4 ms·

"It's a scam because you're stealing from publishers and then using tokens to leverage your ill-gotten gains." But we are not stealing from publishers, per you

"It's a scam because you're stealing from publishers and then using tokens to leverage your ill-gotten gains." But we are not stealing from publishers, per your own agreement that users have the right to block ads. You are contradicting yourself. Anyway, this does not justify "scam", which is not the same word as "theft" if noun or "steal" if verb. Duh! How tokens "leverage" anything (no debt, no forward market, no speculation) is beyond me, but save it.

lern_too_spel 8y ago
I'll pretend that you replied in the sibling thread like I repeatedly asked. I have answered your points there. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18158128 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18158128
- BrendanEich 8y ago
  I followed your previous link. The link immediately above is to a newer post (14 minute ago) than the one from you to which I was replying. No time travel on HN. "Scam" (glad you looked it up) means "a dishonest scheme; swindle", i.e., someone was deceived. Whom did we deceive? You keep abusing it to mean extortion or theft, while admitting users can block without compensating anyone. Reminder: we don't put ads on pages unless the particular publisher partners and the user agrees. No one is deceived. Since our baseline mode is just blocking, no one is owed, either.
  - lern_too_spel 8y ago
    > I followed your previous link. The link immediately above is to a newer post (14 minute ago) than the one from you to which I was replying. The link above is my response to your comments combined into the sibling thread. Once again, go there and respond.
    - BrendanEich 8y ago
      I read every one of your comments. When you link to something I was supposed to have read before the prior reply from me to which you are responding, it's customary to link to the earlier in thread, or root of subthread -- not to your latest. As for "dense", you still don't employ "scam" by its meaning, even after citing that meaning -- and you contradict yourself about users' right to block ads and right to donate. If users do not owe publishers anything in lieu of ad blocking, but we help users anonymously route tokens to publishers anyway, who is scammed? Answer directly.
      - lern_too_spel 8y ago
        The link was for the comment to respond to. This argument about commenting custom is completely uninteresting and off-topic. I'm leaving this as a courtesy, so you can try to think from someone else's perspective. I sincerely hope it will help you with other problems in your life.
        BrendanEich 8y ago
        You're the one who complained about my replying here not there; I'm happy to drop thread etiquette but your way has nested things awfully deep, and on two subthreads. Better to stick to one, and answer the question: who is scammed? You still have not said.
        dang 8y ago
        This is the kind of comment we ban accounts for. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and don't post like this to HN in the future, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are. Flamewars like this one are the kind of thing we don't want on HN, so please don't perpetuate them.
- 18pfsmt 8y ago
  I don't have a dog in this fight, but you are being extremely rude.
  - lern_too_spel 8y ago
    I am simply trying, with no small frustration, to keep the discussion in one thread to make it easy to follow. I'm not the one making threats of physical violence or calling someone a troll for making the same criticism that many others (including the newspaper industry) have made, a criticism that remains unanswered except with disingenuous deflections about "40%" rev share of smaller pies.
    - BrendanEich 8y ago
      "threats of physical violence"? Oh, you mean my "when I was young" remark? Don't be dense, that is a memory not a threat. On the other hand, if you were in a f2f situation, you'd behave better than you are here. Give it some thought. 40% was not disingenous (we pay 70%, so you seem confused; again). It was to show that Brave users can more than pay for the cost of their ad blocking. When has a "scam" improved revenue to publishers who lost it to users, whom you agree have the right to block ads? Don't bother torturing "scam" further.
      - lern_too_spel 8y ago
        You left out "and in person." English sentences don't necessarily follow boolean logic. And you repeatedly ignore the size of the pie for the revenue share.
        BrendanEich 8y ago
        The size of the pie for adblocking users is zero. Brave's size is the number of our users who opt into the token economy times their average revenue to publishers. Which is greater than zero. Now if you complain that it's still not enough, you are being inconsistent vs. your agreement that users have the right to block, which results in zero. Don't shift the argument to users who never block ads. Those are not Brave users. P.S. "in person" and "f2f" mean the same thing (face to face).

lern_too_spel 8y ago

I'll pretend that you replied in the sibling thread like I repeatedly asked. I have answered your points there. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18158128 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18158128

BrendanEich 8y ago
I followed your previous link. The link immediately above is to a newer post (14 minute ago) than the one from you to which I was replying. No time travel on HN. "Scam" (glad you looked it up) means "a dishonest scheme; swindle", i.e., someone was deceived. Whom did we deceive? You keep abusing it to mean extortion or theft, while admitting users can block without compensating anyone. Reminder: we don't put ads on pages unless the particular publisher partners and the user agrees. No one is deceived. Since our baseline mode is just blocking, no one is owed, either.
- lern_too_spel 8y ago
  > I followed your previous link. The link immediately above is to a newer post (14 minute ago) than the one from you to which I was replying. The link above is my response to your comments combined into the sibling thread. Once again, go there and respond.
  - BrendanEich 8y ago
    I read every one of your comments. When you link to something I was supposed to have read before the prior reply from me to which you are responding, it's customary to link to the earlier in thread, or root of subthread -- not to your latest. As for "dense", you still don't employ "scam" by its meaning, even after citing that meaning -- and you contradict yourself about users' right to block ads and right to donate. If users do not owe publishers anything in lieu of ad blocking, but we help users anonymously route tokens to publishers anyway, who is scammed? Answer directly.
    - lern_too_spel 8y ago
      The link was for the comment to respond to. This argument about commenting custom is completely uninteresting and off-topic. I'm leaving this as a courtesy, so you can try to think from someone else's perspective. I sincerely hope it will help you with other problems in your life.
      - BrendanEich 8y ago
        You're the one who complained about my replying here not there; I'm happy to drop thread etiquette but your way has nested things awfully deep, and on two subthreads. Better to stick to one, and answer the question: who is scammed? You still have not said.
      - dang 8y ago
        This is the kind of comment we ban accounts for. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and don't post like this to HN in the future, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are. Flamewars like this one are the kind of thing we don't want on HN, so please don't perpetuate them.
18pfsmt 8y ago
I don't have a dog in this fight, but you are being extremely rude.
- lern_too_spel 8y ago
  I am simply trying, with no small frustration, to keep the discussion in one thread to make it easy to follow. I'm not the one making threats of physical violence or calling someone a troll for making the same criticism that many others (including the newspaper industry) have made, a criticism that remains unanswered except with disingenuous deflections about "40%" rev share of smaller pies.
  - BrendanEich 8y ago
    "threats of physical violence"? Oh, you mean my "when I was young" remark? Don't be dense, that is a memory not a threat. On the other hand, if you were in a f2f situation, you'd behave better than you are here. Give it some thought. 40% was not disingenous (we pay 70%, so you seem confused; again). It was to show that Brave users can more than pay for the cost of their ad blocking. When has a "scam" improved revenue to publishers who lost it to users, whom you agree have the right to block ads? Don't bother torturing "scam" further.
    - lern_too_spel 8y ago
      You left out "and in person." English sentences don't necessarily follow boolean logic. And you repeatedly ignore the size of the pie for the revenue share.
      - BrendanEich 8y ago
        The size of the pie for adblocking users is zero. Brave's size is the number of our users who opt into the token economy times their average revenue to publishers. Which is greater than zero. Now if you complain that it's still not enough, you are being inconsistent vs. your agreement that users have the right to block, which results in zero. Don't shift the argument to users who never block ads. Those are not Brave users. P.S. "in person" and "f2f" mean the same thing (face to face).