4 ms·

> The other 30 percent goes right to Brave's pockets. In other words, they directly profit off of showing you advertisements. Correct. We are able to continue

> The other 30 percent goes right to Brave's pockets. In other words, they directly profit off of showing you advertisements. Correct. We are able to continue developing Brave with the remaining 30%. In this arrangement, the user chooses whether or not to opt-in, governs the degree to which they will participate, receives more than 2x what Brave gets, and never has their data harvested in the process. Win-win, no? Regarding the Tom Scott topic, you're quite mistaken there as well. Please see this response (to another user in this thread) for context: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31086397 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31086397. Brave offers auto-conversion of received BAT into various other types of assets and currencies. If you prefer Bitcoin, for example, you can choose to have your BAT automatically converted into that asset. No requirement to hold BAT.

aww_dang 4y ago
My only problem is the KYC. I'm happy people are making money with ads. The KYC stuff is contrary to the privacy narrative. Fix that and I'm sold as a user, publisher and ad buyer.
- jonathansampson 4y ago
  KYC isn't required for users. You can download Brave, opt-in to Rewards, earn BAT, and support content creators across the Web, and all without KYC. But if you wish to deposit/withdraw, then KYC is required (by relevant AML laws/regulations). Brave can't break the law if we wish to reform the Web into a privacy-preserving medium for communication and more. It's not up to us whether KYC is part of the equation; we have to follow the law.
  - aww_dang 4y ago
    Move to a different country that respects freedom. There are full exchanges with no KYC.
smoldesu 4y ago
> Correct. We are able to continue developing Brave with the remaining 30%. In this arrangement, the user chooses whether or not to opt-in, governs the degree to which they will participate, receives more than 2x what Brave gets, and never has their data harvested in the process. Win-win, no? Not really? There's no reason you should be entitled to that money. You're effectively doing nothing in this scenario: at least traditional ads actually support the content that is delivered on the site you access. Blocking ads isn't morally objectionable, but playing the role of the middleman and the tax collector certainly is. You can pretend like you deserve the compensation all you want, but from a technical level it's a pretty petty move that's ultimately designed to take advantage of the end-user and turn them into revenue-generating cattle. Yes, they get more money per ad, but they also don't have the benefit of scale. Individually, these users make what, no more than $3 a month from opting-in to ads? Meanwhile, Brave pockets hundreds of thousands. It doesn't add up. > Regarding the Tom Scott topic, you're quite mistaken there as well. Please see this response (to another user in this thread) for context So, I wasn't mistaken. Reading through that comment, you're basically admitting that you made a mistake, and had to rush out an update as damage control for a pretty obviously dark pattern. Case closed, don't treat me like a moron. > Brave offers auto-conversion of received BAT into various other types of assets and currencies. If you prefer Bitcoin, for example, you can choose to have your BAT automatically converted into that asset. No requirement to hold BAT. But you still need to hold crypto. That's not a refutation for the ERC-20 wallet point. Ultimately, I think the Brave team is falling into the self-righteous Apple trap. Pretending like you always know what's best for your users and hiding behind a guise of privacy is pretty laughable, and it certainly doesn't make for good optics in the eyes of the greater FOSS and privacy community.

aww_dang 4y ago

My only problem is the KYC. I'm happy people are making money with ads. The KYC stuff is contrary to the privacy narrative. Fix that and I'm sold as a user, publisher and ad buyer.

jonathansampson 4y ago
KYC isn't required for users. You can download Brave, opt-in to Rewards, earn BAT, and support content creators across the Web, and all without KYC. But if you wish to deposit/withdraw, then KYC is required (by relevant AML laws/regulations). Brave can't break the law if we wish to reform the Web into a privacy-preserving medium for communication and more. It's not up to us whether KYC is part of the equation; we have to follow the law.
- aww_dang 4y ago
  Move to a different country that respects freedom. There are full exchanges with no KYC.

smoldesu 4y ago

> Correct. We are able to continue developing Brave with the remaining 30%. In this arrangement, the user chooses whether or not to opt-in, governs the degree to which they will participate, receives more than 2x what Brave gets, and never has their data harvested in the process. Win-win, no? Not really? There's no reason you should be entitled to that money. You're effectively doing nothing in this scenario: at least traditional ads actually support the content that is delivered on the site you access. Blocking ads isn't morally objectionable, but playing the role of the middleman and the tax collector certainly is. You can pretend like you deserve the compensation all you want, but from a technical level it's a pretty petty move that's ultimately designed to take advantage of the end-user and turn them into revenue-generating cattle. Yes, they get more money per ad, but they also don't have the benefit of scale. Individually, these users make what, no more than $3 a month from opting-in to ads? Meanwhile, Brave pockets hundreds of thousands. It doesn't add up. > Regarding the Tom Scott topic, you're quite mistaken there as well. Please see this response (to another user in this thread) for context So, I wasn't mistaken. Reading through that comment, you're basically admitting that you made a mistake, and had to rush out an update as damage control for a pretty obviously dark pattern. Case closed, don't treat me like a moron. > Brave offers auto-conversion of received BAT into various other types of assets and currencies. If you prefer Bitcoin, for example, you can choose to have your BAT automatically converted into that asset. No requirement to hold BAT. But you still need to hold crypto. That's not a refutation for the ERC-20 wallet point. Ultimately, I think the Brave team is falling into the self-righteous Apple trap. Pretending like you always know what's best for your users and hiding behind a guise of privacy is pretty laughable, and it certainly doesn't make for good optics in the eyes of the greater FOSS and privacy community.