4 ms·

Edit: Sorry for not following the rules

michaelt 8y ago
Honestly I can't see how anything of this is problematic for anyone Perhaps they heard about Brave blocking ads and... replacing them with different ads [1] that Brave makes money from. That pretty much means the ads-are-cancer crowd don't like them, and the adblockers-are-theft crowd don't like them either. [1] https://www.computerworld.com/article/3284076/web-browsers/brave-browser-begins-controversial-ad-repeal-and-replace-tests.html https://www.computerworld.com/article/3284076/web-browsers/b... https://www.wired.com/2016/04/brave-software-publishers-respond/ https://www.wired.com/2016/04/brave-software-publishers-resp...
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
zimbatm 8y ago
Layer 3 implies that there is some system that tracks user to reward content creator according. How is this not a tracking system? Without knowing the implementation details it looks like Brave is (1) removing all the competition, (2) except the ones that play nice, (3) force content creators to buy into their system. I think it's good that they are trying to find a solution for content creators to monetize their content. Instead on making suppositions on the OP, why not address those points? Why is using Brave not like building the tracking even further into the browser?
- user812 8y ago
  At least go to brave.com and read the FAQ. The tracking is anonymized. Of course Brave is removing the competition within their own product, that's how it usually works in a free market.
mswift42 8y ago
What happens to the small sites that don't track users, but display some ads to keep the servers running? Hope that they get "rewarded with BAT's accordingly to the users attention" ? Btw, I'm guessing you are a Brave employee, that many Buzzwords in one comment would otherwise be quite astonishing, how does Brave guarantee a users privacy? I assume brave "phones home" in order to replace ads with ads Brave gets compensated for. Also, I read a lot about a transparent way funds are distributed among publishers, where is the code?
- user812 8y ago
  I don't havy any connection to Brave. I just see the potential, and want Brave to succeed. > "What happens to the small sites that don't track users, but display some ads to keep the servers running? Hope that they get "rewarded with BAT's accordingly to the users attention" ?" What happens to them nowadays, now that most users block ads? They struggle, and they will continue struggling. Brave won't change any of that. PS: I guess I should ask Brave to hire me for PR
  - wild_preference 8y ago
    > They should hire me The brilliance of creating a utility token like BAT is so that the creator (Brave) can get rich off speculation, and a horde of people will defend the creator online because they have a couple bucks invested. It's one of the most insufferable parts of anything to do with cryptocurrency and it's why it's hard to have honest discussion. I certainly don't think it's necessary nor useful to try and label you as a shill. It's just that BAT is one of the reasons why it's hard to take Brave seriously, and it's why you shouldn't be so dismissive of people who raise issues with Brave much less call them shills of ad-tech or rival browsers (as you did).
  - skinnymuch 8y ago
    Can you provide citation to most users blocking ads? Also note that many people browse on mobile.
joshuamorton 8y ago
While I "technically" have a conflict of interest, when brave launched I had some concerns about how and when creators were paid, and the responses amounted to brave stealing from them unless they signed up. Unlike patreon (or Google contributor), if the page doesn't sign up, brave still replaces the ads, but they end up keeping the money. In those cases, their business model is much closer to a Comcast than an uBlock, and it certainly appears like strong arming creators/sites into joining, or forcing them to forgo revenue and donate it to the browser. If you can't see why that would be upsetting to content creators, idk.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- gingerlime 8y ago
  That's a very interesting point. I think there are some subtle, but important, differences though. Brave users by default block all ads. So those users won't see the ads on content creators sites anyway. Content creators shouldn't feel outraged towards those more than they can feel outraged about any other ad-blocking users. Some of those Brave users might opt-in for ads that are promised not to compromise their privacy. So I totally understand that some creators might feel strong-armed if they already use ads. But they shouldn't feel any worse than when faced with ad-blocking users. They do have the chance to opt-in and rely on privacy-respecting ads and get some revenue that they otherwise wouldn't get. I guess if there was an alternative ad model that was less intrusive, and content creators relied on it, they might have a much stronger reason to be upset. I'm not aware of many creators that use privacy-friendly ads, and it seems like Brave is at least attempting to create this model? No affiliation with Brave whatsoever. Only found out about it a couple of weeks ago.
  - joshuamorton 8y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15730294 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15730294 See this comment and the surrounding chain. Assuming I'm a creator, the ussue is that brave is monetizing my content and I get nothing unless I opt in to brave, instead of the system that I already have set up to monetize myself. Ad blockers don't make money by replacing the ads. Brave does. That's why it's more similar to an isp hijacking ads than ad blocking, it's just happening in the browser instead of in the network.
tptacek 8y ago
You can assume whatever you want, but arguing that people who disagree with you have ties to the ad-tech business is explicitly prohibited by the site guidelines.

Honestly I can't see how anything of this is problematic for anyone Perhaps they heard about Brave blocking ads and... replacing them with different ads [1] that Brave makes money from. That pretty much means the ads-are-cancer crowd don't like them, and the adblockers-are-theft crowd don't like them either. [1] https://www.computerworld.com/article/3284076/web-browsers/brave-browser-begins-controversial-ad-repeal-and-replace-tests.html https://www.computerworld.com/article/3284076/web-browsers/b... https://www.wired.com/2016/04/brave-software-publishers-respond/ https://www.wired.com/2016/04/brave-software-publishers-resp...

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

zimbatm 8y ago

Layer 3 implies that there is some system that tracks user to reward content creator according. How is this not a tracking system? Without knowing the implementation details it looks like Brave is (1) removing all the competition, (2) except the ones that play nice, (3) force content creators to buy into their system. I think it's good that they are trying to find a solution for content creators to monetize their content. Instead on making suppositions on the OP, why not address those points? Why is using Brave not like building the tracking even further into the browser?

user812 8y ago
At least go to brave.com and read the FAQ. The tracking is anonymized. Of course Brave is removing the competition within their own product, that's how it usually works in a free market.

mswift42 8y ago

What happens to the small sites that don't track users, but display some ads to keep the servers running? Hope that they get "rewarded with BAT's accordingly to the users attention" ? Btw, I'm guessing you are a Brave employee, that many Buzzwords in one comment would otherwise be quite astonishing, how does Brave guarantee a users privacy? I assume brave "phones home" in order to replace ads with ads Brave gets compensated for. Also, I read a lot about a transparent way funds are distributed among publishers, where is the code?

user812 8y ago
I don't havy any connection to Brave. I just see the potential, and want Brave to succeed. > "What happens to the small sites that don't track users, but display some ads to keep the servers running? Hope that they get "rewarded with BAT's accordingly to the users attention" ?" What happens to them nowadays, now that most users block ads? They struggle, and they will continue struggling. Brave won't change any of that. PS: I guess I should ask Brave to hire me for PR
- wild_preference 8y ago
  > They should hire me The brilliance of creating a utility token like BAT is so that the creator (Brave) can get rich off speculation, and a horde of people will defend the creator online because they have a couple bucks invested. It's one of the most insufferable parts of anything to do with cryptocurrency and it's why it's hard to have honest discussion. I certainly don't think it's necessary nor useful to try and label you as a shill. It's just that BAT is one of the reasons why it's hard to take Brave seriously, and it's why you shouldn't be so dismissive of people who raise issues with Brave much less call them shills of ad-tech or rival browsers (as you did).
- skinnymuch 8y ago
  Can you provide citation to most users blocking ads? Also note that many people browse on mobile.

joshuamorton 8y ago

While I "technically" have a conflict of interest, when brave launched I had some concerns about how and when creators were paid, and the responses amounted to brave stealing from them unless they signed up. Unlike patreon (or Google contributor), if the page doesn't sign up, brave still replaces the ads, but they end up keeping the money. In those cases, their business model is much closer to a Comcast than an uBlock, and it certainly appears like strong arming creators/sites into joining, or forcing them to forgo revenue and donate it to the browser. If you can't see why that would be upsetting to content creators, idk.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
gingerlime 8y ago
That's a very interesting point. I think there are some subtle, but important, differences though. Brave users by default block all ads. So those users won't see the ads on content creators sites anyway. Content creators shouldn't feel outraged towards those more than they can feel outraged about any other ad-blocking users. Some of those Brave users might opt-in for ads that are promised not to compromise their privacy. So I totally understand that some creators might feel strong-armed if they already use ads. But they shouldn't feel any worse than when faced with ad-blocking users. They do have the chance to opt-in and rely on privacy-respecting ads and get some revenue that they otherwise wouldn't get. I guess if there was an alternative ad model that was less intrusive, and content creators relied on it, they might have a much stronger reason to be upset. I'm not aware of many creators that use privacy-friendly ads, and it seems like Brave is at least attempting to create this model? No affiliation with Brave whatsoever. Only found out about it a couple of weeks ago.
- joshuamorton 8y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15730294 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15730294 See this comment and the surrounding chain. Assuming I'm a creator, the ussue is that brave is monetizing my content and I get nothing unless I opt in to brave, instead of the system that I already have set up to monetize myself. Ad blockers don't make money by replacing the ads. Brave does. That's why it's more similar to an isp hijacking ads than ad blocking, it's just happening in the browser instead of in the network.

tptacek 8y ago

You can assume whatever you want, but arguing that people who disagree with you have ties to the ad-tech business is explicitly prohibited by the site guidelines.