6 ms·

See https://brave.com/faq/#unclaimed-funds https://brave.com/faq/#unclaimed-funds for a description of their current and past policy. Currently: "If a publishe

See https://brave.com/faq/#unclaimed-funds https://brave.com/faq/#unclaimed-funds for a description of their current and past policy. Currently: "If a publisher has not verified ownership, then a user’s contributions will be held in reserve inside the browser for 90 days. The browser routinely updates an internal list of all verified publishers to determine whether a property can receive contributions. At the end of the 90 day period, any contributions marked for unverified publishers will be released back to the wallet. No funds leave the browser except to go to verified creators." Previously: "Previous versions ... would then hold contributed funds for those publishers in escrow until they’d verified. [And] Funds that were contributed from user-funded wallets will be held indefinitely, until the publisher verifies and transfers them to their own wallet." That sounds like they had a suboptimal policy, realized it, and fixed it. If they _keep_ their 5% cut, or the interest on it, from contributions to unverified creators, I'll share your criticism.

dymk 7y ago
That's still terrible. If I'm a Youtube content creator who doesn't want anything to do with Brave, they're still going to remove the ads that I want on my videos to monetize my content, and hold any of the BAT that Brave users contribute to me hostage.
- hirundo 7y ago
  Is uBlock terrible?
  - dymk 7y ago
    Are you a content creator, with your income stream at least partly gained through advertisements?
  - tapoxi 7y ago
    Yes? Generating and serving content isn't free. If you don't want the ads, don't visit the page or pay for an ad-free version.
    - michaelmrose 7y ago
      It's not just that I choose option C to continue watching and not pay. I in fact opt out of the entire decision making process. I'm not going to figure out what sort of ads you have or whether I should or shouldn't block them because life is short and I have other better things to do. I'm just going to turn on ublock and just keep swimming. If you don't put out videos tomorrow because of this I will watch someone else's content. If you produce something truly unique put it out there for money and I will make an informed choice on whether I want to pay for it.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - dwaltrip 7y ago
      Is it unethical to avoid looking at billboards? If not, what if I had a special pair of glasses that obscured such billboards or other physical advertising? It's not possible today, but not that hard to imagine in the near future. How are these situations different from blocking ads on the web?
      - kevinh 7y ago
        To my knowledge, billboards don't fund roads. Unless they are the exclusive source of revenue for roads, the situations aren't really comparable.
        butteroverflow 7y ago
        Ads don't fund the communication networks as far as I am aware. Last time I checked, my internet bill wasn't paid by me looking at ads.
        dwaltrip 7y ago
        Ah, that is a good point. They aren't comparable on that aspect. I would argue they are still comparable in terms of "autonomy of attention".
    - flukus 7y ago
- michaelmrose 7y ago
  The user owns their computer. You own yours or at least the party you have entrusted your content does. If people don't want to look at your ads they wont. Don't like it charge money.
- rjf72 7y ago
  When file sharing first came along it was pretty clear that the status quo of dropping $20 on a CD for some music was not going to last. Regardless the music industry refused to accept this and fought tooth and nail to try to keep CDs as the norm instead of adopting to changing times. Unsurprisingly that's a battle they eventually lost. A decade or so ago ad-blocking was extremely esoteric. Today it's reaching a majority on all devices excluding mobile. Though mobile will also likely follow a similar esoteric->majority trajectory. In any case it should be clear that the status quo of advertisements isn't going to last. Google trying to break ad-blocking in Chrome feels very much analogous to the old dinosaurs in the music industry trying to cling onto CDs. Users hate unsolicited ads and, in the end, it's a losing battle to try to force everybody to keep watching them. The point of this is that that money you're being offered is money that would not exist otherwise. These people are not going to watch your ads, period. You're free to take it, and you're free to not take it - it'll eventually be returned to the people that wanted to give it to you. But complaining about it's very existence is peculiar. It's like if you only accept PayPal and I said I don't use PayPal but I'd be happy to send you money through e.g. Stripe. If you don't want to setup a Stripe account to accept my money then that's completely your choice, but to complain about it just seems petulant.

dymk 7y ago

That's still terrible. If I'm a Youtube content creator who doesn't want anything to do with Brave, they're still going to remove the ads that I want on my videos to monetize my content, and hold any of the BAT that Brave users contribute to me hostage.

hirundo 7y ago
Is uBlock terrible?
- dymk 7y ago
  Are you a content creator, with your income stream at least partly gained through advertisements?
- tapoxi 7y ago
  Yes? Generating and serving content isn't free. If you don't want the ads, don't visit the page or pay for an ad-free version.
  - michaelmrose 7y ago
    It's not just that I choose option C to continue watching and not pay. I in fact opt out of the entire decision making process. I'm not going to figure out what sort of ads you have or whether I should or shouldn't block them because life is short and I have other better things to do. I'm just going to turn on ublock and just keep swimming. If you don't put out videos tomorrow because of this I will watch someone else's content. If you produce something truly unique put it out there for money and I will make an informed choice on whether I want to pay for it.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - dwaltrip 7y ago
    Is it unethical to avoid looking at billboards? If not, what if I had a special pair of glasses that obscured such billboards or other physical advertising? It's not possible today, but not that hard to imagine in the near future. How are these situations different from blocking ads on the web?
    - kevinh 7y ago
      To my knowledge, billboards don't fund roads. Unless they are the exclusive source of revenue for roads, the situations aren't really comparable.
      - butteroverflow 7y ago
        Ads don't fund the communication networks as far as I am aware. Last time I checked, my internet bill wasn't paid by me looking at ads.
      - dwaltrip 7y ago
        Ah, that is a good point. They aren't comparable on that aspect. I would argue they are still comparable in terms of "autonomy of attention".
  - flukus 7y ago
michaelmrose 7y ago
The user owns their computer. You own yours or at least the party you have entrusted your content does. If people don't want to look at your ads they wont. Don't like it charge money.
rjf72 7y ago
When file sharing first came along it was pretty clear that the status quo of dropping $20 on a CD for some music was not going to last. Regardless the music industry refused to accept this and fought tooth and nail to try to keep CDs as the norm instead of adopting to changing times. Unsurprisingly that's a battle they eventually lost. A decade or so ago ad-blocking was extremely esoteric. Today it's reaching a majority on all devices excluding mobile. Though mobile will also likely follow a similar esoteric->majority trajectory. In any case it should be clear that the status quo of advertisements isn't going to last. Google trying to break ad-blocking in Chrome feels very much analogous to the old dinosaurs in the music industry trying to cling onto CDs. Users hate unsolicited ads and, in the end, it's a losing battle to try to force everybody to keep watching them. The point of this is that that money you're being offered is money that would not exist otherwise. These people are not going to watch your ads, period. You're free to take it, and you're free to not take it - it'll eventually be returned to the people that wanted to give it to you. But complaining about it's very existence is peculiar. It's like if you only accept PayPal and I said I don't use PayPal but I'd be happy to send you money through e.g. Stripe. If you don't want to setup a Stripe account to accept my money then that's completely your choice, but to complain about it just seems petulant.