6 ms·

One of the serious criticisms against Brave was that they were collecting payments for sites and creators that had not signed up and who did not want to sign up

by erentz 7y ago

One of the serious criticisms against Brave was that they were collecting payments for sites and creators that had not signed up and who did not want to sign up. That is they were charging for other people’s content, that they don’t own, under the guise that the money went to those creators when it didn’t and wouldn’t. Seemed a pretty serious criticism to me. Has this changed?

fuu_dev 7y ago
There where actually 2 critiques and their practice would count as fraud in a lot of countries. #1 Money was re-distributed if donated and not claimed -> its not frozen infinite. #2 There was no way to opt out -> its now opt in iirc Besides that there are other critique points. #1 Brave is controlling the add economy. They do this by blocking adds and offering their opt in add service(and gain 30% of the add revenue) #2 Brave is using its own crypto currency to have full control over the money flow. What additionally lowers their credibility is that they put false advertisement on their website. This makes me wounder whats the incent to use brave.
- buboard 7y ago
  > This makes me wounder whats the incent to use brave. with adblockers and google sucking more and more of the advertising pie websites are looking elsewhere for monetization
- judge2020 7y ago
  By the way, it's just "ad", short for advertisement.
- Karunamon 7y ago
  I don't quite follow #2. BAT is an ERC20 token like any other and can be quite easily transacted outisde of the browser and outside of Brave's control.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - fuu_dev 7y ago
    Brave created the currency.
    - Karunamon 7y ago
      That doesn't equate to having full control over the monetary flow. They can mint new tokens, but since the contract doesn't have a self destruct function, it's out there on the blockchain forevermore, even if Brave were to disappear tomorrow.
rauchp 7y ago
I've heard that as well, but haven't heard Brave's side of it. Not defending it in anyway. but strategically I feel like Brave should take the money, and just email the creator every 3 months saying you have X amount of money you can claim. Of course, if Brave is just profiting this money that's pretty shitty.
- jjeaff 7y ago
  Even if they do that, it isn't right. They are removing ads and thus revenue from content creators. They have no right to do that and then skim some profit before paying out. And even if they did, they have no way of knowing if what they are paying is more or less than what the creator would have gotten had their content not been modified.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - tomrod 7y ago
    They have the same right a website has to show me ads. I don't click on links to be advertised to.
    - judge2020 7y ago
      Wait, why should brave get to throw its own ads on example.com? If the little fish and big fish were swapped, would you say the same if Chrome had an [opt-in] box for replacing all non-google ads with doubleclick ones?
      - tomrod 7y ago
        I wasn't clear. Both are unethical in my view, even if one is widely practiced.
    - jjeaff 7y ago
      No, but you can always ignore those ads or not click on the sites that serve them. But in the case of Brave, they are essentially modifying the producers content without their consent.
bdibs 7y ago
From their FAQ: "Publishers must verify ownership of their properties with Brave in order to receive contributions from Brave users. 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."
- burtonator 7y ago
  Seems more than fair to me if I understand correctly. If you're not accepting money, you don't get to keep it but they give you a buffer of 90 days (which they didn't have to) and if the buffer is exceeded it goes back to the user wallet.
  - judge2020 7y ago
    Make no mistake, [IIRC] this was changed only after the backlash.
chance_state 7y ago
I think the answer is "not anymore" based on what's in their FAQ. > Publishers must verify ownership of their properties with Brave in order to receive contributions from Brave users. 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. > Previous versions of the Brave desktop browser worked differently. Until version 0.58.21, released on January 11, 2019, browsers with Brave Rewards enabled would contribute BAT to content creators whether or not they had verified. Brave would then hold contributed funds for those publishers in escrow until they’d verified. https://brave.com/faq/ https://brave.com/faq/
summerlight 7y ago
I also wonder about its legal consequences; If some creators decide to sue them for this issue then what would be the outcome? I don't think I am allowed to freely use some random contents without creator's explicit consent then give back some arbitrary amount of money in the current IP framework.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
pushcx 7y ago
It's changed, but apparently no one was punished for it, or even for the false claim that the funds were held "in escrow" when Brave was holding funds itself and eventually claiming them. When someone commits fraud, gets caught, shows no contrition, and then takes a little step back so it's no longer obviously fraud, I think the emphasis in that sentence needs to be on "obviously", not "no longer". I wish they'd quit spoofing their User-Agent so it'd be possible to opt out of the new version of this scheme, but they'll only send an accurate header to sites that sign partnership agreements.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- justsee 7y ago
  I followed that episode closely. To claim it demonstrated intentional fraud rather than poor UX and rewards architecture in an early beta (which was immediately fixed) is simply not credible. The only funds flowing through the system at that stage were from Brave's own marketing budget through the form of user grants. The concerns were about theoretical, future issues if Brave ever broke out as a mainstream browser and rewards / payment solution. Even now, a year after the issue was fixed, it remains to be seen whether Brave's payment system draws in anything more than Brave's own distribution of tokens (through grants and ad rewards to users). As an early adopter I'm aware of honest, thoughtful criticisms (browser monoculture with Chromium) and... this is not one of them.
  - pushcx 7y ago
    I didn't just follow it closely, I directly discussed it with Brave developers here and on Twitter at the time and I've continued to have to deal with their fraud for the last year. In their issue tracker an employee specifically called out me blocking them over this[0] to justify continuing to spoof their User-Agent. I am unfortunately still involved by having to burn more volunteer developer time and effort to block them. You claim I didn't make an honest or thoughtful criticism, but you didn't support that by disputing any of my facts or reasoning, and your only defense of Brave is that they were caught too early to successfully defraud anyone. Whether the money was taken directly from end users or indirectly from speculators in their ICO is irrelevant. They falsely represented themselves to users as site owners and they continue to evade responsibility by falsely representing themselves to site owners as different users. It is tediously prudent to want nothing at all to do with a company that does business through misrepresentation as a standard practice. [0] https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/4641#issuecomment-498364043 https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/4641#issuecomm...
cirno 7y ago
BAT was also known for becoming the primary funding mechanism for an infamous website dedicated to stalking and harassing autistic people. This led to a lot of complaints sent to Brendan Eich and his employees, which they were understandably extremely upset about, but they did eventually drop support for said website. It does raise an interesting point, though: at what point does BAT funding cross an ethical line? One can imagine even worse things than stalking being funded if there are no checks. But then defunding anything can be seen as a violation of free speech.
- wutbrodo 7y ago
  Is this any different from ad-funding, and the processes they have in place for approving/rejecting pubs? There's a spectrum between privacy and control over consensual (legal) transactions, but it has nothing to do with Brave.

by erentz 7y ago

fuu_dev 7y ago

There where actually 2 critiques and their practice would count as fraud in a lot of countries. #1 Money was re-distributed if donated and not claimed -> its not frozen infinite. #2 There was no way to opt out -> its now opt in iirc Besides that there are other critique points. #1 Brave is controlling the add economy. They do this by blocking adds and offering their opt in add service(and gain 30% of the add revenue) #2 Brave is using its own crypto currency to have full control over the money flow. What additionally lowers their credibility is that they put false advertisement on their website. This makes me wounder whats the incent to use brave.

buboard 7y ago
> This makes me wounder whats the incent to use brave. with adblockers and google sucking more and more of the advertising pie websites are looking elsewhere for monetization
judge2020 7y ago
By the way, it's just "ad", short for advertisement.
Karunamon 7y ago
I don't quite follow #2. BAT is an ERC20 token like any other and can be quite easily transacted outisde of the browser and outside of Brave's control.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- fuu_dev 7y ago
  Brave created the currency.
  - Karunamon 7y ago
    That doesn't equate to having full control over the monetary flow. They can mint new tokens, but since the contract doesn't have a self destruct function, it's out there on the blockchain forevermore, even if Brave were to disappear tomorrow.

rauchp 7y ago

I've heard that as well, but haven't heard Brave's side of it. Not defending it in anyway. but strategically I feel like Brave should take the money, and just email the creator every 3 months saying you have X amount of money you can claim. Of course, if Brave is just profiting this money that's pretty shitty.

jjeaff 7y ago
Even if they do that, it isn't right. They are removing ads and thus revenue from content creators. They have no right to do that and then skim some profit before paying out. And even if they did, they have no way of knowing if what they are paying is more or less than what the creator would have gotten had their content not been modified.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- tomrod 7y ago
  They have the same right a website has to show me ads. I don't click on links to be advertised to.
  - judge2020 7y ago
    Wait, why should brave get to throw its own ads on example.com? If the little fish and big fish were swapped, would you say the same if Chrome had an [opt-in] box for replacing all non-google ads with doubleclick ones?
    - tomrod 7y ago
      I wasn't clear. Both are unethical in my view, even if one is widely practiced.
  - jjeaff 7y ago
    No, but you can always ignore those ads or not click on the sites that serve them. But in the case of Brave, they are essentially modifying the producers content without their consent.

bdibs 7y ago

From their FAQ: "Publishers must verify ownership of their properties with Brave in order to receive contributions from Brave users. 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."

burtonator 7y ago
Seems more than fair to me if I understand correctly. If you're not accepting money, you don't get to keep it but they give you a buffer of 90 days (which they didn't have to) and if the buffer is exceeded it goes back to the user wallet.
- judge2020 7y ago
  Make no mistake, [IIRC] this was changed only after the backlash.

chance_state 7y ago

I think the answer is "not anymore" based on what's in their FAQ. > Publishers must verify ownership of their properties with Brave in order to receive contributions from Brave users. 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. > Previous versions of the Brave desktop browser worked differently. Until version 0.58.21, released on January 11, 2019, browsers with Brave Rewards enabled would contribute BAT to content creators whether or not they had verified. Brave would then hold contributed funds for those publishers in escrow until they’d verified. https://brave.com/faq/ https://brave.com/faq/

summerlight 7y ago

I also wonder about its legal consequences; If some creators decide to sue them for this issue then what would be the outcome? I don't think I am allowed to freely use some random contents without creator's explicit consent then give back some arbitrary amount of money in the current IP framework.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

pushcx 7y ago

It's changed, but apparently no one was punished for it, or even for the false claim that the funds were held "in escrow" when Brave was holding funds itself and eventually claiming them. When someone commits fraud, gets caught, shows no contrition, and then takes a little step back so it's no longer obviously fraud, I think the emphasis in that sentence needs to be on "obviously", not "no longer". I wish they'd quit spoofing their User-Agent so it'd be possible to opt out of the new version of this scheme, but they'll only send an accurate header to sites that sign partnership agreements.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
justsee 7y ago
I followed that episode closely. To claim it demonstrated intentional fraud rather than poor UX and rewards architecture in an early beta (which was immediately fixed) is simply not credible. The only funds flowing through the system at that stage were from Brave's own marketing budget through the form of user grants. The concerns were about theoretical, future issues if Brave ever broke out as a mainstream browser and rewards / payment solution. Even now, a year after the issue was fixed, it remains to be seen whether Brave's payment system draws in anything more than Brave's own distribution of tokens (through grants and ad rewards to users). As an early adopter I'm aware of honest, thoughtful criticisms (browser monoculture with Chromium) and... this is not one of them.
- pushcx 7y ago
  I didn't just follow it closely, I directly discussed it with Brave developers here and on Twitter at the time and I've continued to have to deal with their fraud for the last year. In their issue tracker an employee specifically called out me blocking them over this[0] to justify continuing to spoof their User-Agent. I am unfortunately still involved by having to burn more volunteer developer time and effort to block them. You claim I didn't make an honest or thoughtful criticism, but you didn't support that by disputing any of my facts or reasoning, and your only defense of Brave is that they were caught too early to successfully defraud anyone. Whether the money was taken directly from end users or indirectly from speculators in their ICO is irrelevant. They falsely represented themselves to users as site owners and they continue to evade responsibility by falsely representing themselves to site owners as different users. It is tediously prudent to want nothing at all to do with a company that does business through misrepresentation as a standard practice. [0] https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/4641#issuecomment-498364043 https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/4641#issuecomm...

cirno 7y ago

BAT was also known for becoming the primary funding mechanism for an infamous website dedicated to stalking and harassing autistic people. This led to a lot of complaints sent to Brendan Eich and his employees, which they were understandably extremely upset about, but they did eventually drop support for said website. It does raise an interesting point, though: at what point does BAT funding cross an ethical line? One can imagine even worse things than stalking being funded if there are no checks. But then defunding anything can be seen as a violation of free speech.

wutbrodo 7y ago
Is this any different from ad-funding, and the processes they have in place for approving/rejecting pubs? There's a spectrum between privacy and control over consensual (legal) transactions, but it has nothing to do with Brave.