3 ms·

Do you have a rebuttal that's NOT an ad hominem?

TylerE 6y ago
Do I need one? They're clearly speaking as a neutral source when to anyone with an ounce of knowledge they have a biased agenda. Would you take an article from 1990's Microsoft about how Apple is evil seriously? Also, pointing out a conflict of interest isn't ad hominem. I didn't call them nazis or morons.
- BrendanEich 6y ago
  We don't make revenue from ads in pages, or lose revenue if Google smuggles ads into SWF-like WebBundles via AMP imposed on publishers under pain of search rank loss. Brave user ads fill user inventory, not in-page ad slots (perhaps you heard misinformation claiming otherwise). So even as an ad hominem rhetorical ploy, what you wrote doesn't work.
  - Akkuma 6y ago
    I'm not here to agree with the who you responded to, but Google smuggling unblockable ads does 100% harm Brave. If part of Brave's selling point is the built-in ad blocking and in a hypothetical dystopian scenario the web were overrun with unblockable ads from WebBundles Brave would inevitably be harmed to some degree. I say that as someone who runs Brave on my phone primarily. I know I'd probably switch browsers if one of the primary reasons to use it were largely killed off.
    - BrendanEich 6y ago
      If AMP2.0 emerges with ads and tracking embedded in bundles, we will not lose money from those ads. Our performance and battery+dataplan savings will be gone, but we will be no worse than Chrome for such content. Because Apple and likely other browsers will not adopt SXG etc, such AMP2 content will have to include a fallback link (as AMP does today). We may in such a scenario automatically prefer the non-AMP2 content. In any case, your argument fails because we are no worse off in the worst case, and in better cases we still block many requests for greater user wins.
- Ensorceled 6y ago
  Actually "pointing out a conflict of interest" IS an ad hominem https://fallacyinlogic.com/ad-hominem-fallacy/ https://fallacyinlogic.com/ad-hominem-fallacy/

Do I need one? They're clearly speaking as a neutral source when to anyone with an ounce of knowledge they have a biased agenda. Would you take an article from 1990's Microsoft about how Apple is evil seriously? Also, pointing out a conflict of interest isn't ad hominem. I didn't call them nazis or morons.

BrendanEich 6y ago
We don't make revenue from ads in pages, or lose revenue if Google smuggles ads into SWF-like WebBundles via AMP imposed on publishers under pain of search rank loss. Brave user ads fill user inventory, not in-page ad slots (perhaps you heard misinformation claiming otherwise). So even as an ad hominem rhetorical ploy, what you wrote doesn't work.
- Akkuma 6y ago
  I'm not here to agree with the who you responded to, but Google smuggling unblockable ads does 100% harm Brave. If part of Brave's selling point is the built-in ad blocking and in a hypothetical dystopian scenario the web were overrun with unblockable ads from WebBundles Brave would inevitably be harmed to some degree. I say that as someone who runs Brave on my phone primarily. I know I'd probably switch browsers if one of the primary reasons to use it were largely killed off.
  - BrendanEich 6y ago
    If AMP2.0 emerges with ads and tracking embedded in bundles, we will not lose money from those ads. Our performance and battery+dataplan savings will be gone, but we will be no worse than Chrome for such content. Because Apple and likely other browsers will not adopt SXG etc, such AMP2 content will have to include a fallback link (as AMP does today). We may in such a scenario automatically prefer the non-AMP2 content. In any case, your argument fails because we are no worse off in the worst case, and in better cases we still block many requests for greater user wins.
Ensorceled 6y ago
Actually "pointing out a conflict of interest" IS an ad hominem https://fallacyinlogic.com/ad-hominem-fallacy/ https://fallacyinlogic.com/ad-hominem-fallacy/