5 ms·

They are not taking cryptocurrency "donations" they are taking user contributions. If the creator doesn't want them then I, as a user, have agreed that they go

They are not taking cryptocurrency "donations" they are taking user contributions. If the creator doesn't want them then I, as a user, have agreed that they go into the "User Growth Pool". In my opinion I don't really care if the creator has signed up or not, as a consumer I have decided I would rather pay for content using Brave's system rather then being forced to use the incrediably intrusive and malicious tracking based ad system of the traditional web ecosystem. If a creator doesn't like it they can block me from watching their content. I will not subject myself to their abuse of my data. The real issue here is that consumers are using the same tactics creators have used since the first ads appeared on the internet, and now the content creators are upset. If they don't like the new rules then block me, some sites have already done that with Ad Blockers and paywalls.

scarejunba 8y ago
It’s no surprise that you’d ignore blatant copyright violation, misrepresentation, and abuse of personal data when you’re a fan of the project.
- dkhenry 8y ago
  Except its none of those things. The courts have held that not subjecting yourself to advertisements is covered under the "Fair Use Doctrine". This is why Ad Blockers, Tracking blockers, or both are not only legal, but built into every single major computing platform. This is now taking that concept and allowing me to pay for things I like. I would love to hear how you think Ad Blocking is blatant copyright violation, or how linking to content on the internet is misrepresentation.
  - scarejunba 8y ago
    I think ad blocking is fine. I don’t think you get to copy someone’s photo of themself and distribute it on your platform without asking them first.
    - dkhenry 8y ago
      You mean like how if you google for Tom Scott[1] Google will pull the public profile info for a number of platforms ( twitter, youtube, instagram, wikipedia, and his own website ) and post it right there for you to read ? That is how the internet works, Google does this while displaying ads and tracking not only what you search, but what links you visit and then selling that information to advertisers via their ad-sense platform. Tom will never see any of that revenue. When I go visit Tom's content I get to say if he would like he can take some of the money I have set aside to pay for content I like and he can have it. If he doesn't want it then he doesn't need to claim it. Every time the status quo has shifted in advertising people have claimed its illegal and a violation of copyright, but the courts have been much more nuanced. Thankfully in this kind of case you can't separate ad blocking and content discovery from what brave is doing, so if someone is going to pick a fight they will be picking the fight with Google, Microsoft and every other tech company out there not just with Brave https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Tom%20Scott https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Tom%20Scott
      - scarejunba 8y ago
        Google isn't impersonating Tom Scott here. Brave is. You're the bad guys here and you can't see it because you think everyone else is Google and Facebook and tracking people. People want nothing to do with either you or them. But clearly less to do with you. I'm not surprised that the angle is "sure we're bad but people will have to go for the guys with big pockets first". At least you know you're the bad guys. That's something.
        dkhenry 8y ago
        Brave is no more impersonating Tom Scott then Google is, in fact they use the same source of information and get it the same way, the only difference is in Brave, after they pull and display that information from the public place where Tom put it ( specifically how he put it there to get displayed in this fashion ) they let me decide if Tom should be able to have some of my money. Every other company that displays this information injects their ads with no ability for me to decide where the money goes or what information they pull off me as part of that process. Even more so I have no way of opting out of that. If people want nothing to do with Brave then don't use it. The idea you think I, someone with no affiliation with either Brave, or Google, or Tom, is a bad guy because I want to support content creators is laughable. I think the idea that there is a way users can control their personal information and still support content creators is really upsetting to people who are used to being able to dictate the terms of the internet and get wealthy off the backs of users and creators. I for my part won't let random corporations take my information and sell it to anyone who wants. I know that may make some people want to label me a bad guy and I am ok with that. They can continue to participate in that economy, and creators can block my browser. As long as they allow me to freely obtain their content I will use the systems I find useful to attempt to support an open and fair internet.

scarejunba 8y ago

It’s no surprise that you’d ignore blatant copyright violation, misrepresentation, and abuse of personal data when you’re a fan of the project.

dkhenry 8y ago
Except its none of those things. The courts have held that not subjecting yourself to advertisements is covered under the "Fair Use Doctrine". This is why Ad Blockers, Tracking blockers, or both are not only legal, but built into every single major computing platform. This is now taking that concept and allowing me to pay for things I like. I would love to hear how you think Ad Blocking is blatant copyright violation, or how linking to content on the internet is misrepresentation.
- scarejunba 8y ago
  I think ad blocking is fine. I don’t think you get to copy someone’s photo of themself and distribute it on your platform without asking them first.
  - dkhenry 8y ago
    You mean like how if you google for Tom Scott[1] Google will pull the public profile info for a number of platforms ( twitter, youtube, instagram, wikipedia, and his own website ) and post it right there for you to read ? That is how the internet works, Google does this while displaying ads and tracking not only what you search, but what links you visit and then selling that information to advertisers via their ad-sense platform. Tom will never see any of that revenue. When I go visit Tom's content I get to say if he would like he can take some of the money I have set aside to pay for content I like and he can have it. If he doesn't want it then he doesn't need to claim it. Every time the status quo has shifted in advertising people have claimed its illegal and a violation of copyright, but the courts have been much more nuanced. Thankfully in this kind of case you can't separate ad blocking and content discovery from what brave is doing, so if someone is going to pick a fight they will be picking the fight with Google, Microsoft and every other tech company out there not just with Brave https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Tom%20Scott https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Tom%20Scott
    - scarejunba 8y ago
      Google isn't impersonating Tom Scott here. Brave is. You're the bad guys here and you can't see it because you think everyone else is Google and Facebook and tracking people. People want nothing to do with either you or them. But clearly less to do with you. I'm not surprised that the angle is "sure we're bad but people will have to go for the guys with big pockets first". At least you know you're the bad guys. That's something.
      - dkhenry 8y ago
        Brave is no more impersonating Tom Scott then Google is, in fact they use the same source of information and get it the same way, the only difference is in Brave, after they pull and display that information from the public place where Tom put it ( specifically how he put it there to get displayed in this fashion ) they let me decide if Tom should be able to have some of my money. Every other company that displays this information injects their ads with no ability for me to decide where the money goes or what information they pull off me as part of that process. Even more so I have no way of opting out of that. If people want nothing to do with Brave then don't use it. The idea you think I, someone with no affiliation with either Brave, or Google, or Tom, is a bad guy because I want to support content creators is laughable. I think the idea that there is a way users can control their personal information and still support content creators is really upsetting to people who are used to being able to dictate the terms of the internet and get wealthy off the backs of users and creators. I for my part won't let random corporations take my information and sell it to anyone who wants. I know that may make some people want to label me a bad guy and I am ok with that. They can continue to participate in that economy, and creators can block my browser. As long as they allow me to freely obtain their content I will use the systems I find useful to attempt to support an open and fair internet.