[JohnFen]

That's a different issue entirely. I don't see why advertising couldn't work without the tracking it brings (the tracking just makes advertising more profitable). If we have to go ad-funded, that would be the more acceptable way.

However, I don't think that advertising is critical to providing free services. It's only important if you want to build a huge business doing it, or have something extremely fancy. In those cases, I don't see what's wrong (and I see plenty right) with doing in exchange for money.

Also, there were plenty of free services before advertising wormed its way into the web, and there still are ad-free free services now.

The ad world wants you to think that they're an essential online component, of course, but I am far from convinced that's actually true.

All that said, ignoring whether or not online advertising is a positive, the online ad industry itself is an extreme negative. We'd be much better off if it ceased to exist and was replaced by companies that don't treat people in such a contemptible way.

[illiac786]

Ok, non-tracking ads. So, until tracking ads stop existing, these will continue to bring in significantly less money.

It is extremely valuable to know which users are interested in your product. Advertisers want this.

This product from Mozilla can be seen as a step in this direction, leveling the field at a “less tracking” level…

At the moment, non-tracking ads bring much less money in hence much more content must be paywalled, it’s mechanical. It’s not like everyone with a site is putting up advertisements for fun.

[autoexec]

> Ok, non-tracking ads. So, until tracking ads stop existing, these will continue to bring in significantly less money.

That's fine by me.

> It is extremely valuable to know which users are interested in your product. Advertisers want this.

Advertisers aren't entitled to everything they want. While they've been getting away with it, they're certainly not entitled to cause harm just because it will make them more wealthy than they would be otherwise.

> This product from Mozilla can be seen as a step in this direction,

I agree, this product from Mozilla is a step in the direction of giving Advertisers what they want: higher profits through the invasive tracking of users.

The fact that it allows advertisers to outsource the user tracking to yet another third party does not make it "less tracking". It may not even keep our data out of the hands of advertisers if they're able to use the information they're given along with additional data to re-identify individuals. Differential privacy may reduce the odds of that happening, but there are no guarantees.

> It’s not like everyone with a site is putting up advertisements for fun.

No, they mostly do it for profit. It's not like everyone with a site full of ads needs those ads to keep the site running, or that those ads couldn't be profitable without invasive tracking. It's not mechanical, it's usually just greed, selfishness, and laziness.

If someone wants ads on their website it's very easy to sign up with an ad network that is harmful to the people visiting your website. It's easy to not bother making sure those ads aren't pushing malware, or spreading harmful lies, or promoting scams. It's easy to just collect your money and not worry about who is being hurt by your choices. It's easy to say "everyone else is doing it!", but the fact that it's easy doesn't stop it from being wrong. Ads aren't going away, but we should insist on them being less harmful.

[JohnFen]

Yes, I fully understand the reason for tracking: profit maximization. Isn't it interesting, though, that enormous swaths of the advertising world manage to be profitable without engaging in tracking (because it's not possible, but that's beside the point)?

> This product from Mozilla can be seen as a step in this direction, leveling the field at a “less tracking” level…

Sure, that's a reasonable view. It's certainly Mozilla's. My view, though, is that it instantly transforms the browser away from being a "user agent". It means that instead of an ad company tracking me, my browser is, which means that the browser itself has become an agent for others rather than for me.

It's just moving the tracking out of the hands of ad companies directly and into the browser. You could argue that's better, but it's still tracking me. It puts the browser into a position where it is adversarial.

That, at heart, is why I will be sure this stays disabled. To do otherwise means that I can't really trust the browser and will make the web even smaller for me than it has already become.

[autoexec]

> However, I don't think that advertising is critical to providing free services.

This is certainly the case for open source software, including internet browsers. In the case of Firefox in particular, people have long been asking for the ability to help support development directly through donations and Mozilla has refused.

> the online ad industry itself is an extreme negative. We'd be much better off if it ceased to exist and was replaced by companies that don't treat people in such a contemptible way.

I fully agree here too. Surveillance capitalism especially causes a lot of harms that persist long after an ad is shown or a product is purchased. The ad industry will never stop wanting more data, more control, and more money. It's up to us to say that enough is enough.