Replies

• 

  Don Martidmarti@federate.social

  Oct 26, 2026, 6:03 PM

  @ppb1701 @AAKL Optimal strategy for them IMHO is to pre-announce that any script calling the Attribution API will get back a maximally confusing crap dump—if bad data is expected then Mozilla will find it harder to get beta testers and be deterred from future ad features

  💬 1🔄 2⭐ 0
• 

  AAAAKL@infosec.exchange

  Oct 26, 2026, 6:07 PM

  @dmarti @ppb1701 Would this in any way trickle down to LibreWolf?

  💬 2🔄 1⭐ 0
• 

  Don Martidmarti@federate.social

  Oct 26, 2026, 6:08 PM

  @AAKL @ppb1701 Do they have a bug tracker that takes random feature requests? I'll post it there if so (and link to why the system is a bad idea https://blog.zgp.org/think-before-you-click/ )

  💬 0🔄 2⭐ 0
• 

  Patrickppb1701@ppb.social

  Oct 26, 2026, 6:21 PM

  @AAKL @dmarti if they put in core code/libraries. it could. Depends on how it set up. if it's a config option based or isolated enough they can likely remove it like some of the other customizations they have done. if it's like a fungus root system scattered into everything that may be more of a problem to disable or remove.

  💬 1🔄 2⭐ 0
• 

  AAAAKL@infosec.exchange

  Oct 26, 2026, 6:23 PM

  @ppb1701 @dmarti Fungus root system? Kinda like Meta. Once it's in, it's in.

  💬 1🔄 1⭐ 0
• 

  Patrickppb1701@ppb.social

  Oct 26, 2026, 6:24 PM

  @AAKL @dmarti honestly that was partly why I went with that wording lol

  💬 1🔄 2⭐ 0
• 

  Don Martidmarti@federate.social

  Oct 26, 2026, 7:03 PM

  @ppb1701 @AAKL Probably easier to stuff the attribution tracking system with bogus data than to remove it entirely. Still trying to figure out if it's possible to do this in a way that makes embarrassing sites show up on some advertiser's report

  💬 0🔄 2⭐ 0