[dcow]

I thought it was the opposite: that instead of fingerprinting users, web services would instead just ask the browser which topics the user is interested in and display the relevant ADs. It's an explicit design goal to reduce the dependence on fingerprinting users, otherwise why would they do it. Topics are supposed to be the locally sourced privacy preserving alternative to invasive tracking.

Whether Mozilla/Apple/others agree is a different story. The blowback has mostly been around how topics aren't perfect and the design still leaves room for abuse and therefor effectively devolves to traditional tracking: https://mozilla.github.io/ppa-docs/topics.pdf.

[youngtaff]

For me the issue is a browser shouldn’t be making the information on the topics of sites I visit available to anyone who asks

[dcow]

Browsers don’t do that today and the result is that AD networks fingerprint and track you to try and serve you more relevant content.

The argument from supporters is that this is a step away from the “fingerprint and track” status quo MO. The argument from detractors is that it doesn't quite achieve that goal.

All you need to address your concern is for access to the API to be user-configurable.

[account42]

Anyone who believes that ad networks won't continue to do fingerprinting in addition to whatever privacy leaks Chrome adds is a fool.

[dcow]

Not if browsers actually limit access to that data needed to do so.

[youngtaff]

The API to be off by default i.e. it’s opt in and not opt out

And it should be behind a permissions prompt

[soraminazuki]

That's a distinction without a difference. In both cases, user privacy is compromised. If anything, the proposal to make "user agents" snoop on the user is even more infuriating. That sounds more like trojan horse than "user agent."