3 ms·

How can you argue it's not a scam? The BAT Cryptocurrency is merely used as a mechanism to justify stealing profits from website owners. It literally has no oth

by Teandw 4y ago

How can you argue it's not a scam? The BAT Cryptocurrency is merely used as a mechanism to justify stealing profits from website owners. It literally has no other use or value? The whole point of BAT is to reward people from removing ads placed by website owners and allow Brave to display ads of their own choosing and profit from websites that they have no involvement with. It could actually be argued the whole 'privacy' angle they use is merely a way to justify the whole idea of ad-swapping. It's no different to what Apple have done with advertising of late. Of course they justify this by saying the websites can take a cut, but that's only if the website owners know about it and forced against their will to do it.

Dylan16807 4y ago
I'm pretty sure you're wrong about ad-swapping, but even assuming you're right about the details, who is being scammed? If it's the website owners, I need you to explain what makes this worse to them than adblock. Because adblock isn't a scam.
- Teandw 4y ago
  I didn't mention that they ad-swap. I just refer to the fact they remove ads on the website but then display ads through the browser in terms of push notifications etc. I'd argue that website owners are being scammed by a company stealing profits. Brave is literally going "We don't think you should earn money from your visitors because of factors we decide, but we're going to show people on your website OUR ads because we picked them." Adblock is just as bad. They block all ads and then go "If you've got plenty of money and want us to let your ads show to our users, you've got to pay us for the privilege." They're literally like an Ad mafia.
  - mardifoufs 4y ago
    Websites don't give you the option to opt-in.
  - rglullis 4y ago
    The problem is not ads, per se. The problem is (a) tracking and (b) ad-based business models who have misaligned incentives between users and advertisers. If you tell me that Google/Firefox share their revenue with users and their ads don't collect personal data, I'll be rushing back to it.
    - barnabee 4y ago
      The problem is ads per se. I’d like to live in a world without them, thanks.
      - rglullis 4y ago
        Then you go and block them as much as you'd like. There are some people however who do see the benefit of trading (directly or indirectly) their attention for services and products. These people should be able to do it without having to give away their privacy as well. The thing is: we have two different business models. On both of them, ads are a reality. But one of them they are (1) opt-in, (2) private and (3) still give the user the power to "vote with their wallet", even if there is no money directly involved. The other is what we have: Surveillance Capitalism, big players exploiting user data and a total misalignment between producers and consumers. To me it seems pretty obvious which one is better and which one I'd support.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    > Adblock is just as bad. I meant ad blocking in general, sorry. > Brave is literally going "We don't think you should earn money from your visitors because of factors we decide, but we're going to show people on your website OUR ads because we picked them." I don't see how this is any worse for the site than blocking all ads doing nothing else. At least as long as the users aren't confused, which they aren't, because the brave ads don't get put into the page. If ublock cost money to use, would that be a scam?
indymike 4y ago
> How can you argue it's not a scam? It implies something has not been disclosed to users. Brave has been almost painfully honest. > It could actually be argued the whole 'privacy' angle they use is merely a way to justify the whole idea of ad-swapping Brave does not ad swap, and brave rewards ads show up as a browser notification, not inline with content. This idea came from a 2016 article where content publishers were afraid that Brave might launch with ad-swapping. Brave did get caught re-writing Binance affiliate links to their own affiliate code, but immediately discontinued the process.

by Teandw 4y ago

Dylan16807 4y ago

I'm pretty sure you're wrong about ad-swapping, but even assuming you're right about the details, who is being scammed? If it's the website owners, I need you to explain what makes this worse to them than adblock. Because adblock isn't a scam.

Teandw 4y ago
I didn't mention that they ad-swap. I just refer to the fact they remove ads on the website but then display ads through the browser in terms of push notifications etc. I'd argue that website owners are being scammed by a company stealing profits. Brave is literally going "We don't think you should earn money from your visitors because of factors we decide, but we're going to show people on your website OUR ads because we picked them." Adblock is just as bad. They block all ads and then go "If you've got plenty of money and want us to let your ads show to our users, you've got to pay us for the privilege." They're literally like an Ad mafia.
- mardifoufs 4y ago
  Websites don't give you the option to opt-in.
- rglullis 4y ago
  The problem is not ads, per se. The problem is (a) tracking and (b) ad-based business models who have misaligned incentives between users and advertisers. If you tell me that Google/Firefox share their revenue with users and their ads don't collect personal data, I'll be rushing back to it.
  - barnabee 4y ago
    The problem is ads per se. I’d like to live in a world without them, thanks.
    - rglullis 4y ago
      Then you go and block them as much as you'd like. There are some people however who do see the benefit of trading (directly or indirectly) their attention for services and products. These people should be able to do it without having to give away their privacy as well. The thing is: we have two different business models. On both of them, ads are a reality. But one of them they are (1) opt-in, (2) private and (3) still give the user the power to "vote with their wallet", even if there is no money directly involved. The other is what we have: Surveillance Capitalism, big players exploiting user data and a total misalignment between producers and consumers. To me it seems pretty obvious which one is better and which one I'd support.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  > Adblock is just as bad. I meant ad blocking in general, sorry. > Brave is literally going "We don't think you should earn money from your visitors because of factors we decide, but we're going to show people on your website OUR ads because we picked them." I don't see how this is any worse for the site than blocking all ads doing nothing else. At least as long as the users aren't confused, which they aren't, because the brave ads don't get put into the page. If ublock cost money to use, would that be a scam?

indymike 4y ago

> How can you argue it's not a scam? It implies something has not been disclosed to users. Brave has been almost painfully honest. > It could actually be argued the whole 'privacy' angle they use is merely a way to justify the whole idea of ad-swapping Brave does not ad swap, and brave rewards ads show up as a browser notification, not inline with content. This idea came from a 2016 article where content publishers were afraid that Brave might launch with ad-swapping. Brave did get caught re-writing Binance affiliate links to their own affiliate code, but immediately discontinued the process.