4 ms·
Never looked at Brave’s business model - and agree, it’s possibly more toxic than ADs. That being Brave wants you to buy their currency to pay creators then th
by billme 6y ago
Never looked at Brave’s business model - and agree, it’s possibly more toxic than ADs. That being Brave wants you to buy their currency to pay creators then the creators pay them to get paid. On top of that, they created their own AD network and are paying out 70% of profits to the users, which sounds like huge conflict of interest.
EDIT: Appears Brave is even holding payments in escrow for parties that did not even sign up to receive payments, that’s not shady at all. Even makes me wonder what’s happening to all the funds in escrow.
- sieabahlpark 6y agoYou could also just not spend any money and leave that feature disabled.
- artificial 6y agoNever, then that will completely nullify the ability to be outraged on others behalf and complain about it! I wonder if these are the folks that mash every button on the elevator, because everything must be enabled?
- billme 6y agoExactly how do I know Brave has not collected funds for me, but hasn’t told me?
- artificial 6y agoHow do I know if there is an answer to this question if I haven't searched?
- vorpalhex 6y agoAnd you could use Facebook and disable every tracking feature and hope they're honest. When someone does shady things in one area.. they probably do them in others.
- ViViDboarder 6y agoWhat then differentiates it from Firefox?
- mthoms 6y agoCompatibility with Chrome, its plugin ecosystem, and developer tools — but without the Google integration. It's got some competitors in this respect though. Namely Vivaldi and Edge.
- arcticbull 6y agoWorse they accept payment on behalf of creators who haven't even signed up. Surprised that's even legal. It's come up here before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18734999 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18734999
- BrendanEich 6y agoWe quickly (by January 2019) corrected a mistake shipped in December 2018, so please update your priors on us. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20290942 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20290942. Repeating out of date information _per se_ and to ascribe malice is never justified, whatever you think of ads.
- arcticbull 6y agoI haven't investigated it since that thread, so I don't know what changes were made. Apologies if it was corrected and resolved, I'll check it out again, and assuming it has I certainly have no interest in spreading misinformation. However, I think the idea that telling people you were going to be collecting money on behalf of someone, not letting them know, and just keeping it isn't likely to have been some small "whoopsie." Building a system to let people know didn't happen by accident. The $100 threshold wasn't an oversight. Not including visual differentiation between verified and unverified creators wasn't a slip-up. These had to have been purposeful and thought-out decisions. I don't think the idea was to steal as much BAT as possible from would-be donors, it felt like a growth hack: you know, make it seem like Brave works everywhere, then one day when it is, we can all forget about the fake-it-till-you-make-it bit. Which is normally fine, but people tend to get defensive about their money.
- billme 6y agoFeel free to explain how exactly Brave’s actions were not intentional, this wasn’t just a bug, but series of intentional actions via code, interfaces, emails, documentation, internal policies, etc. Further, comments, tweets, etc. generally are not the best way to communicate issues as complex as this, nor do I feel it the public’s job to clean up or go out of their way. You made a mess, you clean it up. (You appears to be serial down voting; classy.)