4 ms·

Who cares? You don't have to use the crypto part of it at all.

atoav 7y ago
Idk – with something as crucial as a browser I want the people who give it to me to have a clear and obvious incentive structure.
- bufferoverflow 7y ago
  You still didn't explain how a feature that you'd never use affects you in any negative way. Every browser has features that you don't use.
  - 3solarmasses 7y ago
    A lot of HN users can't stand crypto simply because they missed out. Envy leads to childlike refusals.
- mhluongo 7y ago
  With other browsers, the clear and obvious incentive is "to get paid to spy on users". I'm not a big Brave fan but saying their incentives are worse than Chrome or even Firefox is ridiculous.
  - unicornporn 7y ago
    > or even Firefox Please expand.
    - mhluongo 7y ago
      Where does most of the Mozilla Corporation's money come from? I'm not trying to cast stones here, but they're still primarily (last time I checked) funded by Google- not users. Your incentives are aligned with the people who pay you.
  - identity0 7y ago
    Have you ever heard of open source browsers like ungoogled chromium or pale moon? They have no incentives and are far better than brave’s, who wants to sell you advertising.
    - mhluongo 7y ago
      Of course. Chromium is still an upstream that has had changes due to Google's interests, right?
    - knocte 7y ago
      > who wants to sell you advertising. Inaccurate. Brave wants to overhaul advertising: to be able to switch it off completely paying a fee, or earn money by not switching it off (and thus watching the ads), tune it, etc
      - spsful 7y ago
        This is why I happily set Brave Ads to show me the maximum amount of ads per hour. Brave is serving ads in a privacy-conscious implantation which uses local machine intelligence to determine interests. There's no broker trying to sell your data to advertisers and yet personalized ads can still be served. Also, Brave Ads show up as a notification. Much more aesthetically pleasing than those whole-page ads that some websites have unfortunately adopted.
        jancsika 7y ago
        I agree that their system avoids a lot of the ethical problems that would come from leaking all the user data to ad networks. Having said that-- ads are an unethical distracting nuisance. From the evidence of every use case outside of esoteric journals they will increase their aggression even to the point of threatening to destroy the value in the medium to which they are attached. Try listening to a Youtube version of "Tristan und Isolde" that has ads turned on. It becomes a broken video file at that point. Worse-- web site owners have already shown that they lack the expertise needed to asses the ethics of the ad delivery systems they use. I can't tell you how many otherwise ethical open source devs used to have a fake download button from ad malware right above the real download button for their software. Never mind that the previous incarnation of Sourceforge just decided to turn evil one day and bundle malware. I don't think Github would do the same thing today, but most open source devs have no plan of what to do if they did. So we're not any better off today in terms of awareness of these problems. Plus, adding cryptocurrency tokens to that same confusion in no way makes it easier for those same devs to suss out the ethics. Edit: just to be clear-- the fake download button came from the ad network domain. The site owners almost certainly just leveraged ads to pay the bills under the logic, "How bad could it possibly be for the UX?" They'll ask the same question of Brave's system, or any system, and have the same lack of expertise with which to understand the given answer.
- tlholaday 7y ago
  Brave Software has a clear and obvious incentive structure. Here is the business model: 1. Build and maintain a browser which creates a local profile of its user, a profile which never leaves the user's machine. 2. Sell ads which can be targeted to users with certain characteristics. Distribute the entire catalog to every user's machine. The browser selects a suitable ad from the catalog and displays it to willing users. 3. Profit.
- trickstra 7y ago
  I'm not a big fan of BAT, but how much clearer can the incentive structure be? Offering a browser completely for free is actually much more questionable. User becomes the product, but it's never stated anywhere. With BAT it's pretty clear who are the interested parties and why.
johnpowell 7y ago
Until that update flips that flag and the opt-in becomes the default. Do you trust Facebook to honor your privacy settings?
- bufferoverflow 7y ago
  What does Facebook have to do with any of that? Facebook can't change the privacy rules or the settings of your browser.
  - johnpowell 7y ago
    I consider both companies untrustworthy. I was using a example of a thing nearly everyone shouldn't trust. I could have used Google, Apple, USPS as examples too.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

Idk – with something as crucial as a browser I want the people who give it to me to have a clear and obvious incentive structure.

bufferoverflow 7y ago
You still didn't explain how a feature that you'd never use affects you in any negative way. Every browser has features that you don't use.
- 3solarmasses 7y ago
  A lot of HN users can't stand crypto simply because they missed out. Envy leads to childlike refusals.
mhluongo 7y ago
With other browsers, the clear and obvious incentive is "to get paid to spy on users". I'm not a big Brave fan but saying their incentives are worse than Chrome or even Firefox is ridiculous.
- unicornporn 7y ago
  > or even Firefox Please expand.
  - mhluongo 7y ago
    Where does most of the Mozilla Corporation's money come from? I'm not trying to cast stones here, but they're still primarily (last time I checked) funded by Google- not users. Your incentives are aligned with the people who pay you.
- identity0 7y ago
  Have you ever heard of open source browsers like ungoogled chromium or pale moon? They have no incentives and are far better than brave’s, who wants to sell you advertising.
  - mhluongo 7y ago
    Of course. Chromium is still an upstream that has had changes due to Google's interests, right?
  - knocte 7y ago
    > who wants to sell you advertising. Inaccurate. Brave wants to overhaul advertising: to be able to switch it off completely paying a fee, or earn money by not switching it off (and thus watching the ads), tune it, etc
    - spsful 7y ago
      This is why I happily set Brave Ads to show me the maximum amount of ads per hour. Brave is serving ads in a privacy-conscious implantation which uses local machine intelligence to determine interests. There's no broker trying to sell your data to advertisers and yet personalized ads can still be served. Also, Brave Ads show up as a notification. Much more aesthetically pleasing than those whole-page ads that some websites have unfortunately adopted.
      - jancsika 7y ago
        I agree that their system avoids a lot of the ethical problems that would come from leaking all the user data to ad networks. Having said that-- ads are an unethical distracting nuisance. From the evidence of every use case outside of esoteric journals they will increase their aggression even to the point of threatening to destroy the value in the medium to which they are attached. Try listening to a Youtube version of "Tristan und Isolde" that has ads turned on. It becomes a broken video file at that point. Worse-- web site owners have already shown that they lack the expertise needed to asses the ethics of the ad delivery systems they use. I can't tell you how many otherwise ethical open source devs used to have a fake download button from ad malware right above the real download button for their software. Never mind that the previous incarnation of Sourceforge just decided to turn evil one day and bundle malware. I don't think Github would do the same thing today, but most open source devs have no plan of what to do if they did. So we're not any better off today in terms of awareness of these problems. Plus, adding cryptocurrency tokens to that same confusion in no way makes it easier for those same devs to suss out the ethics. Edit: just to be clear-- the fake download button came from the ad network domain. The site owners almost certainly just leveraged ads to pay the bills under the logic, "How bad could it possibly be for the UX?" They'll ask the same question of Brave's system, or any system, and have the same lack of expertise with which to understand the given answer.
tlholaday 7y ago
Brave Software has a clear and obvious incentive structure. Here is the business model: 1. Build and maintain a browser which creates a local profile of its user, a profile which never leaves the user's machine. 2. Sell ads which can be targeted to users with certain characteristics. Distribute the entire catalog to every user's machine. The browser selects a suitable ad from the catalog and displays it to willing users. 3. Profit.
trickstra 7y ago
I'm not a big fan of BAT, but how much clearer can the incentive structure be? Offering a browser completely for free is actually much more questionable. User becomes the product, but it's never stated anywhere. With BAT it's pretty clear who are the interested parties and why.

johnpowell 7y ago

Until that update flips that flag and the opt-in becomes the default. Do you trust Facebook to honor your privacy settings?

bufferoverflow 7y ago
What does Facebook have to do with any of that? Facebook can't change the privacy rules or the settings of your browser.
- johnpowell 7y ago
  I consider both companies untrustworthy. I was using a example of a thing nearly everyone shouldn't trust. I could have used Google, Apple, USPS as examples too.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]