6 ms·

Actually that's not true. An earlier version of the browser let early adopter users direct where Brave's own marketing budget of BAT tokens was sent to, includ

Actually that's not true. An earlier version of the browser let early adopter users direct where Brave's own marketing budget of BAT tokens was sent to, including sites that hadn't yet signed up. If those sites didn't sign up, the tokens would eventually go back into the marketing budget pool of tokens, to be distributed to other sites (not to Brave). That's very different to the mischaraterisation you mention above, but no surprise as Brave's model is a threat to the current fraudulent ad tech ecosystem. They did make changes to the product immediately after that episode though. Now if you want to donate to a site that hasn't registered your browser will try for a period of time, and if the publisher doesn't sign up the tokens are returned to you to distribute elsewhere.

arcticbull 7y ago
Sounds like it wasn’t much of a mischaracterization if there was a bunch of outrage and then they backtracked completely.
- justsee 7y ago
  The mischaraterization, which you seem determined to double-down on, was an attempt to paint Brave as a fraudulent company trying to build a 'patreon for thieves'. Any honest onlooker doing the barest of research would understand the absurdity of the claim, but the amplification of that mischaracterisation was (and is) clearly aimed at herd programming to try to suppress Brave's growth.
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    I can see how you might view it that way. On the other hand, let's say Chrome started replacing all non-Adsense ads on every site you visited with Adsense ads -- without notifying the webmaster no less. Then, if the content creator decided they'd like their cut of the revenue, they had to sign up for Adsense. And if they didn't, Google would just pocket it 90 days later. I don't think you'd be as sympathetic to Google in this situation? Would the courts? Just because it's a small up-start business, or just because it's crypto related, doesn't make it exempt from fair dealing. I'm not saying its a Patreon for thieves, and that doesn't make what they did less unsavory IMO.
    - justsee 7y ago
      Your scenario doesn't reflect how Brave's model works at all - it just reflects various misconceptions on your part. Brave does not replace publisher ads with their own. Brave does not block first party ads. Google's search ads display. Facebook's ads display. Twitter's ads display. Brave does block other ads by default, and as a user agent, it's reflecting the valid, ethical choices of the user not to load the untrustworthy content and scripts from these poorly-coded, user-hostile third party ad networks. If a user opts-in to Brave's ad ecosystem, then they've also made a decision about what content funding model they want to support. There are many browsers out there, but till now there's really only been one privacy-invading ad model. Now we have not just another browser, but another ad model which respects privacy, and after all we've learned about the current ad-tech ecosystem I'd prioritise user agency over all other considerations. If the primacy of user agency begins to take hold, then the market will adapt and survive and even thrive within this new model.
      - albedoa 7y ago
        > Your scenario doesn't reflect how Brave's model works at all Because he didn't exclude first-party ads? That's what you consider to be not reflective "at all"? Just pretend he said "all non-Adsense third-party ads" and then educate us against whatever additional misconceptions you perceive him and us to hold.
        justsee 7y ago
        Because Brave does not replace publisher ads with their own.
        manigandham 7y ago
        They literally do. They remove ads on the page. Then they show their own ads to the user.
        justsee 7y ago
Nursie 7y ago
Actually a comparatively recent version of the browser made all sorts of claims about "Help support this site by donating!", accompanied by pictures of the producer harvested from the site, looking very much like they had a relationship with the producer and were collecting on their behalf. They only backed down when one of the content producers who had no relationship with them and did not want a relationship with them cried foul.
hexane360 7y ago
>That's very different to the mischaraterisation you mention above, but no surprise as Brave's model is a threat to the current fraudulent ad tech ecosystem. This alone is enough of an inflammatory and conspiratorial statement that I have a hard time taking you seriously. It's a bad look to cry "shill" in the face of fair criticism.
- 0-_-0 7y ago
  It wasn't fair criticism.

arcticbull 7y ago

Sounds like it wasn’t much of a mischaracterization if there was a bunch of outrage and then they backtracked completely.

justsee 7y ago
The mischaraterization, which you seem determined to double-down on, was an attempt to paint Brave as a fraudulent company trying to build a 'patreon for thieves'. Any honest onlooker doing the barest of research would understand the absurdity of the claim, but the amplification of that mischaracterisation was (and is) clearly aimed at herd programming to try to suppress Brave's growth.
- arcticbull 7y ago
  I can see how you might view it that way. On the other hand, let's say Chrome started replacing all non-Adsense ads on every site you visited with Adsense ads -- without notifying the webmaster no less. Then, if the content creator decided they'd like their cut of the revenue, they had to sign up for Adsense. And if they didn't, Google would just pocket it 90 days later. I don't think you'd be as sympathetic to Google in this situation? Would the courts? Just because it's a small up-start business, or just because it's crypto related, doesn't make it exempt from fair dealing. I'm not saying its a Patreon for thieves, and that doesn't make what they did less unsavory IMO.
  - justsee 7y ago
    Your scenario doesn't reflect how Brave's model works at all - it just reflects various misconceptions on your part. Brave does not replace publisher ads with their own. Brave does not block first party ads. Google's search ads display. Facebook's ads display. Twitter's ads display. Brave does block other ads by default, and as a user agent, it's reflecting the valid, ethical choices of the user not to load the untrustworthy content and scripts from these poorly-coded, user-hostile third party ad networks. If a user opts-in to Brave's ad ecosystem, then they've also made a decision about what content funding model they want to support. There are many browsers out there, but till now there's really only been one privacy-invading ad model. Now we have not just another browser, but another ad model which respects privacy, and after all we've learned about the current ad-tech ecosystem I'd prioritise user agency over all other considerations. If the primacy of user agency begins to take hold, then the market will adapt and survive and even thrive within this new model.
    - albedoa 7y ago
      > Your scenario doesn't reflect how Brave's model works at all Because he didn't exclude first-party ads? That's what you consider to be not reflective "at all"? Just pretend he said "all non-Adsense third-party ads" and then educate us against whatever additional misconceptions you perceive him and us to hold.
      - justsee 7y ago
        Because Brave does not replace publisher ads with their own.
        manigandham 7y ago
        They literally do. They remove ads on the page. Then they show their own ads to the user.
        justsee 7y ago

Nursie 7y ago

Actually a comparatively recent version of the browser made all sorts of claims about "Help support this site by donating!", accompanied by pictures of the producer harvested from the site, looking very much like they had a relationship with the producer and were collecting on their behalf. They only backed down when one of the content producers who had no relationship with them and did not want a relationship with them cried foul.

hexane360 7y ago

>That's very different to the mischaraterisation you mention above, but no surprise as Brave's model is a threat to the current fraudulent ad tech ecosystem. This alone is enough of an inflammatory and conspiratorial statement that I have a hard time taking you seriously. It's a bad look to cry "shill" in the face of fair criticism.

0-_-0 7y ago
It wasn't fair criticism.