5 ms·

The user of the browser is able to use free websites without paywalls that are supported by ads. The user also sees relevant ads rather than irrelevant ones, an

The user of the browser is able to use free websites without paywalls that are supported by ads. The user also sees relevant ads rather than irrelevant ones, and thus has a higher likelihood of seeing a useful ad. Disclosure: I work at Google but not on ads or Chrome.

JoshTriplett 4y ago
If the user is seeing an ad, the browser is not doing as good a job of being an agent for the user as it could and should be.
- jefftk 4y ago
  Do you also feel this way about paywall circumvention logic? To me, this is an example of where a browser trying to be a good agent for users overall separates from a browser trying to be a good agent for any particular user. Yes, selfishly, I would rather skip paywalls and not see ads, but an internet where the browsers did that by default for everyone would be a much worse internet.
  - JoshTriplett 4y ago
    An Internet where browsers suppressed ads by default would be a much better Internet. Yes, sites wouldn't be able to make money from ads. A subset of those sites would not be around; another subset would make use of patronage, subscriptions, selling something of value, "the person who runs this site has other sources of income", or some other model. And some additional sites would be around to fill the gaps. ("paywall circumvention" is a broad topic. I wouldn't want a browser, for instance, integrating "go get the mirrored content from another site" or "mirror paywalled content to other users", but things like "suppress specific popovers that also block scrolling", sure. If you don't want a user to have the content, don't serve it to them and then hide it.)
    - jefftk 4y ago
      > I wouldn't want a browser, for instance, integrating "go get the mirrored content from another site" or "mirror paywalled content to other users" Why not? It sounds like if you accept the role of the browser as "do what is best for this specific user despite the broader consequences" they're worth doing?
      - JoshTriplett 4y ago
        The unfortunate existence of copyright; browsers shouldn't get their users prosecuted. If copyright wasn't a factor, yes, browsers could absolutely support and contribute to mirror networks.
    - Thorrez 4y ago
      Browsers suppressing ads by default leads to the question of what counts as an ad. Borderline cases: sponsored portions of YouTube videos (a la SponsorBlock), videos containing entirely sponsored content, movie trailers, game/software demos, freemium games, free credits for cloud services, product placement, soliciting Patreon subscriptions, sections calling out or listing names of Patreon subscribers, publicly thanking large donors (charities do this), things with ads in the name (e.g. sports arenas and events), things named after donors (e.g. college buildings), soliciting subscriptions to their own subscription service (e.g. Linus Tech Tips YouTube videos promoting Floatplane), soliciting subscriptions to a partnered subscription service (e.g. many youtubers promoting Nebula).
      - jefftk 4y ago
        Brave's answer, at least so far, seems to be that none of these borderline cases are ads.
  - freediver 4y ago
    Browser should behave in the best interest of the user. The best interest of the user in 99.99% of cases is not to see ads (which also come with associated tracking, invasion of privacy, using your bandwidth - all things that the user did not ask for). What the user wants is content. So there are two scenarios: a) content is worth it so the user would pay to access it (for example $0.01 aka micropayments which browsers refuse to natively implement and automate; we can argue why in the light that all three mainstream browsers are directly or indirectly ad-supported and micropayments are an anti-thesis to ads) b) content is worth it and it is not behind a paywall (this is what most high quality content on the web is actually nowadays - wikipedia, hacker news or your own blog and blogs of many other people are examples) In the event that content is not worth it (which is sadly true for most ad/affiliate/tracking monetized content on the web today) the user should have these two options: a) not read it (probably best for them) b) have their browser block ads/tracking, to at least make it consumable and privacy respecting In other words the websites wanting to monetize their content should totally be in the position where they need to make that content good enough to be worth something to someone, otherwise why would humanity care about their existence?
    - jefftk 4y ago
      > content is worth it so the user would pay to access it Users have very widely varying amounts of money. Universal paywalls would hit poorer readers far harder than richer ones. They would also push towards centralization via bundling. > micropayments which browsers refuse to natively implement and automate I have yet to see a good micropayments proposal, despite 25+y (https://www.w3.org/Conferences/WWW4/Papers/246/ https://www.w3.org/Conferences/WWW4/Papers/246/) of work on the project. Among other things, they tend to have similar privacy properties to third-party cookies ("third parties can learn every site you visit"). > content is worth it and it is not behind a paywall (this is what most high quality content on the web is actually nowadays - wikipedia, hacker news or your own blog and blogs of many other people are examples) Hacker News has ads (paid links on the front page for job openings), and Wikipedia has fundraising banners (which many adblockers block). My blog is funded just by me as a hobby project, yes, but most of what I (and I suspect you) read on the web isn't.

JoshTriplett 4y ago

If the user is seeing an ad, the browser is not doing as good a job of being an agent for the user as it could and should be.

jefftk 4y ago
Do you also feel this way about paywall circumvention logic? To me, this is an example of where a browser trying to be a good agent for users overall separates from a browser trying to be a good agent for any particular user. Yes, selfishly, I would rather skip paywalls and not see ads, but an internet where the browsers did that by default for everyone would be a much worse internet.
- JoshTriplett 4y ago
  An Internet where browsers suppressed ads by default would be a much better Internet. Yes, sites wouldn't be able to make money from ads. A subset of those sites would not be around; another subset would make use of patronage, subscriptions, selling something of value, "the person who runs this site has other sources of income", or some other model. And some additional sites would be around to fill the gaps. ("paywall circumvention" is a broad topic. I wouldn't want a browser, for instance, integrating "go get the mirrored content from another site" or "mirror paywalled content to other users", but things like "suppress specific popovers that also block scrolling", sure. If you don't want a user to have the content, don't serve it to them and then hide it.)
  - jefftk 4y ago
    > I wouldn't want a browser, for instance, integrating "go get the mirrored content from another site" or "mirror paywalled content to other users" Why not? It sounds like if you accept the role of the browser as "do what is best for this specific user despite the broader consequences" they're worth doing?
    - JoshTriplett 4y ago
      The unfortunate existence of copyright; browsers shouldn't get their users prosecuted. If copyright wasn't a factor, yes, browsers could absolutely support and contribute to mirror networks.
  - Thorrez 4y ago
    Browsers suppressing ads by default leads to the question of what counts as an ad. Borderline cases: sponsored portions of YouTube videos (a la SponsorBlock), videos containing entirely sponsored content, movie trailers, game/software demos, freemium games, free credits for cloud services, product placement, soliciting Patreon subscriptions, sections calling out or listing names of Patreon subscribers, publicly thanking large donors (charities do this), things with ads in the name (e.g. sports arenas and events), things named after donors (e.g. college buildings), soliciting subscriptions to their own subscription service (e.g. Linus Tech Tips YouTube videos promoting Floatplane), soliciting subscriptions to a partnered subscription service (e.g. many youtubers promoting Nebula).
    - jefftk 4y ago
      Brave's answer, at least so far, seems to be that none of these borderline cases are ads.
- freediver 4y ago
  Browser should behave in the best interest of the user. The best interest of the user in 99.99% of cases is not to see ads (which also come with associated tracking, invasion of privacy, using your bandwidth - all things that the user did not ask for). What the user wants is content. So there are two scenarios: a) content is worth it so the user would pay to access it (for example $0.01 aka micropayments which browsers refuse to natively implement and automate; we can argue why in the light that all three mainstream browsers are directly or indirectly ad-supported and micropayments are an anti-thesis to ads) b) content is worth it and it is not behind a paywall (this is what most high quality content on the web is actually nowadays - wikipedia, hacker news or your own blog and blogs of many other people are examples) In the event that content is not worth it (which is sadly true for most ad/affiliate/tracking monetized content on the web today) the user should have these two options: a) not read it (probably best for them) b) have their browser block ads/tracking, to at least make it consumable and privacy respecting In other words the websites wanting to monetize their content should totally be in the position where they need to make that content good enough to be worth something to someone, otherwise why would humanity care about their existence?
  - jefftk 4y ago
    > content is worth it so the user would pay to access it Users have very widely varying amounts of money. Universal paywalls would hit poorer readers far harder than richer ones. They would also push towards centralization via bundling. > micropayments which browsers refuse to natively implement and automate I have yet to see a good micropayments proposal, despite 25+y (https://www.w3.org/Conferences/WWW4/Papers/246/ https://www.w3.org/Conferences/WWW4/Papers/246/) of work on the project. Among other things, they tend to have similar privacy properties to third-party cookies ("third parties can learn every site you visit"). > content is worth it and it is not behind a paywall (this is what most high quality content on the web is actually nowadays - wikipedia, hacker news or your own blog and blogs of many other people are examples) Hacker News has ads (paid links on the front page for job openings), and Wikipedia has fundraising banners (which many adblockers block). My blog is funded just by me as a hobby project, yes, but most of what I (and I suspect you) read on the web isn't.