- From: Lexi Robinson via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2022 21:47:14 +0000
- To: public-patcg@w3.org
> I don't see how that's true. If Twitter is the publisher, then it can ask their advertisers to register trigger events referencing only twitter's match keys. There is no need for the facebook match keys in that scenario, especially since the ads are running on twitter and so the lack of twitter user ID implies no possible match with advertiser target events. I agree it doesn't make much sense, but in the hypothetical that they did want to only use someone else's match key (for whatever reason) then I think my point still stands > It remains to be seen what the motivation could be for a match key provider to act as such, but presumably "having an advertising business" would be one motivating reason. I believe that making the match keys usable by other parties in that context is more fair than doing the opposite. I don't think fairness comes in to many business decisions. It costs Facebook nothing to allow its competitors to use its match keys, and if everyone relies on them they gain a position of power over the discourse, even if it's just an implicit one. To be clear, just because I feel like this proposal further entrenches the big players in the ad business by relying on centralised identity services doesn't mean I think it's a _bad_ proposal. As long as the cryptographic stuff works and the ad networks are somehow coerced into dropping their other tracking methods, this is a big step up. But on the other hand if the crypto stuff has a hidden weakness in it and Facebook run one of the "trusted" servers, this is a terrible idea. -- GitHub Notification of comment by Lexicality Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/patcg/proposals/issues/2#issuecomment-1039601095 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Monday, 14 February 2022 21:47:16 UTC