6 ms·

What exactly is "dumb" amounts of money? If by dumb, you mean enough for authors to get by, then you are probably in the minority. People love talking about ho

What exactly is "dumb" amounts of money? If by dumb, you mean enough for authors to get by, then you are probably in the minority. People love talking about how much they hate ads, and how, no, they're not cheap, they would totally pay for content. Let's be honest - internet users are cheap. They want stuff for free. And if site A starts charging, they will jump ship to site B, until eventually it's a race to the bottom. Ads seems to be the only model that works (thus far). Many attempts have been made to monetise things (a la micropayments). I believe Google did something before, where you paid cents, or fractions of a cent to authors for article views. This was back in 2012: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-20395407 http://www.bbc.com/news/business-20395407 And recently Mozilla's Brendan Eich is doing Brave, with bitcoin micropayments. I'd love to see it gain traction, but I don't see it going mainstream. Look, I know some ad networks go too far - but IMHO, Google/FB ads are hardly that intrusive. (I personally hate pop-up/pop-under ads, and auto-playing videos) (Disclaimer: I work for Google, but not in ads - above opinions are purely my own).

dajohnson89 10y ago
Sure -- I agree that content producers need to make money, and ads (invasive/unethical or not) are a time proven way of achieving this end. Let's do a run down of my monthly online spend. Netflix: ~$9.99 Hulu premium: $11.99 HBO now (or is it HBO go?): ~$12.99 Sling TV: ~$50 Google play (includes YouTube red): ~$13 Amazon prime (also used for the Amazon TV shows): ~$9 Spotify: $10 A random Twitch show that I patronize: $6.66 Wikipedia: I donate $10/year, so let's say $1. So, roughly, ~$125/month. I use Tumblr heavily and the ads piss me off, but the moment they offer a premium ad-free option they can shut up and take my money.
- matwood 10y ago
  Interesting you use Spotify and Play. Spotify really seems redundant in your scenario.
  - dajohnson89 10y ago
    I see why you might think that -- but Spotify's playlists and the discover weekly features overall are much better then Google play. Yet, as a project fi & G apps user, Google play has great download functionality.
- lisivka 10y ago
  Add Kiva to your list. ;-)
bobajeff 10y ago
I believe ad networks (that rely on third-party scripts and cookies) days are numbered thanks to adblocking. The only ads I see surviving long term are affiliate links, sponcered content and static native ads. The problems with ad networks are too big to go on for very long. Poor user experience, Ad fraud, malware, the indiscriminate gathering and selling of user information. It's just a matter of time 'till everyone has a adblocker.
- phamilton 10y ago
  Programmatic ads (i.e. Real-time auctions) aren't going anywhere. The old method of phone calls and handshakes to fill adspace is just so inefficient. The ad networks are just waiting for premium content (eg ESPN) to go programmatic. The cable networks who own that content are slowly wearing down. Once those floodgates open there will be a whole new arms race.
  - kombucha2 10y ago
    I've always wondered when this would happen. If premium content went programmatic we would see a massive upending of the advertising status quo.
- tonyedgecombe 10y ago
  I'm not sure sponsored content is better.
  - bobajeff 10y ago
    I make no claims about what is ideal only what is likely to survive.
bumblebeard 10y ago
I guess I'm cheap then. I have no interest in paying any amount of money to read most of the things I read online. It seems to me that it's not so much that people are demanding this content for free as it is that people don't think it's worth paying for. It's not that I particularly wanted to see an article about the usefulness of advertising as it is that it's something to read on the bus. I would probably just look out the window instead if the alternative weren't free. Most articles/videos on sites like HN fall into this category - I wouldn't have paid to read this article for example. To me, this comment thread is worth much more than the article itself and I don't see anybody here upset that they aren't getting paid to comment. I guess that means that I would probably pay a subscription fee to a site like HN but that I wouldn't generally pay for the content itself, which does seem a little backwards. Still, that's what's valuable to me. Does anybody else feel this way or am I weird?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- maksimum 10y ago
  You're definitely not alone. For some reason comments are often more interesting than the articles themselves, and people never think of monetizing their comments. Somehow karma is enough of a reward. If I had to watch an ad for 30 seconds or pay $0.25, the proceeds of which would be distributed to commentators by proportion of karma they earned in the comment section ... I probably wouldn't bother. It doesn't make much sense to me how I arrive at these utility valuations though.
  - pjc50 10y ago
    Paying commentators would immediately destroy the quality of comments as people tried to exploit the system.
- marklgr 10y ago
  "Websites love talking about how much their readers are cheap, and how, no, they don't publish crappy content, they would totally check facts and whatnot. Let's be honest - many websites are after monetizing whatever they can. They want content cheap to produce. And if readers don't want to buy it, they'll sell your attention and your privacy to advertisers, until eventually it's a race to the bottom."
Fnoord 10y ago
> Let's be honest - internet users are cheap. They want stuff for free. There are 3 problems with this statement. 1) There is a lot of free content, easily found, and content gets more rapidly out of date nowadays. Paid content must deal with this (newsworthy, in depth competition). 2) Your view is US centric; the vast majority (read: not all) of internet users from other countries generally have less money to spend. 3) The cost of loss of privacy is indirect, therefore hidden, and US companies generally get away with it. This is why data mining is currently profitable. In order to solve #3 shit must first hit the fan, to increase awareness. #1 is solved by collectively putting the high quality content behind paywall. #2 can in theory be solved by globalisation in long-term. Short-term, dynamic price makes sense, but it makes #1 & #3 worse. Let me quote the rest of your statement: > [...] They want stuff for free. And if site A starts charging, they will jump ship to site B, until eventually it's a race to the bottom. Agreed, except for example for (local) newspapers who also provide online access as part of their sub. Global newspapers have more competition. Especially given the widespread English language. > Ads seems to be the only model that works (thus far). For Google, yes. For privacy, no. In apps on an unrooted Android device, yes. On recent iOS and desktops, no (the latter 2 due to ad blockers). Also, streaming media such as Spotify proves a subscription in a new market (not newspapers) can work. Netflix proves it for video. > And recently Mozilla's Brendan Eich is doing Brave, with bitcoin micropayments. I'd love to see it gain traction, but I don't see it going mainstream. Not yet a final, stable non developer version released AFAIK. Also, Eich is no longer part of Mozilla.
- victorhooi 10y ago
  Let me address your three points in order: 1. There is a lot of free content - yeah, the internet is full of free content, but much of is click-bait garbage, or re-posted a billion times. Let's be honest - true, honest-to-goodness original journalism costs money. Good writing costs money. Investigating journalism costs money. Getting people to actually go out into the real world, and interview people, or write about stuff costs money. Who's going to pay for that? Pick up an article from the New Statesman, or The Economist, or The New York Times - compare that to the offal you get on Buzzfeed, or one of the billion other click-bait sites. When all those actual journalists go out of business - you'll get everybody coming out of the woodwork complaining that they can't get news, or it's all just PR puff-pieces from companies, or sound-bites from political spokespersons. And people on the internet will whine that <insert random politician> is corrupt and only got elected because nobody could be bothered reporting on politics. Or that everything they read is beholden to corporate or political interests. 2. Your view is US centric - I'm not from the US, so I'm not really sure how to respond to this. Or are you just assuming, because you're not from the US, and it's convenient to erect a strawman? Or are you saying there's poor people on the internet? Sure, I'm certain there are. In fact, there's poor people without access to access to computers, or the internet either. I suspect those people probably don't care (yet) to read articles from The Economist, or New Statesman either. I'm specifically addressing people who access these sites, and still want to access them by blocking ads, or circumventing their anti-ad-block. So please don't erect some strawman, or turn this into a "Oh, but I'm poor! Please, give me free stuff!" plea. Poor people have do have problems and deserve compassion - but being able to get free articles from Forbes, or Wired probably isn't their main concern. 3. Cost of privacy is indirect - I see this as market forces. As in, if people don't want to do a normal "I pay a dollar, you give me a newspaper to read", then newspapers need to find other ways to monetise. I do have issues about that - but I certainly don't see either side as particularly clean in this fight.
Guest98123 10y ago
Brave should collect the bitcoin payments, but only pay the site owner when no advertisements or third-party tracking is found on their website for the past month. If the conditions are not met, then the bitcoins are refunded to the users. This way, it provides site owners with an incentive to remove their advertisements when they see they could be earning a higher amount from user donations. Also, users are more likely to donate, because their donations are encouraging site owners to drop their advertisements, and their payments only go to those that share their vision, and remove advertising.
b2600 10y ago
I think there is some tremendous gap between what a site believes it's value to be and the value to the person behind the keyboard. My opinion is the reverse of yours. Internet users aren't necessarily cheap, the sites overvalue the content they provide. Just because someone provides content doesn't mean it's good enough to make a living. If people leave site A because they charge for site B that's free but of less value, it may mean that site A doesn't provide enough value for the price they want to charge.Personally, I don't care how intrusive you think they are, I'm not going to view them. Why would you want me to, I'm not going to click anyway. I do pay for several sites via subscription (FT, WSJ, NYT, and others) and I pay for my email service(s) and I pay for Amazon and Netflix and Mubi and Hulu. Oh, I also pay for my broadband connection. If you think that anyone who puts content online should be compensated by default, that's the weirdest contention I've ever heard.
- victorhooi 10y ago
  The issue isn't so much you not viewing the site - but rather ad-blocking. Not having readership is one thing - but people who still want your content, but refuse to pay, or view the ads, well that's another. I respect people who don't view sites like say, the NYT, or WSJ or The Economist etc. because those sites show ads. Or that won't buy the hardcopy magazines because there is ad space. What I can't respect is people still trying to view those sites and defeat their anti-ad-blocks. Or who complain about how link-baity the articles on HN are, or why there are fluff pieces here - but don't think, hey, good content costs money I suppose if those sites went the way of intrusive, pop-under/pop-over ads, I might chance my tune - but on the whole, I've found the text/small image ads so far on them a reasonable exchange.
drewcrawford 10y ago
Most people do pay dumb amounts of money for content. They pay their carrier for the bandwidth to download the ads. That's in the ballpark of a nickel per page [0]. You can't say that micropayments doesn't work when ads ARE micropayments. They're just micropayments with a particular set of properties. The only question remaining is which of those properties are necessary. Is it actually necessary that your nickel causes an ad to be displayed, or is it just easier and the way we've organized things so far? [0] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/01/business/cost-of-mobile-ads.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/01/business/cost-...
- vkou 10y ago
  And yet, when I turn on ad-block for a month, my cable internet bill does not go down. So, no, it is by no means a micropayment. And even if I were charged for overage, and I were over my monthly limit, I wouldn't be charged at a rate of $1 for 20 MB.
bigbugbag 10y ago
> Let's be honest - internet users are cheap. They want stuff for free. Web users are not cheap. They expect stuff to be free because this is what the web has been designed to: sharing knowledge for free between people. But truth is it is not free, we are paying through privacy invasion and the reason for both of these is google. Google provides whatever you want with no immediate price to pay, though we actually pay in the end, and you can compete with google especially since google has established dominance. The reason I say we pay in the end is not obvious but self-evident when you think of it, google gathers personal profiling data, exploits it to sell ads paid by advertisers, advertisers include the price of advertising in the product, we buy the product thus paying for the content in the end. The trick is we may have bought the product anyways though now we pay a bit more to pay the advertising costs. That's how we pay google to provide us with seemingly gratis stuff. > Ads seems to be the only model that works (thus far). You're starting with a bad assumption. There is a model that worked for years even before this assumption became rampant: do not expect revenue by having a website or webpage that is not an online shop. example: www.debian.org Then if your content is good enough your audience will pay for you to make more, see the dice tower getting its funding on kickstarter [1], or the webcomics with patreon, and so on. The point being, there are models that work to get a revenue from publishing online outside of ads, but you need a sizeable audience first. [1]: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/tomvasel/the-dice-tower-2014-season-10 https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/tomvasel/the-dice-tower... https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/tomvasel/the-dice-tower-2015-season-11 https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/tomvasel/the-dice-tower... https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/tomvasel/the-dice-tower-2016-season-12 https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/tomvasel/the-dice-tower...
BrendanEich 10y ago
Brave's bitcoin integration is under the hood, only exposed in beta but it'll be hidden. Our long-term play is to build the anti-Google, your personal data platform. Ad networks have not "gone too far" -- the whole system is broken, with malware entering 3rd party ad exchanges and fake users browsing fake publisher sites to steal ad revenue (https://whiteops.com/methbot https://whiteops.com/methbot). Google facilitates and profits from all of this. Don't be distracted by intrusiveness, however bad and block-worthy. Tracking required by ads whether intrusive or not is the higher priority. It enriches a few and loots user data, if not exposing them to malware then abusing them with retargeting, online to offline breaches, and the like. Third party ads and tracking form a system that is stiffing publishers year over year, leading to eventual ruin. Brave is 3-6x faster than Chrome on Android and not just by blocking ads: blocking trackers is required and those scripts and the "programmatic waterfall" or "header bidder wrappers" or other such junk are to blame. TMZ Brave Shield results: https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/820166880778256384 https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/820166880778256384 Brave vs. Chrome on Android: https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/820082887194120193 https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/820082887194120193
- FuckBrendanEich 10y ago
  BrendanEich claiming ad networks are stiffing publishers while his product robs them entirely is really fucking rich. Go fuck yourself you ass clown. I'd say you're nothing more than a petty thief, but the numbers show that's not even close to true. The real money you're keeping out of the pockets of hard working publishers for the product they provide is in the millions. And you plan on circumventing with your own revenue model. All under the guise of speed. You're a snake oil salesman of the highest order, selling someone else's product as if it's your own. Then again, even snake oil salesmen bought their own snake oil to sell. You just steal it. There is no apt analogy as everyone else who has done what you're trying to do has ended up in jail. May the same fait befall you.

dajohnson89 10y ago

Sure -- I agree that content producers need to make money, and ads (invasive/unethical or not) are a time proven way of achieving this end. Let's do a run down of my monthly online spend. Netflix: ~$9.99 Hulu premium: $11.99 HBO now (or is it HBO go?): ~$12.99 Sling TV: ~$50 Google play (includes YouTube red): ~$13 Amazon prime (also used for the Amazon TV shows): ~$9 Spotify: $10 A random Twitch show that I patronize: $6.66 Wikipedia: I donate $10/year, so let's say $1. So, roughly, ~$125/month. I use Tumblr heavily and the ads piss me off, but the moment they offer a premium ad-free option they can shut up and take my money.

matwood 10y ago
Interesting you use Spotify and Play. Spotify really seems redundant in your scenario.
- dajohnson89 10y ago
  I see why you might think that -- but Spotify's playlists and the discover weekly features overall are much better then Google play. Yet, as a project fi & G apps user, Google play has great download functionality.
lisivka 10y ago
Add Kiva to your list. ;-)

bobajeff 10y ago

I believe ad networks (that rely on third-party scripts and cookies) days are numbered thanks to adblocking. The only ads I see surviving long term are affiliate links, sponcered content and static native ads. The problems with ad networks are too big to go on for very long. Poor user experience, Ad fraud, malware, the indiscriminate gathering and selling of user information. It's just a matter of time 'till everyone has a adblocker.

phamilton 10y ago
Programmatic ads (i.e. Real-time auctions) aren't going anywhere. The old method of phone calls and handshakes to fill adspace is just so inefficient. The ad networks are just waiting for premium content (eg ESPN) to go programmatic. The cable networks who own that content are slowly wearing down. Once those floodgates open there will be a whole new arms race.
- kombucha2 10y ago
  I've always wondered when this would happen. If premium content went programmatic we would see a massive upending of the advertising status quo.
tonyedgecombe 10y ago
I'm not sure sponsored content is better.
- bobajeff 10y ago
  I make no claims about what is ideal only what is likely to survive.

bumblebeard 10y ago

I guess I'm cheap then. I have no interest in paying any amount of money to read most of the things I read online. It seems to me that it's not so much that people are demanding this content for free as it is that people don't think it's worth paying for. It's not that I particularly wanted to see an article about the usefulness of advertising as it is that it's something to read on the bus. I would probably just look out the window instead if the alternative weren't free. Most articles/videos on sites like HN fall into this category - I wouldn't have paid to read this article for example. To me, this comment thread is worth much more than the article itself and I don't see anybody here upset that they aren't getting paid to comment. I guess that means that I would probably pay a subscription fee to a site like HN but that I wouldn't generally pay for the content itself, which does seem a little backwards. Still, that's what's valuable to me. Does anybody else feel this way or am I weird?

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
maksimum 10y ago
You're definitely not alone. For some reason comments are often more interesting than the articles themselves, and people never think of monetizing their comments. Somehow karma is enough of a reward. If I had to watch an ad for 30 seconds or pay $0.25, the proceeds of which would be distributed to commentators by proportion of karma they earned in the comment section ... I probably wouldn't bother. It doesn't make much sense to me how I arrive at these utility valuations though.
- pjc50 10y ago
  Paying commentators would immediately destroy the quality of comments as people tried to exploit the system.
marklgr 10y ago
"Websites love talking about how much their readers are cheap, and how, no, they don't publish crappy content, they would totally check facts and whatnot. Let's be honest - many websites are after monetizing whatever they can. They want content cheap to produce. And if readers don't want to buy it, they'll sell your attention and your privacy to advertisers, until eventually it's a race to the bottom."

Fnoord 10y ago

> Let's be honest - internet users are cheap. They want stuff for free. There are 3 problems with this statement. 1) There is a lot of free content, easily found, and content gets more rapidly out of date nowadays. Paid content must deal with this (newsworthy, in depth competition). 2) Your view is US centric; the vast majority (read: not all) of internet users from other countries generally have less money to spend. 3) The cost of loss of privacy is indirect, therefore hidden, and US companies generally get away with it. This is why data mining is currently profitable. In order to solve #3 shit must first hit the fan, to increase awareness. #1 is solved by collectively putting the high quality content behind paywall. #2 can in theory be solved by globalisation in long-term. Short-term, dynamic price makes sense, but it makes #1 & #3 worse. Let me quote the rest of your statement: > [...] They want stuff for free. And if site A starts charging, they will jump ship to site B, until eventually it's a race to the bottom. Agreed, except for example for (local) newspapers who also provide online access as part of their sub. Global newspapers have more competition. Especially given the widespread English language. > Ads seems to be the only model that works (thus far). For Google, yes. For privacy, no. In apps on an unrooted Android device, yes. On recent iOS and desktops, no (the latter 2 due to ad blockers). Also, streaming media such as Spotify proves a subscription in a new market (not newspapers) can work. Netflix proves it for video. > And recently Mozilla's Brendan Eich is doing Brave, with bitcoin micropayments. I'd love to see it gain traction, but I don't see it going mainstream. Not yet a final, stable non developer version released AFAIK. Also, Eich is no longer part of Mozilla.

victorhooi 10y ago
Let me address your three points in order: 1. There is a lot of free content - yeah, the internet is full of free content, but much of is click-bait garbage, or re-posted a billion times. Let's be honest - true, honest-to-goodness original journalism costs money. Good writing costs money. Investigating journalism costs money. Getting people to actually go out into the real world, and interview people, or write about stuff costs money. Who's going to pay for that? Pick up an article from the New Statesman, or The Economist, or The New York Times - compare that to the offal you get on Buzzfeed, or one of the billion other click-bait sites. When all those actual journalists go out of business - you'll get everybody coming out of the woodwork complaining that they can't get news, or it's all just PR puff-pieces from companies, or sound-bites from political spokespersons. And people on the internet will whine that <insert random politician> is corrupt and only got elected because nobody could be bothered reporting on politics. Or that everything they read is beholden to corporate or political interests. 2. Your view is US centric - I'm not from the US, so I'm not really sure how to respond to this. Or are you just assuming, because you're not from the US, and it's convenient to erect a strawman? Or are you saying there's poor people on the internet? Sure, I'm certain there are. In fact, there's poor people without access to access to computers, or the internet either. I suspect those people probably don't care (yet) to read articles from The Economist, or New Statesman either. I'm specifically addressing people who access these sites, and still want to access them by blocking ads, or circumventing their anti-ad-block. So please don't erect some strawman, or turn this into a "Oh, but I'm poor! Please, give me free stuff!" plea. Poor people have do have problems and deserve compassion - but being able to get free articles from Forbes, or Wired probably isn't their main concern. 3. Cost of privacy is indirect - I see this as market forces. As in, if people don't want to do a normal "I pay a dollar, you give me a newspaper to read", then newspapers need to find other ways to monetise. I do have issues about that - but I certainly don't see either side as particularly clean in this fight.

Guest98123 10y ago

Brave should collect the bitcoin payments, but only pay the site owner when no advertisements or third-party tracking is found on their website for the past month. If the conditions are not met, then the bitcoins are refunded to the users. This way, it provides site owners with an incentive to remove their advertisements when they see they could be earning a higher amount from user donations. Also, users are more likely to donate, because their donations are encouraging site owners to drop their advertisements, and their payments only go to those that share their vision, and remove advertising.

b2600 10y ago

I think there is some tremendous gap between what a site believes it's value to be and the value to the person behind the keyboard. My opinion is the reverse of yours. Internet users aren't necessarily cheap, the sites overvalue the content they provide. Just because someone provides content doesn't mean it's good enough to make a living. If people leave site A because they charge for site B that's free but of less value, it may mean that site A doesn't provide enough value for the price they want to charge.Personally, I don't care how intrusive you think they are, I'm not going to view them. Why would you want me to, I'm not going to click anyway. I do pay for several sites via subscription (FT, WSJ, NYT, and others) and I pay for my email service(s) and I pay for Amazon and Netflix and Mubi and Hulu. Oh, I also pay for my broadband connection. If you think that anyone who puts content online should be compensated by default, that's the weirdest contention I've ever heard.

victorhooi 10y ago
The issue isn't so much you not viewing the site - but rather ad-blocking. Not having readership is one thing - but people who still want your content, but refuse to pay, or view the ads, well that's another. I respect people who don't view sites like say, the NYT, or WSJ or The Economist etc. because those sites show ads. Or that won't buy the hardcopy magazines because there is ad space. What I can't respect is people still trying to view those sites and defeat their anti-ad-blocks. Or who complain about how link-baity the articles on HN are, or why there are fluff pieces here - but don't think, hey, good content costs money I suppose if those sites went the way of intrusive, pop-under/pop-over ads, I might chance my tune - but on the whole, I've found the text/small image ads so far on them a reasonable exchange.

drewcrawford 10y ago

Most people do pay dumb amounts of money for content. They pay their carrier for the bandwidth to download the ads. That's in the ballpark of a nickel per page [0]. You can't say that micropayments doesn't work when ads ARE micropayments. They're just micropayments with a particular set of properties. The only question remaining is which of those properties are necessary. Is it actually necessary that your nickel causes an ad to be displayed, or is it just easier and the way we've organized things so far? [0] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/01/business/cost-of-mobile-ads.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/01/business/cost-...

vkou 10y ago
And yet, when I turn on ad-block for a month, my cable internet bill does not go down. So, no, it is by no means a micropayment. And even if I were charged for overage, and I were over my monthly limit, I wouldn't be charged at a rate of $1 for 20 MB.

bigbugbag 10y ago

> Let's be honest - internet users are cheap. They want stuff for free. Web users are not cheap. They expect stuff to be free because this is what the web has been designed to: sharing knowledge for free between people. But truth is it is not free, we are paying through privacy invasion and the reason for both of these is google. Google provides whatever you want with no immediate price to pay, though we actually pay in the end, and you can compete with google especially since google has established dominance. The reason I say we pay in the end is not obvious but self-evident when you think of it, google gathers personal profiling data, exploits it to sell ads paid by advertisers, advertisers include the price of advertising in the product, we buy the product thus paying for the content in the end. The trick is we may have bought the product anyways though now we pay a bit more to pay the advertising costs. That's how we pay google to provide us with seemingly gratis stuff. > Ads seems to be the only model that works (thus far). You're starting with a bad assumption. There is a model that worked for years even before this assumption became rampant: do not expect revenue by having a website or webpage that is not an online shop. example: www.debian.org Then if your content is good enough your audience will pay for you to make more, see the dice tower getting its funding on kickstarter [1], or the webcomics with patreon, and so on. The point being, there are models that work to get a revenue from publishing online outside of ads, but you need a sizeable audience first. [1]: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/tomvasel/the-dice-tower-2014-season-10 https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/tomvasel/the-dice-tower... https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/tomvasel/the-dice-tower-2015-season-11 https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/tomvasel/the-dice-tower... https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/tomvasel/the-dice-tower-2016-season-12 https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/tomvasel/the-dice-tower...

BrendanEich 10y ago

Brave's bitcoin integration is under the hood, only exposed in beta but it'll be hidden. Our long-term play is to build the anti-Google, your personal data platform. Ad networks have not "gone too far" -- the whole system is broken, with malware entering 3rd party ad exchanges and fake users browsing fake publisher sites to steal ad revenue (https://whiteops.com/methbot https://whiteops.com/methbot). Google facilitates and profits from all of this. Don't be distracted by intrusiveness, however bad and block-worthy. Tracking required by ads whether intrusive or not is the higher priority. It enriches a few and loots user data, if not exposing them to malware then abusing them with retargeting, online to offline breaches, and the like. Third party ads and tracking form a system that is stiffing publishers year over year, leading to eventual ruin. Brave is 3-6x faster than Chrome on Android and not just by blocking ads: blocking trackers is required and those scripts and the "programmatic waterfall" or "header bidder wrappers" or other such junk are to blame. TMZ Brave Shield results: https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/820166880778256384 https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/820166880778256384 Brave vs. Chrome on Android: https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/820082887194120193 https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/820082887194120193

FuckBrendanEich 10y ago
BrendanEich claiming ad networks are stiffing publishers while his product robs them entirely is really fucking rich. Go fuck yourself you ass clown. I'd say you're nothing more than a petty thief, but the numbers show that's not even close to true. The real money you're keeping out of the pockets of hard working publishers for the product they provide is in the millions. And you plan on circumventing with your own revenue model. All under the guise of speed. You're a snake oil salesman of the highest order, selling someone else's product as if it's your own. Then again, even snake oil salesmen bought their own snake oil to sell. You just steal it. There is no apt analogy as everyone else who has done what you're trying to do has ended up in jail. May the same fait befall you.