I had nothing against the sponsoring in the new tab screen but this is a bit different. There is so much potential for backfire if they don't do it properly. But at the end, how is that different from Google who is also putting ads by analyzing your entire web history. The main problem is that it's quite hard to finance their business, they are trying to do new stuff in every direction to depend less on Google (new search partners, Read-it-later, Firefox OS...) but it's not an easy task.
We're trying to create a new way for ads to be targeted.
In the classical model, the server tracks wherever you've been on the internet.
Basically, to show you relevant ads, at least one entity needs to know where you've been.
What we're trying to achieve is similar, except there is no tracking. Most of the decisioning (e.g. which sites similar to the target group have you been on before?) is made in Firefox.
The ad server will send many ads based on a user's geo (as determined by IP address) and locale (browser language, e.g. en-US). This package will include more Tiles (some are sponsored, some are not) than Firefox will decide to show.
While we do get data based on the impressions and other interactions with the Tile, we only get the strict minimum needed to compute our counts.
And on the topic of IP addresses, we consider that sensitive information. We only keep the raw data for a very short while (7 days).
The only thing that is kept for longer is the aggregate data, e.g. how many impressions tile X did on day Y.
Can I simply ask 'why'? It seems like if Firefox has no method of guaranteeing that an add will be placed, there is no financial gain for the mozilla foundation.
Why would you even perceptually compromise user privacy. You have to realize there are many using your browser with expectations of privacy. If you perceptually damage this notion, you're going to loose mind share.
If this goes into firefox, I'll be looking for an alternative.
Yeah, I hear this a lot but I've never seen anything that suggests they sell info to any third party. If I'm wrong about this I'm definitely interested in reading about it so I can adjust my stance on it.
As far as I can tell, the idea has always been the same: more relevant ads means less ads needed to make the same revenue and cost businesses less in wasted ad budget.
The "old method" was to just make your ads more obnoxious and abundant since you could only compete through volume (both in the sense of "loudness" and "quantity"). Now if I open a shop in my city, I can advertise on Google. I tell Google that I want to pay for X ads and to show them to people in my city (potential customers) who have searched for similar items (more likely customers). This way I can minimize the amount of money I spend showing ads to people in other cities/countries or who aren't likely to be interested. Google can charge more for that space because it's more likely to result in a customer. Google makes more money from fewer/less obnoxious ads (no popups, flashy shit, etc). And as a web user, I don't see ads for diapers or restaurants in Wyoming because Google's algorithms have determined that I live in an east coast US city and have never searched for baby stuff.
Honestly the only real issue I have with their "big data" is that it might be captured by another organization (business, "hacker", or government) and used in less benign ways than tweaking the ads in my sidebar.
Do you really think that if google gets the chance to earn a lot more money, if they refer only healthy people to insurance A and the rest to insurance B. That there is no chance they woudn't do it? Google could probably destroy other insurances this way.
They most certainly do when there are national security letters involved.
You may argue that this was not Google's fault - it is uncertain how much choice they had with regards to providing access for PRISM, and they're welcome to the tiny compensation they received. The point is that they had the data at all, thus allowing it to be copied y others, regardless of google's intentions
