undefined | Better HN

0 pointsubernostrum10y ago0 comments

The picture in the Techcrunch post is pretty clear. The browser talks with an adserver (step 5). And how could it get ads if it didn't do that, pick them from a static list compiled into the browser binary? Soon out of date and hardly interesting for advertisers.

Based on what I've read in the actual implementation discussion in Bugzilla, the process actually consists of:

1. A Mozilla-controlled server hosts bundles of tiles, which are periodically updated.

2. The browser periodically downloads updated bundles of tiles from that server.

3. Using metadata in the bundles, the browser decides which ones to display.

A lot of discussion seems to have centered on ensuring the bundles and their metadata have enough overlap to ensure that even Mozilla's servers can't determine which sites in the browser history caused a particular tile to display.

0 comments

pmontra10y ago

Clever. I'll probably turn it off but is much less worrisome in this way. Could you share the link to that discussion? Thanks.

icebraining10y ago

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1120311

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsubernostrum10y ago0 comments

Based on what I've read in the actual implementation discussion in Bugzilla, the process actually consists of:

1. A Mozilla-controlled server hosts bundles of tiles, which are periodically updated.

2. The browser periodically downloads updated bundles of tiles from that server.

3. Using metadata in the bundles, the browser decides which ones to display.