2 ms·

1st party ads aren't blocked. So if that developer wanted to monetize with ads, they're totally free to do so. The dividing line is privacy invading third-part

• drusepth 7y ago
  >1st party ads aren't blocked. So if that developer wanted to monetize with ads, they're totally free to do so. They're only free to do so in Brave's eyes if they roll their own ad solution, which is an option but not _always_ the best option. The "easy" (and, arguably, more featureful/secure/"better") route to monetize across the Internet (especially on hobby projects and small businesses) is third-party ads. There's lots of reasons someone might weigh the options and make the decision to go with a third party ad provider; Brave takes that decision away. Whether that's better or worse for the Internet as a whole is debatable.
  • songshuu 7y ago
    Your response did not address privacy which was the main thrust of my point. wrt third-party ads being more secure... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malvertising https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malvertising You also point the arrow of causality in the wrong direction. It's not as though Brave magically shows up on devices. The current ecosystem and its host of problems (including privacy and security) are precisely why users are choosing adblockers of all stripes. In Brave's case, at least they're conscientious enough to provide an alternative path to monetization for creators.