4 ms·

Their full mission is "We're reinventing the browser as a user-first platform for speed, privacy, better ads, and beyond ", therefore I guess this is for a "bet

by orian 8y ago

Their full mission is "We're reinventing the browser as a user-first platform for speed, privacy, better ads, and beyond ", therefore I guess this is for a "better ads" ;-)

jordigh 8y ago
This is why I can't support Brave. They see it as a foregone conclusion that the only way to make sure the internet doesn't starve it so make sure we all watch ads, and they think that if they can make the ads nicer, we'll all watch them. They gave Brave tools to hide some or most ads hoping that this will make us willingly watch other ads. How about no? How about we find a better way to not starve than making sure everyone is fed their daily dose of manipulative marketing materials?
- jplayer01 8y ago
  Well, get to it. Give us the solution. Outright rejecting Brave isn't helpful. Newspapers financed themselves through ads for decades, but now because websites try to do the same (while abusing their position) and Brave tries to find a fair middle ground that still respects our privacy and rights, they're suddenly the bad guy.
  - mr_spothawk 8y ago
    I'm interested in this: https://datproject.org https://datproject.org
  - enraged_camel 8y ago
    >>Well, get to it. Give us the solution. Outright rejecting Brave isn't helpful. Just because someone rejects a shitty solution doesn't mean they suddenly acquire the burden of coming up with a new one.
    - jplayer01 8y ago
      They haven't even given a valid reason to consider the solution shitty enough to reject. All I could derive from their comment is that they doesn't like ads at all (while ignoring the fact that nobody else has managed to implement a working solution, that ads work, and that Brave is implementing the one solution that has traditionally had plenty of support (micropayments) and some hope of working). Like, weren't micropayments all the rage just 5 years ago? Are ads really the problem in itself? I'd say the real problem with ads are ad networks that track you, create a profile of you and use that to personalize ads, meanwhile providing an attack vector for malware and site owners abusing it historically in the form of Flash or other ugly and distracting ways of displaying them. Brave is providing a way to display ads that don't track you and don't infringe on your privacy. I don't see the downside here, only the upside that we can continue to have a 'free' internet where not only the well-off have access to vast swathes of the internet.
      - jordigh 8y ago
        Ads are the problem in itself. Nobody likes them, at best we tolerate them and or manage to ignore them. So why have something that nobody likes? They're not inevitable, and society can function without ads.
        jplayer01 8y ago
        Most normal businesses don't provide free access without payment. Until recently, the only ones that did were newspapers. They were financed through ads and to a minor portion subscriptions. If you remove ads, you remove free internet. That's how it works. Unless you propose taxing everybody.
        pwang 8y ago
        Exactly. Ads are a legacy business model of a legacy distribution system. Too few people have read JPB's excellent "Selling wine without bottles", but that is in full effect here. The problem is that new content-centric business models have not yet emerged. So, some people remain chained to the old paradigms. The crisis we have is a gap in vision. People don't realize that driving cost of information distribution to zero means that it no longer has enough scarcity to force the economic transfer of other scarce resources. Basically, what OSS did for commercial software, the Internet did for anything that fits within a 2D screen. Netflix, NYTimes, Fortnite, JK Rowling, and Jenna Jameson are all competitors in a space whose Pixels*Seconds value is commoditized. Capitalism doesn't thrive unless there is an exponentiating dynamic. The only one available on the Internet is bandwidth capture. Which, for now, translates into attentional capture. With the imminent arrival of P2P web software (e.g. Beaker Browser) and mesh networking, the tides will turn back towards a creator-centric peer network.
- ChrisClark 8y ago
  Making ads nicer is only half of Brave. The other half is setting aside an amount of cash each month (an amount that you decide on), and paying it out to the sites you visit the most. I like that idea better, but I don't know if it's sustainable, users don't want to pay money.
- revjp 8y ago
  What I take from it is that the point of Brave is to keep your data yours. It wasn't to get rid of ads entirely. The internet has become a data mining project in which your time, attention, and data is straight up stolen (or worse given away) and then monetized by companies that have long realized that data has tangible value. The point of Brave (to me) seems to be that it gives you the tools to keep your data secure and provides a way for you to willingly trade it for something of value (BAT). This is done by enabling ads. In essence you are the one being paid for your attention instead of Google or Facebook. The ads are serves by brave but purchased with BAT. So the same people who want to serve you ads need to buy BAT on the open market. This is what gives the token value. So the point Isn't to get rid of ads. The point is to give you a way to actually get paid for your data. Your data has value and people are going to get paid for it as long as it A) exists and B) is useful to sell you stuff. I think that a tool to actually make people realize the value of their own data is something that we desperately need in this space.

by orian 8y ago

Their full mission is "We're reinventing the browser as a user-first platform for speed, privacy, better ads, and beyond ", therefore I guess this is for a "better ads" ;-)

jordigh 8y ago

This is why I can't support Brave. They see it as a foregone conclusion that the only way to make sure the internet doesn't starve it so make sure we all watch ads, and they think that if they can make the ads nicer, we'll all watch them. They gave Brave tools to hide some or most ads hoping that this will make us willingly watch other ads. How about no? How about we find a better way to not starve than making sure everyone is fed their daily dose of manipulative marketing materials?

jplayer01 8y ago
Well, get to it. Give us the solution. Outright rejecting Brave isn't helpful. Newspapers financed themselves through ads for decades, but now because websites try to do the same (while abusing their position) and Brave tries to find a fair middle ground that still respects our privacy and rights, they're suddenly the bad guy.
- mr_spothawk 8y ago
  I'm interested in this: https://datproject.org https://datproject.org
- enraged_camel 8y ago
  >>Well, get to it. Give us the solution. Outright rejecting Brave isn't helpful. Just because someone rejects a shitty solution doesn't mean they suddenly acquire the burden of coming up with a new one.
  - jplayer01 8y ago
    They haven't even given a valid reason to consider the solution shitty enough to reject. All I could derive from their comment is that they doesn't like ads at all (while ignoring the fact that nobody else has managed to implement a working solution, that ads work, and that Brave is implementing the one solution that has traditionally had plenty of support (micropayments) and some hope of working). Like, weren't micropayments all the rage just 5 years ago? Are ads really the problem in itself? I'd say the real problem with ads are ad networks that track you, create a profile of you and use that to personalize ads, meanwhile providing an attack vector for malware and site owners abusing it historically in the form of Flash or other ugly and distracting ways of displaying them. Brave is providing a way to display ads that don't track you and don't infringe on your privacy. I don't see the downside here, only the upside that we can continue to have a 'free' internet where not only the well-off have access to vast swathes of the internet.
    - jordigh 8y ago
      Ads are the problem in itself. Nobody likes them, at best we tolerate them and or manage to ignore them. So why have something that nobody likes? They're not inevitable, and society can function without ads.
      - jplayer01 8y ago
        Most normal businesses don't provide free access without payment. Until recently, the only ones that did were newspapers. They were financed through ads and to a minor portion subscriptions. If you remove ads, you remove free internet. That's how it works. Unless you propose taxing everybody.
      - pwang 8y ago
        Exactly. Ads are a legacy business model of a legacy distribution system. Too few people have read JPB's excellent "Selling wine without bottles", but that is in full effect here. The problem is that new content-centric business models have not yet emerged. So, some people remain chained to the old paradigms. The crisis we have is a gap in vision. People don't realize that driving cost of information distribution to zero means that it no longer has enough scarcity to force the economic transfer of other scarce resources. Basically, what OSS did for commercial software, the Internet did for anything that fits within a 2D screen. Netflix, NYTimes, Fortnite, JK Rowling, and Jenna Jameson are all competitors in a space whose Pixels*Seconds value is commoditized. Capitalism doesn't thrive unless there is an exponentiating dynamic. The only one available on the Internet is bandwidth capture. Which, for now, translates into attentional capture. With the imminent arrival of P2P web software (e.g. Beaker Browser) and mesh networking, the tides will turn back towards a creator-centric peer network.
ChrisClark 8y ago
Making ads nicer is only half of Brave. The other half is setting aside an amount of cash each month (an amount that you decide on), and paying it out to the sites you visit the most. I like that idea better, but I don't know if it's sustainable, users don't want to pay money.
revjp 8y ago
What I take from it is that the point of Brave is to keep your data yours. It wasn't to get rid of ads entirely. The internet has become a data mining project in which your time, attention, and data is straight up stolen (or worse given away) and then monetized by companies that have long realized that data has tangible value. The point of Brave (to me) seems to be that it gives you the tools to keep your data secure and provides a way for you to willingly trade it for something of value (BAT). This is done by enabling ads. In essence you are the one being paid for your attention instead of Google or Facebook. The ads are serves by brave but purchased with BAT. So the same people who want to serve you ads need to buy BAT on the open market. This is what gives the token value. So the point Isn't to get rid of ads. The point is to give you a way to actually get paid for your data. Your data has value and people are going to get paid for it as long as it A) exists and B) is useful to sell you stuff. I think that a tool to actually make people realize the value of their own data is something that we desperately need in this space.