4 ms·

> There is no "their BAT system". It's all on the blockchain. What I mean is Brave‘s specific Browser integration that creates a compensation scheme for publis

> There is no "their BAT system". It's all on the blockchain. What I mean is Brave‘s specific Browser integration that creates a compensation scheme for publishers. I would only support such a system if it doesn‘t put Brave a privileged gatekeeper position. I’m not sure which other alternatives you‘re talking about specifically, but I have explained many times elsewhere in this debate why I see subscription based services as an additional loss of privacy and why I don‘t believe that there can ever be a widely used general purpose system of anonymous electronic payments. But I do believe that a Brave style system could work if it can be structured in away that does not allow one company to impose content restrictions.

rglullis 6y ago
It's an ad network. There is nothing stopping other browsers to adopt it. There is nothing stopping other companies to create a similar alternative. There is nothing stopping a publisher to get an advertisement deal and place an ad on their website; as long as it does not use third-party cookies or tracks you in any way, it won't be blocked. > subscription based services (...) loss of privacy (...) there can ever be a widely used general purpose system of anonymous electronic payments. Look, I am not trying to sell you anything ok? I don't work at Brave and I am not interested in doing shilling for any specific cryptotoken. It's okay if you want to say "I don't want to pay for content that I am now getting for free. It's also okay to say "I don't mind having my data exploited in exchange of a few dollars that can go to content producers and publishers". The only things that you are saying that are total BS is that (1) ad-tech is less of threat to privacy than a digital economy based on crypto and (2) that no alternative currently exist. Your argument against usage of cryptocurrency for payments is just concern trolling. You are presenting a very, very unlikely hypothetical (companies might be required to collect user data to accept payments) in order to justify the status quo. Likewise, you are making these near-impossible demands from a company that has a fraction of the market share on a trillion dollar industry while having no qualms with all of the ethical violations from the dominant oligarchy. Again, concern trolling.
- fauigerzigerk 6y ago
  Why don't you stop accusing me of things I never said and never remotely intended to imply? I'm not accusing you of anything either. I wasn't thinking for a moment that you were trying to sell me something or that you were shilling. It's a simple disagreement. I'm unconvinced by the case you're making for specific alternatives. That doesn't mean I'm happy with the status quo. You have said absolutely nothing to show that Brave would not be in a position to impose content restrictions if their system turned out to be successful. My concerns about cryptocurrencies are anything but hypothetical. The authorities are extremely jumpy about cryptocurrencies. Regulation is already well under way. There have been crackdowns on crypto exchanges all over the world. Banks are suspending accounts left and right. I was personally invited by the local tax authorities to take part in a consultation on the subject. And have you not noticed what happened when Facebook threatened to introduce a payment system that only so much as mentioned the word cryptocurrency? It was absolutely crushed before it even got off the ground. Granted, a lot of the concerns were related to Facebook's oligopolist status. But there were also huge concerns about the possibility of widespread money laundering, tax evasion and funding of terrorism. What we need is a system that inherently limits the size of any financial transactions that a single party can initiate. That is very difficult to do while guaranteeing anonymity. Let's not accuse each other of bad faith when what we're talking about is simply a difficult problem that many have tried to solve with very limited success.
  - rglullis 6y ago
    The only problem is that your default position is to keep accepting the status quo. Looking into any alternative is a free option. It doesn't cost you anything and you can always go back to the default position if it doesn't satisfy you. So, if you are not happy with the status quo, just try the alternative (any alternative!) and see for yourself where its limitations and problems are. > The authorities are extremely jumpy about cryptocurrencies. Regulation is already well under way. Regulation already exists. It is due to the regulation, for instance, that Brave requires you to do KYC if you want to get the money out of their wallet and into your own. It is due to regulation that exchanges that do not comply with the law are getting crackdowns. This is not an argument. This is FUD. > Let's not accuse each other of bad faith when what we're talking about is simply a difficult problem that many have tried to solve with very limited success. If the status quo was not harmful for society as it is, I wouldn't be nagging you about it. But this whole thread started with you claiming that accepting ad-tech's destruction of privacy is less of a problem than any alternative proposed so far. This is not a "simple disagreement"; it's plain wrong.

rglullis 6y ago

It's an ad network. There is nothing stopping other browsers to adopt it. There is nothing stopping other companies to create a similar alternative. There is nothing stopping a publisher to get an advertisement deal and place an ad on their website; as long as it does not use third-party cookies or tracks you in any way, it won't be blocked. > subscription based services (...) loss of privacy (...) there can ever be a widely used general purpose system of anonymous electronic payments. Look, I am not trying to sell you anything ok? I don't work at Brave and I am not interested in doing shilling for any specific cryptotoken. It's okay if you want to say "I don't want to pay for content that I am now getting for free. It's also okay to say "I don't mind having my data exploited in exchange of a few dollars that can go to content producers and publishers". The only things that you are saying that are total BS is that (1) ad-tech is less of threat to privacy than a digital economy based on crypto and (2) that no alternative currently exist. Your argument against usage of cryptocurrency for payments is just concern trolling. You are presenting a very, very unlikely hypothetical (companies might be required to collect user data to accept payments) in order to justify the status quo. Likewise, you are making these near-impossible demands from a company that has a fraction of the market share on a trillion dollar industry while having no qualms with all of the ethical violations from the dominant oligarchy. Again, concern trolling.

fauigerzigerk 6y ago
Why don't you stop accusing me of things I never said and never remotely intended to imply? I'm not accusing you of anything either. I wasn't thinking for a moment that you were trying to sell me something or that you were shilling. It's a simple disagreement. I'm unconvinced by the case you're making for specific alternatives. That doesn't mean I'm happy with the status quo. You have said absolutely nothing to show that Brave would not be in a position to impose content restrictions if their system turned out to be successful. My concerns about cryptocurrencies are anything but hypothetical. The authorities are extremely jumpy about cryptocurrencies. Regulation is already well under way. There have been crackdowns on crypto exchanges all over the world. Banks are suspending accounts left and right. I was personally invited by the local tax authorities to take part in a consultation on the subject. And have you not noticed what happened when Facebook threatened to introduce a payment system that only so much as mentioned the word cryptocurrency? It was absolutely crushed before it even got off the ground. Granted, a lot of the concerns were related to Facebook's oligopolist status. But there were also huge concerns about the possibility of widespread money laundering, tax evasion and funding of terrorism. What we need is a system that inherently limits the size of any financial transactions that a single party can initiate. That is very difficult to do while guaranteeing anonymity. Let's not accuse each other of bad faith when what we're talking about is simply a difficult problem that many have tried to solve with very limited success.
- rglullis 6y ago
  The only problem is that your default position is to keep accepting the status quo. Looking into any alternative is a free option. It doesn't cost you anything and you can always go back to the default position if it doesn't satisfy you. So, if you are not happy with the status quo, just try the alternative (any alternative!) and see for yourself where its limitations and problems are. > The authorities are extremely jumpy about cryptocurrencies. Regulation is already well under way. Regulation already exists. It is due to the regulation, for instance, that Brave requires you to do KYC if you want to get the money out of their wallet and into your own. It is due to regulation that exchanges that do not comply with the law are getting crackdowns. This is not an argument. This is FUD. > Let's not accuse each other of bad faith when what we're talking about is simply a difficult problem that many have tried to solve with very limited success. If the status quo was not harmful for society as it is, I wouldn't be nagging you about it. But this whole thread started with you claiming that accepting ad-tech's destruction of privacy is less of a problem than any alternative proposed so far. This is not a "simple disagreement"; it's plain wrong.