4 ms·

Of course! And while that is a valid point, my issue is not that you can turn them on or off - it's the fact that they are there. Again -I totally understand

by xNeil 5y ago

Of course! And while that is a valid point, my issue is not that you can turn them on or off - it's the fact that they are there. Again -I totally understand they have to make money. This is only my opinion - that's all - but it just seems wrong to replace someone else's ads with your own.

waltherg 5y ago
I thought the point of those ads wasn't that Brave make money but that you accrue those Brave tokens as a representation of your attention and get to send those tokens to publishers of your choice via the browser? Also, I turned them off as these ads are quite annoying and have a "cheap feel" to them.
- xNeil 5y ago
  Brave does make money off of them - they get 30%, you get 70%, I believe. And yes, the idea of sending BAT to websites directly was excellent. The website needs to have registered for the BAT wallet though. (Not a big deal, of course)
jarenmf 5y ago
I think it's a valid point for discussion but they deliver the ads through a different mechanism (system notifications). So it's a bit different than replacing the ads of other web pages.
- xNeil 5y ago
  Not disputing your point at all - genuinely! But would you be fine if Google started serving you ads in your notifications? I'm just rephrasing it, because for some reason it would be creepier for me if Google served ads in notifications - but that may just be me.
eredengrin 5y ago
> it just seems wrong to replace someone else's ads with your own. I can see how it might feel scummy to do this, but on the other hand, from a rational perspective I'm having a tough time seeing what's wrong with it. If it's because it's taking away revenue from the party serving the ads, then replacing the ads is no worse than blocking ads entirely. If it's because the organization blocking the ads is directly benefiting as a result, I'd argue that's already happening just by blocking ads, just not necessarily in a direct monetary manner.
- xNeil 5y ago
  That's a very fair point, I had not thought of it in that way at all. I guess they are two ways of approaching it - 1. Brave is replacing Google Ads with their own ads. 2. Brave already blocks Google Ads, they might as well make some money while doing so and add their own. Funnily, I don't find either of these wrong, so I'm not sure which one to believe. I'd love to hear your opinion on it though!
  - eredengrin 5y ago
    There's a lot of ways to look at this and I could easily write a few essays on it. At least for myself though, I don't personally view it as a bad thing. Blocking ads is the only questionable part of the story, but in my view that's just a matter of not displaying the full contents of the page so I find it hard to incriminate. Anything after that (including displaying other ads) is unrelated. At the end of the day I hope the brave model catches on - not only are the brave ads more ethical since the ads are served locally (ie no user tracking server side), but my understanding is you can also fill up your wallet with your own money and then use that for the micro-transactions given to each site you visit, which gives you the choice to still support the ecosystem but without ads being necessary. Unfortunately brave is not easy for me to use for other reasons but if it ever got big enough maybe they'd make a Firefox extension or something so I could at least plug into the payment system without all the other blocking/brave ads features.
- jay_kyburz 5y ago
  > I'm having a tough time seeing what's wrong with it I block ads so that I will not be manipulated into buying things I don't want or need. I'm defending myself from an assault on my ego and self worth. I'm not making money, I'm just consuming content that people have chosen to make public. When Brave replaces the ads of a website they are just stealing the content and selling it.
  - eredengrin 5y ago
    Blocking ads and serving up new ads are entirely different procedures. It would be entirely technically possible for brave to show brave ads in addition to the existing ads on a page. It is also possible for users to turn off ads entirely (including the brave ads). You can't just lump these two separate steps together, they are independent, and the only part of it that might directly harm the original site/page creators is blocking the original ads. Serving up new ads is no different than what the site creators themselves are already doing for their own work.
imwillofficial 5y ago
I think it’s a matter of perspective. Those who serve ads might see them as a way to fund their services. However, we see this being abused on a near daily basis, by not only service operators, but by ad networks themselves. The flip side is, from a user perspective, nobody has a right to run ads on my machine I don’t want. Brave solves for that. Shows me ads I opt into, and gives a mechanism for service operators to get paid. Is it perfect? No, but I think it hits close to the target.

by xNeil 5y ago

waltherg 5y ago

I thought the point of those ads wasn't that Brave make money but that you accrue those Brave tokens as a representation of your attention and get to send those tokens to publishers of your choice via the browser? Also, I turned them off as these ads are quite annoying and have a "cheap feel" to them.

xNeil 5y ago
Brave does make money off of them - they get 30%, you get 70%, I believe. And yes, the idea of sending BAT to websites directly was excellent. The website needs to have registered for the BAT wallet though. (Not a big deal, of course)

jarenmf 5y ago

I think it's a valid point for discussion but they deliver the ads through a different mechanism (system notifications). So it's a bit different than replacing the ads of other web pages.

xNeil 5y ago
Not disputing your point at all - genuinely! But would you be fine if Google started serving you ads in your notifications? I'm just rephrasing it, because for some reason it would be creepier for me if Google served ads in notifications - but that may just be me.

eredengrin 5y ago

> it just seems wrong to replace someone else's ads with your own. I can see how it might feel scummy to do this, but on the other hand, from a rational perspective I'm having a tough time seeing what's wrong with it. If it's because it's taking away revenue from the party serving the ads, then replacing the ads is no worse than blocking ads entirely. If it's because the organization blocking the ads is directly benefiting as a result, I'd argue that's already happening just by blocking ads, just not necessarily in a direct monetary manner.

xNeil 5y ago
That's a very fair point, I had not thought of it in that way at all. I guess they are two ways of approaching it - 1. Brave is replacing Google Ads with their own ads. 2. Brave already blocks Google Ads, they might as well make some money while doing so and add their own. Funnily, I don't find either of these wrong, so I'm not sure which one to believe. I'd love to hear your opinion on it though!
- eredengrin 5y ago
  There's a lot of ways to look at this and I could easily write a few essays on it. At least for myself though, I don't personally view it as a bad thing. Blocking ads is the only questionable part of the story, but in my view that's just a matter of not displaying the full contents of the page so I find it hard to incriminate. Anything after that (including displaying other ads) is unrelated. At the end of the day I hope the brave model catches on - not only are the brave ads more ethical since the ads are served locally (ie no user tracking server side), but my understanding is you can also fill up your wallet with your own money and then use that for the micro-transactions given to each site you visit, which gives you the choice to still support the ecosystem but without ads being necessary. Unfortunately brave is not easy for me to use for other reasons but if it ever got big enough maybe they'd make a Firefox extension or something so I could at least plug into the payment system without all the other blocking/brave ads features.
jay_kyburz 5y ago
> I'm having a tough time seeing what's wrong with it I block ads so that I will not be manipulated into buying things I don't want or need. I'm defending myself from an assault on my ego and self worth. I'm not making money, I'm just consuming content that people have chosen to make public. When Brave replaces the ads of a website they are just stealing the content and selling it.
- eredengrin 5y ago
  Blocking ads and serving up new ads are entirely different procedures. It would be entirely technically possible for brave to show brave ads in addition to the existing ads on a page. It is also possible for users to turn off ads entirely (including the brave ads). You can't just lump these two separate steps together, they are independent, and the only part of it that might directly harm the original site/page creators is blocking the original ads. Serving up new ads is no different than what the site creators themselves are already doing for their own work.

imwillofficial 5y ago

I think it’s a matter of perspective. Those who serve ads might see them as a way to fund their services. However, we see this being abused on a near daily basis, by not only service operators, but by ad networks themselves. The flip side is, from a user perspective, nobody has a right to run ads on my machine I don’t want. Brave solves for that. Shows me ads I opt into, and gives a mechanism for service operators to get paid. Is it perfect? No, but I think it hits close to the target.