4 ms·

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 thieve

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
        This has been a consistent dishonest mischaracterisation: that Brave literally swaps a publisher's own ads with their own. That functionality is on the roadmap, but Brave has stated that will only occur with publisher consent. Keep an eye out for accounts that try to push this mischaracterisation and see if they're linked to the existing ad tech industry...
        manigandham 7y ago
        All ads are blocked automatically without publisher consent. The only ads available are from Brave. Therefore the only way a publisher can get money from ads is from Brave swapping ads. So I guess if you want to be technical, Brave either swaps with nothing or with their own ads.
        justsee 7y ago
        Huh? What you're saying is simply wrong. First party ads aren't blocked. Publisher ads aren't swapped. If a user opts-in to Brave's model for ads, they are system-level notifications which lead to full-page ads that aren't linked to any website.

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
        This has been a consistent dishonest mischaracterisation: that Brave literally swaps a publisher's own ads with their own. That functionality is on the roadmap, but Brave has stated that will only occur with publisher consent. Keep an eye out for accounts that try to push this mischaracterisation and see if they're linked to the existing ad tech industry...
        manigandham 7y ago
        All ads are blocked automatically without publisher consent. The only ads available are from Brave. Therefore the only way a publisher can get money from ads is from Brave swapping ads. So I guess if you want to be technical, Brave either swaps with nothing or with their own ads.
        justsee 7y ago
        Huh? What you're saying is simply wrong. First party ads aren't blocked. Publisher ads aren't swapped. If a user opts-in to Brave's model for ads, they are system-level notifications which lead to full-page ads that aren't linked to any website.