Who’d have thought!

Funny how people were interpreting the survey itself as a way to pretend that everybody wanted AI even when they didn’t - yet somehow it was possible that it didn’t end up in the top 10 😅

(Also understandably, this won’t be 1:1 the roadmap, for the caveats they mentioned in the post. Still helpful!)

As expected, nobody cares about “reader mode”.

Whaaat? Reader mode is fantastic! I feel like everyone who knows about it, loves it, it’s just that few people know about it.

Edit: ah, it’s top 10, so actually one of the most popular features.

No that was a different poll. This one asked “do you want ‘enhanced privacy’ or a chatbot in the sidebar” which, of course, is a false dichotomy.

Presumably this one’s less work, so even with them being worked on at the same time, no real reason to hold back the one that’s done sooner. But apparently you can try out tab groups already: https://lemmy.ml/post/20000489

For the use cases you describe actually sound right on the mark? If you’re viewing a page and you want something summarised on there, it would be nice to not have to leave that page, but to stay in its context, for example. If you’re looking at the specs of a particular phone, ditto.

(I don’t expect I’ll use this feature myself, but if I did, it sounds like I’d use it in that way. Luckily, I can just choose not to use it without any downsides.)

There’s also the fact that it’s a false dichotomy.

And most old Flash content is basically gone now.

Well, they were already quarantined to each website, but if that same website got embedded in half of all websites, that still enables a lot of tracking. So now they’re also quarantined to each website and the website it’s embedded in, if any.

Or more importantly, forbids the use of privacy-invasive methods of measuring ad performance.

Here:

When a user interacts with an ad or advertiser, an event is logged in the browser in the form of a value. That value is then split into partial, indecipherable pieces and then encrypted. Each piece is addressed to a different entity — one to Divvi Up at ISRG and one to Mozilla — so that no single entity is ever in possession of both pieces. (…) As an additional protection, the pieces are submitted to Divvi Up and Mozilla using an Oblivious HTTP relay operated by a third organisation (Fastly). This ensures that Divvi Up and Mozilla do not even learn the IP address of the indecipherable piece they receive.

Because the proposal itself is good? I am not tribal enough to reject world peace if Facebook proposes it.

I also don’t see how the proposal would lead to a Facebook monopoly.

…except when you assume that data gets leaked despite literally nobody having been able to point to anything that indicates that it’s happening?

That is a bit confusing, but the feature called “Fingerprint Protection” (i.e. blocking known fingerprinters) isn’t the only protection built in. I’m not motivated enough to find a full list right now, but it also includes e.g. limiting the information in the User Agent header. I did at least find a list of things that were worked on at some point by searching for “Tor uplift”, which is a good starting point if you’d like to find more: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Fingerprinting

I’d also add that actually blocking requests to known fingerprinters does help. It’s more like camera’s getting disabled when you’re around: sure, from the point of view of the camera, it’s suspicious that it stopped working, but it can’t see you, so it doesn’t know who is standing out.

OK, fair enough, that was me allowing myself getting sidetracked. You still haven’t answered the earlier question about what extra data PPA provides anyone, though. I’ll leave it at that unless you can name one concrete piece of data.

In particular, these claims never get accompanied by examples of what extra data these companies get through PPA. Presumably, because there is none.

What more do you think should be done to stop fingerprinting, and does that involve sacrificing usability?

(Also, “almost nothing” feels like a gross exaggeration? Just the Tor Uplift project brought in lots of measures, quite a few of which could even be enabled by default.)

Again, bringing Fakespot and Anonym is just moving the goalposts. You were complaining about PPA, and have failed to mention concrete data points that shares about you. It’s really not interesting to move on to another subject only to have the goalposts moved again.

It’s just more communication about the same thing. Started out with just a mention in the release notes and a checkbox in the settings, which clearly wasn’t enough (hence your calling it “silently”), then a more elaborate response on Reddit, and now this more detailed blog post outside of Reddit’s walled garden. And I’m sure it’s not the last we’ll hear of it. (I’d be curious about the experiment’s results too, for example.)

No, of course not :) I am proposing that governments curb privacy-invasive tracking, i.e. that the only way advertisers will have left to measure the impact of their ads, is non-invasive methods like PPA.