7 ms·

>when you compare against the current option To me the current option is no participation because I see no explicit ads. The web is pull and not push, and my b

>when you compare against the current option To me the current option is no participation because I see no explicit ads. The web is pull and not push, and my browser renders whatever I want it to. As for the revenue, they can keep it for all I care, why would I want to make money browsing the web? It'd be like making money for talking a walk in the park

leftyted 7y ago
> To me the current option is no participation because I see no explicit ads. The web is pull and not push, and my browser renders whatever I want it to. Yes and Brave's argument is that if everyone acted like you, the web as we know it would collapse. Perhaps it's an argument worth taking seriously. And I say that as someone who acts like you.
- wilkystyle 7y ago
  The only thing that would collapse are the parasitical entities that feed off of tracking data from ads. I think this is a good thing.
- catalogia 7y ago
  > "if everyone acted like you, the web as we know it would collapse. " So blocking ads is an effective way to enact social change? Great!
- ohithereyou 7y ago
  >Yes and Brave's argument is that if everyone acted like you, the web as we know it would collapse. Maybe the people that rely on the ad supported, user data selling model that primarily destroys the privacy of technologically less advanced users should have thought about that before they started the invasive ad arms race? So fewer people will make money unethically on the web. If we adopted Brave's point of view then making money from cryptolocker ransomware would be okay because only ignorant users would not have anti-virus and backups in place, so it's really the users fault.
- wpietri 7y ago
  That really isn't an argument worth taking seriously. Much of the web would be fine. Another chunk of it would have to shift more toward existing revenue sources. And some would have to develop new revenue sources. The only thing that would be particularly at risk is stuff funded exclusively with display ads, but where users don't care enough about it to support it. Or, put differently, we'd lose sites that people don't like much, but that survive through manipulating people into buying things. Doesn't sound like much of a loss to me. When the Tivo was new, it was argued that it would destroy television, because people could now skip ads. 20 years later, TV is doing better than ever as a medium. Why? Because a lot of us are now paying directly for the things we like. I think the same thing would happen with the web.
  - deanCommie 7y ago
    > TV is doing better than ever as a medium. Why? Because a lot of us are now paying directly for the things we like. I think the same thing would happen with the web. What are you on about, TV is essentially dead as an over-the-air/cable-bundle medium. The only reason "TV" survived, is because it was reimagined by streaming services who charge a monthly fee. That model has certainly been going through a golden age, but the story is far from finished there and things are about to get very very bad with dozens of streaming services on the horizon, all wanting 5-10$/month. We have yet to see what's going to happen when consumers rebel against their content needing 100s of $/month to access. The Tivo of the 2020s will involve VPN, or Piracy with a new face, or some form of account sharing, and will be resisted just the same.
    - wpietri 7y ago
      That's an interesting fantasy, but I see no evidence that people will go from paying happily for content to refusing to pay for anything. People have been paying for video for a hundred years, and there's no reason to think the business will die now that technology has drastically decreased distribution costs, lowered production costs, and increased quality.
  - leftyted 7y ago
    > That really isn't an argument worth taking seriously. I think it is. I've used Google search, gmail, youtube, and Google docs since they've existed. I've paid $0 for them. My understanding is that these services are paid for by ads but I've had an ad blocker most of that time. If everyone started using an ad blocker, what would happen to Google/those services? I don't know, but I feel uneasy about the fact that services that I use depend on people not doing certain things that A. seem rational and B. I have been doing for years. > When the Tivo was new, it was argued that it would destroy television, because people could now skip ads. 20 years later, TV is doing better than ever as a medium. Why? Because a lot of us are now paying directly for the things we like. I think the same thing would happen with the web. It seems to me that Brave is attempting to make it so that people "pay directly for things they like" and they're attempting to solve that problem generically, in the browser. Maybe it would be better if this problem wasn't solved in the browser. Maybe all the companies providing free services funded by ads should solve this problem individually, by charging a monthly fee. But that solution: 1. Leaves out individuals who make a living providing "free" entertainment who are funded by ads (so-called content creators) 2. Requires people to juggle many monthly subscriptions 3. Will cut out people who cannot afford subscriptions 4. Will never happen unless something forces these companies to change (maybe something like a browser with a built-in ad-blocker gaining market share...) Brave's approach is interesting. I have no idea if it will pan out but I think they've identified a real problem.
- elsurudo 7y ago
  Good riddance. The web was a finer place before this ad boom.
  - lonelappde 7y ago
    What gives you the right to say I don't deserve to see ads if I want to,?
- austhrow743 7y ago
  That's an argument against using Brave.
k_vi 7y ago
It'd be like taking a walk in the park and paying/supporting the park if you feel the need to.
- jonatanheyman 7y ago
  > It'd be like taking a walk in the park and paying/supporting the park if you feel the need to. It'd be like taking a walk in the park and paying/supporting the park - by having a salesperson walking beside you trying to pitch some product - if you feel the need to.
  - kxrm 7y ago
    It'd be like taking a walk in the park and paying/supporting the park utilizing a corporate currency - by having a salesperson walking beside you trying to pitch some product - if you feel the need to
justsee 7y ago
Recent cross-platform options with surveillance capitalism: * Google Chrome: mandatory * Firefox: opt-out [1] * Brave: blocked That's the primary issue. It's great that Brave is pioneering a new opt-in, privacy-respecting funding model for the web - we need innovation here - but it's a secondary issue. [1] Thanks to Google $, slowly changing presumably thanks to forcing effects of Apple's increasing privacy defaults in Safari
- xkde 7y ago
  I’m having a hard time trying to decide if people are trying to dirty capitalism with “surveillance” or surveillance with capitalism. Seems like the latter has become a dirty word over night for no apparent reason.
  - lonelappde 7y ago
    Adjectives modify nouns. In the case, it's a bit tricky, but "surveillance" is acting as an adjective, more specifically a noun adjunct https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noun_adjunct https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noun_adjunct
    - xkde 7y ago
      Except the adjective in this case is sufficient as a noun on its own. Unless you want to bring capitalism in for ulterior motives.
  - justsee 7y ago
    Surveillance capitalism simply describes the business model of spying on users to build hidden psychological / behavioural / demographic profiles which are then sold through opaque backroom market mechanisms, all with zero regard to consent. You can have a positive view of each separate word (depending on context) and the term still works perfectly in describing the business model society is beginning to reject, through mechanisms like the GDPR and CCPA.
didericis 7y ago
Like it or not, revenue is required to keep sites online. Hosting costs money. Design costs money. Maintenance costs money. If the internet is to stay as alive and as open/accessible as it currently is for the public at large (despite increases in censorship), there needs to be more effort put into high availability and accessibility by more people than the enthusiasts who run revenue free sites/businesses that have other revenue streams. People have been trained not to accept paywalls. But they do tip, as we see with patreon, superchats, etc, and and they do accept some modicum of ads and freemium services. Brave provides options for all of those things; what I like most about brave is not its ad model, but its site donation model. It’s a very direct form of person to site donations that is built to be extremely convenient. I don’t know how it’s implemented, but if it's sufficiently decentralized (which I think it is, unless the BAT crypto currency is just a distraction from some centralized mechanism required for donations), that’s a potentially very valuable/difficult to censor/easy means of direct value exchange. Plus you don’t have the privacy concerns you do with ads. My hope is that it becomes so convenient and popular to send money to sites via Brave and potential future competitors that the ad revenue model can be mostly replaced. That might be pie in the sky, but it seems plausible to me. I also think it’s great that users get a big chunk of ad revenue. That percentage may change in the future, but for low income people who can get a few extra bucks by browsing normally/might be less likely to use ad blockers, something like Brave seems way better than seeing ads and not getting any revenue.
- RandomBacon 7y ago
  > Like it or not, revenue is required to keep sites online. > Hosting costs money. Design costs money. Maintenance costs money. Then maybe we'll get less blogspam and have a higher signal-to-noise ratio of sites run by people who are passionate about things and know what they're doing, instead of crap trying just get clicks to get paid. Maybe videos would be 1 minute of quality content rather than 10 minutes of "be sure to click subscribe". Etc.
  - anchpop 7y ago
    I'd prefer if those people had some sort of income so they could do what they're doing full time. Do you have any sort of idea for how that would work or do you just dislike the current system without any prescription for a better one? (The patreon model still requires people to follow your content, and subscribers help with that)
tuesdayrain 7y ago
> As for the revenue, they can keep it for all I care, why would I want to make money browsing the web? It'd be like making money for talking a walk in the park ?? I don't understand this logic or analogy even remotely. I would love to make money by doing things I already do for free

leftyted 7y ago

> To me the current option is no participation because I see no explicit ads. The web is pull and not push, and my browser renders whatever I want it to. Yes and Brave's argument is that if everyone acted like you, the web as we know it would collapse. Perhaps it's an argument worth taking seriously. And I say that as someone who acts like you.

wilkystyle 7y ago
The only thing that would collapse are the parasitical entities that feed off of tracking data from ads. I think this is a good thing.
catalogia 7y ago
> "if everyone acted like you, the web as we know it would collapse. " So blocking ads is an effective way to enact social change? Great!
ohithereyou 7y ago
>Yes and Brave's argument is that if everyone acted like you, the web as we know it would collapse. Maybe the people that rely on the ad supported, user data selling model that primarily destroys the privacy of technologically less advanced users should have thought about that before they started the invasive ad arms race? So fewer people will make money unethically on the web. If we adopted Brave's point of view then making money from cryptolocker ransomware would be okay because only ignorant users would not have anti-virus and backups in place, so it's really the users fault.
wpietri 7y ago
That really isn't an argument worth taking seriously. Much of the web would be fine. Another chunk of it would have to shift more toward existing revenue sources. And some would have to develop new revenue sources. The only thing that would be particularly at risk is stuff funded exclusively with display ads, but where users don't care enough about it to support it. Or, put differently, we'd lose sites that people don't like much, but that survive through manipulating people into buying things. Doesn't sound like much of a loss to me. When the Tivo was new, it was argued that it would destroy television, because people could now skip ads. 20 years later, TV is doing better than ever as a medium. Why? Because a lot of us are now paying directly for the things we like. I think the same thing would happen with the web.
- deanCommie 7y ago
  > TV is doing better than ever as a medium. Why? Because a lot of us are now paying directly for the things we like. I think the same thing would happen with the web. What are you on about, TV is essentially dead as an over-the-air/cable-bundle medium. The only reason "TV" survived, is because it was reimagined by streaming services who charge a monthly fee. That model has certainly been going through a golden age, but the story is far from finished there and things are about to get very very bad with dozens of streaming services on the horizon, all wanting 5-10$/month. We have yet to see what's going to happen when consumers rebel against their content needing 100s of $/month to access. The Tivo of the 2020s will involve VPN, or Piracy with a new face, or some form of account sharing, and will be resisted just the same.
  - wpietri 7y ago
    That's an interesting fantasy, but I see no evidence that people will go from paying happily for content to refusing to pay for anything. People have been paying for video for a hundred years, and there's no reason to think the business will die now that technology has drastically decreased distribution costs, lowered production costs, and increased quality.
- leftyted 7y ago
  > That really isn't an argument worth taking seriously. I think it is. I've used Google search, gmail, youtube, and Google docs since they've existed. I've paid $0 for them. My understanding is that these services are paid for by ads but I've had an ad blocker most of that time. If everyone started using an ad blocker, what would happen to Google/those services? I don't know, but I feel uneasy about the fact that services that I use depend on people not doing certain things that A. seem rational and B. I have been doing for years. > When the Tivo was new, it was argued that it would destroy television, because people could now skip ads. 20 years later, TV is doing better than ever as a medium. Why? Because a lot of us are now paying directly for the things we like. I think the same thing would happen with the web. It seems to me that Brave is attempting to make it so that people "pay directly for things they like" and they're attempting to solve that problem generically, in the browser. Maybe it would be better if this problem wasn't solved in the browser. Maybe all the companies providing free services funded by ads should solve this problem individually, by charging a monthly fee. But that solution: 1. Leaves out individuals who make a living providing "free" entertainment who are funded by ads (so-called content creators) 2. Requires people to juggle many monthly subscriptions 3. Will cut out people who cannot afford subscriptions 4. Will never happen unless something forces these companies to change (maybe something like a browser with a built-in ad-blocker gaining market share...) Brave's approach is interesting. I have no idea if it will pan out but I think they've identified a real problem.
elsurudo 7y ago
Good riddance. The web was a finer place before this ad boom.
- lonelappde 7y ago
  What gives you the right to say I don't deserve to see ads if I want to,?
austhrow743 7y ago
That's an argument against using Brave.

k_vi 7y ago

It'd be like taking a walk in the park and paying/supporting the park if you feel the need to.

jonatanheyman 7y ago
> It'd be like taking a walk in the park and paying/supporting the park if you feel the need to. It'd be like taking a walk in the park and paying/supporting the park - by having a salesperson walking beside you trying to pitch some product - if you feel the need to.
- kxrm 7y ago
  It'd be like taking a walk in the park and paying/supporting the park utilizing a corporate currency - by having a salesperson walking beside you trying to pitch some product - if you feel the need to

justsee 7y ago

Recent cross-platform options with surveillance capitalism: * Google Chrome: mandatory * Firefox: opt-out [1] * Brave: blocked That's the primary issue. It's great that Brave is pioneering a new opt-in, privacy-respecting funding model for the web - we need innovation here - but it's a secondary issue. [1] Thanks to Google $, slowly changing presumably thanks to forcing effects of Apple's increasing privacy defaults in Safari

xkde 7y ago
I’m having a hard time trying to decide if people are trying to dirty capitalism with “surveillance” or surveillance with capitalism. Seems like the latter has become a dirty word over night for no apparent reason.
- lonelappde 7y ago
  Adjectives modify nouns. In the case, it's a bit tricky, but "surveillance" is acting as an adjective, more specifically a noun adjunct https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noun_adjunct https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noun_adjunct
  - xkde 7y ago
    Except the adjective in this case is sufficient as a noun on its own. Unless you want to bring capitalism in for ulterior motives.
- justsee 7y ago
  Surveillance capitalism simply describes the business model of spying on users to build hidden psychological / behavioural / demographic profiles which are then sold through opaque backroom market mechanisms, all with zero regard to consent. You can have a positive view of each separate word (depending on context) and the term still works perfectly in describing the business model society is beginning to reject, through mechanisms like the GDPR and CCPA.

didericis 7y ago

Like it or not, revenue is required to keep sites online. Hosting costs money. Design costs money. Maintenance costs money. If the internet is to stay as alive and as open/accessible as it currently is for the public at large (despite increases in censorship), there needs to be more effort put into high availability and accessibility by more people than the enthusiasts who run revenue free sites/businesses that have other revenue streams. People have been trained not to accept paywalls. But they do tip, as we see with patreon, superchats, etc, and and they do accept some modicum of ads and freemium services. Brave provides options for all of those things; what I like most about brave is not its ad model, but its site donation model. It’s a very direct form of person to site donations that is built to be extremely convenient. I don’t know how it’s implemented, but if it's sufficiently decentralized (which I think it is, unless the BAT crypto currency is just a distraction from some centralized mechanism required for donations), that’s a potentially very valuable/difficult to censor/easy means of direct value exchange. Plus you don’t have the privacy concerns you do with ads. My hope is that it becomes so convenient and popular to send money to sites via Brave and potential future competitors that the ad revenue model can be mostly replaced. That might be pie in the sky, but it seems plausible to me. I also think it’s great that users get a big chunk of ad revenue. That percentage may change in the future, but for low income people who can get a few extra bucks by browsing normally/might be less likely to use ad blockers, something like Brave seems way better than seeing ads and not getting any revenue.

RandomBacon 7y ago
> Like it or not, revenue is required to keep sites online. > Hosting costs money. Design costs money. Maintenance costs money. Then maybe we'll get less blogspam and have a higher signal-to-noise ratio of sites run by people who are passionate about things and know what they're doing, instead of crap trying just get clicks to get paid. Maybe videos would be 1 minute of quality content rather than 10 minutes of "be sure to click subscribe". Etc.
- anchpop 7y ago
  I'd prefer if those people had some sort of income so they could do what they're doing full time. Do you have any sort of idea for how that would work or do you just dislike the current system without any prescription for a better one? (The patreon model still requires people to follow your content, and subscribers help with that)

tuesdayrain 7y ago

> As for the revenue, they can keep it for all I care, why would I want to make money browsing the web? It'd be like making money for talking a walk in the park ?? I don't understand this logic or analogy even remotely. I would love to make money by doing things I already do for free