by default without a prominent, explicit choice.
- Several call the “modal dialogs are user‑hostile” justification disingenuous, noting Mozilla uses modals for less important features.
- Opt‑out is widely framed as inappropriate for any privacy‑affecting feature; some argue for explicit or even double opt‑in.
- Telemetry in general is criticized as a privacy violation once software is on the user’s device.
Privacy models: differential vs perfect secrecy
- One side argues that true privacy (invoking Shannon/perfect secrecy) means giving adversaries zero new information; any aggregate signal is a leak.
- Differential privacy is criticized as still providing valuable statistical information to advertisers; if they pay for it, it must be useful and therefore invasive.
- Others counter that PPA only exposes noisy, aggregate conversion counts, not identities, and that calling this “volunteering data” is misleading.
- Some accept the math and design as sound, but still reject the feature on principle or because it benefits only advertisers.
Strategic stance on advertising
- “Defeatist vs practical” split:
- Critics: appeasing advertisers won’t stop fingerprinting or tracking; better to keep the cat‑and‑mouse arms race with blockers.
- Supporters: ads aren’t going away; giving advertisers a privacy‑friendly conversion channel might reduce incentives for more invasive methods and enable regulation.
- Working with Meta and depending on ad‑company money is seen by many as structurally misaligning Mozilla with users.
Browser ecosystem and alternatives
- Broad frustration that all major browsers are tied to large ad/platform companies; some call the situation “bleak.”
- Suggestions include Librewolf, Ungoogled Chromium, Orion, Brave, Serenity/Ladybird, etc., but each has trade‑offs (funding, engines, performance, closed components).
- Some argue Firefox the codebase can survive via forks even if Mozilla loses trust.
Technical and implementation concerns
- Questions about who runs the aggregation servers (DAP/MPC) and risks if that “third party” is compromised or captured.
- Worry that only a few allow‑listed sites will access the data at first, potentially entrenching big players.
- Users share techniques to diff Firefox preference files to detect new, silently enabled options.