4 ms·

> 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

> 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 8y ago
Because Brave does not replace publisher ads with their own.
- manigandham 8y ago
  They literally do. They remove ads on the page. Then they show their own ads to the user.
  - justsee 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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.
    - SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
      > Keep an eye out for accounts that try to push this mischaracterisation and see if they're linked to the existing ad tech industry... You keep making vague accusations of shilling so I'll turn the tables - what exactly is your connection to Brave?
      - justsee 8y ago
        Shilling? No, consistently seeing the same attempts at poisoning the well with regard to Brave's model become rather irritating. I have no connection with Brave.
      - notafanofBAT 8y ago
        I've been following brave since the Tom Scott thing blew up. The whole thing seems like a disingenuous cash grab or a (slowish) pump and dump crypto scheme. There are quite a few zealous defenders of BAT and Brave that always turn up in threads like these that you have to question why these people are so willing to look past what seem like obvious flaws in the product. Anyway, on reddit the user with the same name has deleted their account but this one is still active and active in the BAT / Brave subreddits. [0] Full disclosure: I came to root against Brave after seeing how Tom Scott was treated and how that whole debacle went. I don’t even work in Tech so really, I shouldn’t care. If your product has to be opt-out to have a chance of success, then it's a failure from day one. [0] https://old.reddit.com/user/justsee_/posts/ https://old.reddit.com/user/justsee_/posts/ edit: opt-out in regards to the creaors being sent BAT by users without knowing about that. i.e. the Tom Scott Fiasco.
        Dylan16807 8y ago
        What's wrong with how they treated him? I thought they fixed everything pretty well. And they did make it opt-in for receiving 'real' tokens, as far as I can tell from the last few minutes of searching. The UGP tokens can still be sent at people that didn't opt-in, but those are more like coupon codes than money. Users can only get them for free, and they have an expiration date.
  - maxencecornet 8y ago
    >They literally do No they don't, I've been using the Brave browser for over a year on desktop, with the users ads activated This is the most common seen misconception on HN about Brave, Brave is not replacing ads with their own ads It just doesn't work like this A great comment from a Brave team member about that misconception on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/ethtrader/comments/bby4um/the_la_times_latimescom_one_of_the_largest/ekn0706/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ethtrader/comments/bby4um/the_la_ti...
- hexane360 8y ago
  Google doesn't have to replace publisher's ads with their own. They could just replace them with ads going through their market.

justsee 8y ago

Because Brave does not replace publisher ads with their own.

manigandham 8y ago
They literally do. They remove ads on the page. Then they show their own ads to the user.
- justsee 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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.
  - SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
    > Keep an eye out for accounts that try to push this mischaracterisation and see if they're linked to the existing ad tech industry... You keep making vague accusations of shilling so I'll turn the tables - what exactly is your connection to Brave?
    - justsee 8y ago
      Shilling? No, consistently seeing the same attempts at poisoning the well with regard to Brave's model become rather irritating. I have no connection with Brave.
    - notafanofBAT 8y ago
      I've been following brave since the Tom Scott thing blew up. The whole thing seems like a disingenuous cash grab or a (slowish) pump and dump crypto scheme. There are quite a few zealous defenders of BAT and Brave that always turn up in threads like these that you have to question why these people are so willing to look past what seem like obvious flaws in the product. Anyway, on reddit the user with the same name has deleted their account but this one is still active and active in the BAT / Brave subreddits. [0] Full disclosure: I came to root against Brave after seeing how Tom Scott was treated and how that whole debacle went. I don’t even work in Tech so really, I shouldn’t care. If your product has to be opt-out to have a chance of success, then it's a failure from day one. [0] https://old.reddit.com/user/justsee_/posts/ https://old.reddit.com/user/justsee_/posts/ edit: opt-out in regards to the creaors being sent BAT by users without knowing about that. i.e. the Tom Scott Fiasco.
      - Dylan16807 8y ago
        What's wrong with how they treated him? I thought they fixed everything pretty well. And they did make it opt-in for receiving 'real' tokens, as far as I can tell from the last few minutes of searching. The UGP tokens can still be sent at people that didn't opt-in, but those are more like coupon codes than money. Users can only get them for free, and they have an expiration date.
- maxencecornet 8y ago
  >They literally do No they don't, I've been using the Brave browser for over a year on desktop, with the users ads activated This is the most common seen misconception on HN about Brave, Brave is not replacing ads with their own ads It just doesn't work like this A great comment from a Brave team member about that misconception on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/ethtrader/comments/bby4um/the_la_times_latimescom_one_of_the_largest/ekn0706/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ethtrader/comments/bby4um/the_la_ti...
hexane360 8y ago
Google doesn't have to replace publisher's ads with their own. They could just replace them with ads going through their market.