4 ms·

> 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 a

> 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.

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.