3 ms·

Brave browser does something similar with its attention tokens, which by default get allocated* depending on your time split between sites. *provided the site

by sk0g 4y ago

Brave browser does something similar with its attention tokens, which by default get allocated* depending on your time split between sites. *provided the site supports it, unsure what the process for that is. Some really weird ones do, like specific Youtube channels, The Guardian, or some GitHub users.

dralley 4y ago
Scroll wasn't locked into a particular browser, didn't use a pointless crypto scheme, and actively sought partners instead of opting sites in against their will.
- sk0g 4y ago
  I wasn't aware of the business model, merely that it's conceptually similar, if a bit "web 3.0" in implementation. Not sure it's any worse than browsing with an ad blocker, in which case the websites get 0 revenue, crypto or otherwise.
OrderlyTiamat 4y ago
That's actually the reason I'm principally against using brave: they were accepting token payment on behalf of unsuspecting content creators without their consent. [1] I don't know if that rises to the level of fraud legally speaking, but morally it's very sketchy. I don't want to associate myself with that and I don't trust them. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20181224011529/https://twitter.com/tomscott/status/1076160979388518407 https://web.archive.org/web/20181224011529/https://twitter.c... Tom Scott on his experience. He makes a good point on potential GDPR compliance issues as well.
- sk0g 4y ago
  Fair enough, I am not advocating for that project, but it is close in spirit to what was described in the parent comment. Aside from that, I personally do not see the issue with being able to opt into automatic crypto payments for browsing time, vs seeing nothing at all from the same. The default behaviour for unverified creators is that it goes into some internal pool for marketing, which is a bit sketchy though yeah.

3 ms·

Brave browser does something similar with its attention tokens, which by default get allocated* depending on your time split between sites. *provided the site

by sk0g 4y ago

dralley 4y ago
Scroll wasn't locked into a particular browser, didn't use a pointless crypto scheme, and actively sought partners instead of opting sites in against their will.
- sk0g 4y ago
  I wasn't aware of the business model, merely that it's conceptually similar, if a bit "web 3.0" in implementation. Not sure it's any worse than browsing with an ad blocker, in which case the websites get 0 revenue, crypto or otherwise.
OrderlyTiamat 4y ago
That's actually the reason I'm principally against using brave: they were accepting token payment on behalf of unsuspecting content creators without their consent. [1] I don't know if that rises to the level of fraud legally speaking, but morally it's very sketchy. I don't want to associate myself with that and I don't trust them. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20181224011529/https://twitter.com/tomscott/status/1076160979388518407 https://web.archive.org/web/20181224011529/https://twitter.c... Tom Scott on his experience. He makes a good point on potential GDPR compliance issues as well.
- sk0g 4y ago
  Fair enough, I am not advocating for that project, but it is close in spirit to what was described in the parent comment. Aside from that, I personally do not see the issue with being able to opt into automatic crypto payments for browsing time, vs seeing nothing at all from the same. The default behaviour for unverified creators is that it goes into some internal pool for marketing, which is a bit sketchy though yeah.