3 ms·

I said I would pay for it, never said anything about viability and not offering an opinion there. There are choices not built around extraneous ad networks. Wh

I said I would pay for it, never said anything about viability and not offering an opinion there. There are choices not built around extraneous ad networks. When Google places ads for its own products in better places than their customers that are paying for ad space we call that anti-competitive. When Brave blocks web ads and then offers their own ads instead you cheer it on, this is the same kind of anti-competitive practice. Not everything needs to be free in exchange for ads/tracking/marketing.

rglullis 5y ago
Your last paragraph contradicts the first. If things can not be "free", then there needs to exist a viable business model for it. Yeah, we can have always something niche, but to have something of the mass scale like a web browser you need to have serious resources being allocated to it. > Google places ads (...) in better places than their customers (...) we call that anti-competitive. When Brave blocks web ads then offers their own ads (...) is the same kind. No, not at all. On Google's case, they are getting money from an advertiser and giving them a worse value. They also take a lot of money from them based on fraudulent impressions which are hard to contest. Brave has two separate actions: one, to block ads on the webpage. The other, to serve ad notifications from their own network. The first is an action that is done by the user, for their own benefit. They could be using Brave, or they could be someone using uBlock on Firefox, it doesn't matter. When Brave blocks an ad on a page, they block for the benefit of the user, not for their own. As a matter of fact, only recently I realized that Brave's default blocking behavior is not as aggressive as I'd like, they still don't block first-party ads. It's on the latter that Brave makes their money, and when they do their job well they are delivering more value to their customers (the advertisers) and for the end-users who opted-in and want to have a share of the revenue. The only ones losing value on this are those that insist on using ad networks with third-party scripts and cookies. To those I say good riddance.

rglullis 5y ago

Your last paragraph contradicts the first. If things can not be "free", then there needs to exist a viable business model for it. Yeah, we can have always something niche, but to have something of the mass scale like a web browser you need to have serious resources being allocated to it. > Google places ads (...) in better places than their customers (...) we call that anti-competitive. When Brave blocks web ads then offers their own ads (...) is the same kind. No, not at all. On Google's case, they are getting money from an advertiser and giving them a worse value. They also take a lot of money from them based on fraudulent impressions which are hard to contest. Brave has two separate actions: one, to block ads on the webpage. The other, to serve ad notifications from their own network. The first is an action that is done by the user, for their own benefit. They could be using Brave, or they could be someone using uBlock on Firefox, it doesn't matter. When Brave blocks an ad on a page, they block for the benefit of the user, not for their own. As a matter of fact, only recently I realized that Brave's default blocking behavior is not as aggressive as I'd like, they still don't block first-party ads. It's on the latter that Brave makes their money, and when they do their job well they are delivering more value to their customers (the advertisers) and for the end-users who opted-in and want to have a share of the revenue. The only ones losing value on this are those that insist on using ad networks with third-party scripts and cookies. To those I say good riddance.