3 ms·
I feel like articles about the Brave model tend to misleadingly represent the situation. Brave has servers that replace websites' ads on-the-fly. They receive
by espadrine 10y ago
I feel like articles about the Brave model tend to misleadingly represent the situation.
Brave has servers that replace websites' ads on-the-fly. They receive money from advertizers for doing that. As a result, the wallet is on Brave's servers.
But publishers don't get paid. The money is stuck on Brave's servers until publishers come to an agreement with Brave, which the huge majority of websites have not. In fact, some publishers have expressed their intent to sue Brave (see http://www.wired.com/2016/04/brave-software-publishers-respond/ http://www.wired.com/2016/04/brave-software-publishers-respo...). Since Brave behaves like they have made a unilateral contract with publishers that publishers have not signed, there is a fair chance that the publishers could win in court.
- throwawayReply 10y agoCould this push advertisers toward delivery over https? I am assuming that brave won't replace https content on the fly of course.
- espadrine 10y agoIn theory, they actually can replace https content on the fly. They are the browser. They have control. They can convert the visible URL to a call to their proxy server, which performs an HTTPS call on your behalf. They receive the request, replace ads, and send it back to you in TLS, along with the certificate information that they received from the real server, which they'd show the user. But I expect they won't do that, so one can hope.
- youdontknowtho 10y agoI can see why Brave would think that's a good idea...but yeah, that's almost tailor made to draw legal action and lose. Why would they think that advertising networks would let them off the hook for replacing their ads. That's crazy.