6 ms·

Brave seems to be focusing on a monetization model that prevents third parties from tracking its users. Seems like a win-win. I’m okay with them hijacking ads

Brave seems to be focusing on a monetization model that prevents third parties from tracking its users. Seems like a win-win. I’m okay with them hijacking ads if that allows them to succeed and thrive.

projectramo 8y ago
Thanks for the tips. I hadn't heard of Vivaldi or Brave.
mythz 8y ago
I prefer each website be in control over their own monetization model and not dictated by the whims of a browser vendor without their consent.
- Sophistifunk 8y ago
  That's what we have now. It hasn't exactly been working out for the users.
  - mythz 8y ago
    In a lot of places Users who don't want ads can subscribe to access ad free content. If that was a superior monetization strategy most websites would adopt it.
    - lappa 8y ago
      Or get an ad blocker or use the browser being discussed. Regardless of your desire for websites to be able to serve ads, the users are mostly in control of whether they want to see the ads.
- drb91 8y ago
  If you’re monetizing with ads, you’ve already lost control of your revenue.
  - mythz 8y ago
    Whatever monetization strategy Websites choose to fund their content is up to them. If ads are the best way to support free content then that should be their choice.
    - drb91 8y ago
      Sure. And it’s my choice to block them. Brave actually offers a way to pay for content, if I understand it correctly.
      - mythz 8y ago
        Sure, you can technically starve them of micro ad revenue if you want, but if you're not going to abide by Content creators implicit contract of having their content served with supporting ads then IMO it's best for all involved that you either subscribe for ad-free content directly from them or just stop consuming their content altogether. There are humans on the other side producing that content, they have as much right for being compensated for their efforts as we do.
        TangoTrotFox 8y ago
        That's more like wanting to have your cake and eat it too. Ad driven "free" material is chosen because it was (and mostly still is) seen to be more profitable than subscription based models. If it's not then the onus of change is not on the consumer to make ads more profitable, but on the producer to find what is. I'm extremely satisfied that ad blocking is spreading ever more rapidly simply because I think that's the most direct way to get out of this current model of profit that leads to so many awful things. The fundamental problem is that with ad based model your customer is no longer the person actually consuming your material, but the advertiser. That, in turn, introduces 'sponsored' content, ads misleadingly ran as actual content, bias in views presented, external censorship of content to remain in the spirit of the advertiser, extensive tracking and data mining of users, and all these other lovely things. Good riddance.

projectramo 8y ago

Thanks for the tips. I hadn't heard of Vivaldi or Brave.

mythz 8y ago

I prefer each website be in control over their own monetization model and not dictated by the whims of a browser vendor without their consent.

Sophistifunk 8y ago
That's what we have now. It hasn't exactly been working out for the users.
- mythz 8y ago
  In a lot of places Users who don't want ads can subscribe to access ad free content. If that was a superior monetization strategy most websites would adopt it.
  - lappa 8y ago
    Or get an ad blocker or use the browser being discussed. Regardless of your desire for websites to be able to serve ads, the users are mostly in control of whether they want to see the ads.
drb91 8y ago
If you’re monetizing with ads, you’ve already lost control of your revenue.
- mythz 8y ago
  Whatever monetization strategy Websites choose to fund their content is up to them. If ads are the best way to support free content then that should be their choice.
  - drb91 8y ago
    Sure. And it’s my choice to block them. Brave actually offers a way to pay for content, if I understand it correctly.
    - mythz 8y ago
      Sure, you can technically starve them of micro ad revenue if you want, but if you're not going to abide by Content creators implicit contract of having their content served with supporting ads then IMO it's best for all involved that you either subscribe for ad-free content directly from them or just stop consuming their content altogether. There are humans on the other side producing that content, they have as much right for being compensated for their efforts as we do.
      - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
        That's more like wanting to have your cake and eat it too. Ad driven "free" material is chosen because it was (and mostly still is) seen to be more profitable than subscription based models. If it's not then the onus of change is not on the consumer to make ads more profitable, but on the producer to find what is. I'm extremely satisfied that ad blocking is spreading ever more rapidly simply because I think that's the most direct way to get out of this current model of profit that leads to so many awful things. The fundamental problem is that with ad based model your customer is no longer the person actually consuming your material, but the advertiser. That, in turn, introduces 'sponsored' content, ads misleadingly ran as actual content, bias in views presented, external censorship of content to remain in the spirit of the advertiser, extensive tracking and data mining of users, and all these other lovely things. Good riddance.