How did you get an endorsement for adtech industry lobbying out of my other comments?

Already addressed

how would my comments insinuate that I want them to create a monopoly?

Having enough political power to exert control over an industry is monopoly control in my book. Not yours?

I'd rather Ads not exist. I'd rather tracking not exist. But...

Ads and tracking. Hmm.
I hate to see "but" after a statement like that.

Mozilla planting a flag on that hill only means they go extinct unless the political, legal, or economic environment of our society changes.

WTF? Up until recently, they did plant their flag on that hill. Mozilla fight tracking. They blocked it. And you know what? Unlike you, I'm willing to take the stand that they did the right thing there.

And I have no idea why you would say that their decision to do that for years up until 2022 was a bad thing.

While you repeatedly insist (without basis) that services must use ads to exist, let me remind you: you are on Lemmy.

Google is one of the largest members of the Private Advertising Technology Community Group, which allegedly seeks to replace traditional advertisement tracking with new, more private advertisement tracking. (Other members include Facebook, many ad corporations, and an unfortunate name you my recognize.)

If you have heard of Topics, FLoC, "Privacy" Sandbox, etc, those proposals are all closely linked to this group.

The W3C ~~launders and legitimizes~~ sponsors this commission, so these may become canonical web standards in the very near future.

I've talked to a few people who have insisted that the standards established by this committee should be mandatory... Not on the web level, but on a government level.

My entire post was about recognizing trends, catching bad behavior before it's too late, and did not having a corporate heroes. I'm not sure how you interpreted what I wrote so differently.

Basically. Insultingly, it was built alongside, and in some collaborative measure with, Google. (A bunch of companies bigger than Mozilla, and a bunch of ad networks, are all teaming up for the PATCG).

Don't let your bias color your opinion.

In another comment, you endorsed the AdTech industry lobbying to create an advertisement monopoly. Charitably interpreted, you could only have meant one of two things:

1. Mozilla is uniquely positioned to lobby on behalf of this
2. All AdTech companies, even Google and Brave, should get a crack at lobbying their products

But since you don't seem to be very pro Google, I believe it's the former... And based on Mozilla providing nothing more substantial than any other company engaged in the incestuous and corporate PATCG, it sure does seem you are the one engaging while wearing rose tinted glasses.

I can't believe I need to explain this (and I kind of already have), but you should never put any corporation on a pedestal just because they are proffering the second worst option instead of the very worst.

Ad companies do and will continue dictating legislation in the US

And we shouldn't normalize it.

Normally, I would mention Facebook driving the way Firefox ads function, but you seem to have no issue with Facebook or even Google being in an incestuous relationship to various degrees with Mozilla, I guess that's not even a point you'll care about.

All this mozilla hate just further divides the people wanting something better.

People say this about Mr. Beast and his repulsive children's snacks and chocolate bars, which he says are a healthy alternative to the very worst options. Or Elon Musk and his electric atrocities. I would be aghast if the government handed monopoly political power over to either of those people.

And yet here you are, insinuating the government should legislate monopoly power over advertisements and simply hand the reigns over to the corporate interests that want to maximize profits at any cost.

what Mozilla is working towards here is probably the best case scenario for a legislated solution in the US's economy.

No thank you, I don't want an ad company dictating legislation. Even if it wasn't in bed with Facebook, I wouldn't want that.

Why not ask the CEO of Mozilla? They're paid to have all the smart ideas, allegedly.

PPA does not reduce any tracking data that currently exist in ads, but it does collect extra data without consent.

And since this is targeted for the "normal user," that makes its label much more deceptive. People might assume disabling it will decrease their privacy, which is untrue in every sense possible.

I don't see anybody complaining about the act of Mozilla selling a VPN service, email masking service, or even their data removal service (until it was revealed their partner had a horrible track record, but Mozilla agreed with the community on that one).

Hell, I even saw partnering with Google as a necessary evil, although apparently Mozilla looked at the company famous for abandoning their "Don't be evil" mantra and decided to take a page from their playbook.

Maybe, people are complaining about a company doing bad things.

I'm in the same boat. Mozilla can't be trusted with donations until they can prove they spend money responsibly. Money, like trust, should not be given by default.

Mozilla has a clear conflict of interest in their statements: they are now an ad company. Because of this, they must be approached with skepticism.

Every corporation invested in unhealthy ventures will say it is necessary, and they can do it ethically, regardless of how misleading or untrue it is. They will launder their bad behavior through an organization to make it appear more ethical and healthy.

Mozilla is doing nothing new under the sun. But for some reason, after burning through so much community goodwill, some people are still willing to give Mozilla the benefit of the doubt with a technology that they surely would not have given Google or Adobe or Facebook the same treatment.

Surely we wouldn't ignore the canary in the coal mine until it was too late. Surely, we wouldn't look at a huge corporation and say "this time it won't be the same."

When Google acquired DoubleClick, they positioned it as a net good for everybody in terms of privacy. DoubleClick was notoriously awful in those terms. Google said (and people, including myself, believed) that by owning them, Google can make them into something better.

Instead, DoubleClick made Google into something much, much worse.