3 ms·

And here we loop back to a stupid, trollish claim that at least can be refuted: "steal from publishers" is false, users have rights to ad-block, by law and by d

And here we loop back to a stupid, trollish claim that at least can be refuted: "steal from publishers" is false, users have rights to ad-block, by law and by design of the Web. We pay publishers far more than the sub-40% they get on a good day from programmatic advertising. If this is your limit on arguing to justify slurs, find a new hobby. It's boring and it makes you look silly or envious. The idea I'd dump BAT we reserved for users is also silly or vicious: I'd be destroying the project and my company. And the price would drop very quickly. To work the order book in the face of falling liquidity would require some buyers who do not see the project risk. And I'd be out of job, and I am not independently wealthy and wouldn't be on good odds after trying such a stunt. Enough for onlookers. Now go do something better! Note how I did not call you a fool yet. There's still hope, if you stop the foolish, self-defeating and easily falsified comments.

lern_too_spel 8y ago
> "steal from publishers" is false, users have rights to ad-block, by law and by design of the Web. I never claimed otherwise. Ad blocking is completely legal. > We pay publishers far more than the sub-40% they get on a good day from programmatic advertising. Sub-40% of what? People care about the actual money they're being paid, not revenue shares of different-sized pies. That's all beside the point though. You hold the publishers over the barrel, so they have no choice but to accept your terms, whatever they may be. You're exactly like a piracy service that offers content to users for free and then offers to pay the content owners in a token owned by the piracy service. > The idea I'd dump BAT we reserved for users is also silly or vicious: I'd be destroying the project and my company. And the price would drop very quickly You're obviously going to sell what you have, slowly at first for income, and faster when your scam fails.
- BrendanEich 8y ago
  This is dopey. 1. We have too little share to "hold publishers over a barrel" 2. Glad you agree users have right to block, so no one is holding anyone over a barrel -- we could just let publishers get nothing. Would you retract "scam" then? Argue consistently for a change. 3. You have not in any event supported "scam". Look the word up! If you mean we are "extorting", see 2. Our users want to support their sites, we help them. This is all found money above the zero that users by right to adblock leave publishers with today. Get it? I'm done replying; almost all onlookers are way smarter than you and they have enough info to see through your slurs. Plus, the indentation level is too deep!
  - lern_too_spel 8y ago
    > But we are not stealing from publishers, per your own agreement that users have the right to block ads. You are contradicting yourself. The stealing is when you hold a gun to their head to make them pay up. There is no contradiction. > We have too little share to "hold publishers over a barrel" If you say you'll steal my wallet (however little money I may have in it) or offer a cheaper way out, I'll take the cheaper way out. It doesn't matter that my net worth is far larger than what I carry in my wallet. > Anyway, this does not justify "scam", which is not the same word as "theft" if noun or "steal" if verb. Duh! > 2 ... > 3 ... Scam: a dishonest scheme; a fraud. If the dictionary definition is all you needed to admit your error, I'll be very happy, but somehow, I doubt that. > almost all onlookers are way smarter than you The votes imply otherwise.
    - BrendanEich 8y ago
      What was that about votes?
      - lern_too_spel 8y ago
        They don't show what you claim. It's not fun repeating myself, but be my guest and troll away. If you want to answer the criticism of the ethics of your company, you're free to do that as well.
        BrendanEich 8y ago
        The only one showing a weak grasp of ethics and English here is you -- but that's par for the course, as a quick search for my surname + your handle shows. I suggest you get over your irrational animus against me. Anger by itself is not a justification for slurs or false claims (to the extent they're falsifiable). That amounts to malice, and does not end well.
        lern_too_spel 8y ago
        > Anger by itself is not a justification for slurs or false claims (to the extent they're falsifiable). Interesting that they are not falsifiable. Interesting, too, that your lack of ethics is something you have been repeatedly called out for. Most interesting of all is that you don't even understand where your ethics have failed after having been repeatedly called out on it, calling your critics "irrational." Since you're interested in votes and my comment history, you might be interested to know that those past comments are very positive in the vote count. But you're taking us way off topic. I'm here specifically to discuss the ethics of Brave, which is what this thread is about.

lern_too_spel 8y ago

> "steal from publishers" is false, users have rights to ad-block, by law and by design of the Web. I never claimed otherwise. Ad blocking is completely legal. > We pay publishers far more than the sub-40% they get on a good day from programmatic advertising. Sub-40% of what? People care about the actual money they're being paid, not revenue shares of different-sized pies. That's all beside the point though. You hold the publishers over the barrel, so they have no choice but to accept your terms, whatever they may be. You're exactly like a piracy service that offers content to users for free and then offers to pay the content owners in a token owned by the piracy service. > The idea I'd dump BAT we reserved for users is also silly or vicious: I'd be destroying the project and my company. And the price would drop very quickly You're obviously going to sell what you have, slowly at first for income, and faster when your scam fails.

BrendanEich 8y ago
This is dopey. 1. We have too little share to "hold publishers over a barrel" 2. Glad you agree users have right to block, so no one is holding anyone over a barrel -- we could just let publishers get nothing. Would you retract "scam" then? Argue consistently for a change. 3. You have not in any event supported "scam". Look the word up! If you mean we are "extorting", see 2. Our users want to support their sites, we help them. This is all found money above the zero that users by right to adblock leave publishers with today. Get it? I'm done replying; almost all onlookers are way smarter than you and they have enough info to see through your slurs. Plus, the indentation level is too deep!
- lern_too_spel 8y ago
  > But we are not stealing from publishers, per your own agreement that users have the right to block ads. You are contradicting yourself. The stealing is when you hold a gun to their head to make them pay up. There is no contradiction. > We have too little share to "hold publishers over a barrel" If you say you'll steal my wallet (however little money I may have in it) or offer a cheaper way out, I'll take the cheaper way out. It doesn't matter that my net worth is far larger than what I carry in my wallet. > Anyway, this does not justify "scam", which is not the same word as "theft" if noun or "steal" if verb. Duh! > 2 ... > 3 ... Scam: a dishonest scheme; a fraud. If the dictionary definition is all you needed to admit your error, I'll be very happy, but somehow, I doubt that. > almost all onlookers are way smarter than you The votes imply otherwise.
  - BrendanEich 8y ago
    What was that about votes?
    - lern_too_spel 8y ago
      They don't show what you claim. It's not fun repeating myself, but be my guest and troll away. If you want to answer the criticism of the ethics of your company, you're free to do that as well.
      - BrendanEich 8y ago
        The only one showing a weak grasp of ethics and English here is you -- but that's par for the course, as a quick search for my surname + your handle shows. I suggest you get over your irrational animus against me. Anger by itself is not a justification for slurs or false claims (to the extent they're falsifiable). That amounts to malice, and does not end well.
        lern_too_spel 8y ago
        > Anger by itself is not a justification for slurs or false claims (to the extent they're falsifiable). Interesting that they are not falsifiable. Interesting, too, that your lack of ethics is something you have been repeatedly called out for. Most interesting of all is that you don't even understand where your ethics have failed after having been repeatedly called out on it, calling your critics "irrational." Since you're interested in votes and my comment history, you might be interested to know that those past comments are very positive in the vote count. But you're taking us way off topic. I'm here specifically to discuss the ethics of Brave, which is what this thread is about.