5 ms·

What to you is sketchy about the business model? The fact that it is also based on ads?

ddxv 4y ago
The reason it feels sketchy to me is that they first block the ads, but then insert their own ads onto the websites. Thus they try to force web publishers to use their services if they want to make any money from showing ads on their site.
- stametseater 4y ago
  > insert their own ads onto the websites This is very persistent misinformation. Brave used to modify search results pages to insert their referal code, which was scummy as hell and thankfully they went back on that decision and pretended it was an accident (I can't see how that could possibly be done by accident.) Referall codes are not exactly 'ads' though, and other than that, Brave hasn't inserted their own shit into webpages. The ads which Brave displays are in a separate window, not inserted into web pages. Anyway, just stick to Firefox. The perceived "need" to use a Chromium browser is a Google psyop. Firefox works fine, and if it takes a few minutes off my laptop's battery life.. who fucking cares. Not me.
  - toyg 4y ago
    They did more than that at the beginning, their original business model was something like "user pays us X, directly or by looking at ads, and we distribute that X to the sites they visit”, effectively inserting themselves in the ad chain by force. They've since changed that model 15378382 times, every time denying that there was a problem with the previous versions, so I stopped caring. I mean I get it: it's a very hard problem to fund a browser that is user-centric, and all solutions found as of today suck in one way or another. Mozilla does it by leveraging Google's need for a fig leaf when talking to authorities about monopolistic behavior. Vivaldi does it by selling pageview counts or something like that. Etc etc. I just wish companies were more honest about it.
    - stametseater 4y ago
      > effectively inserting themselves in the ad chain by force. For values of "insert into the ad chain"* that did NOT mean inserting ads into webpages. They never did that, it is persistent misinformation. I'm beginning to think it is deliberate misinformation.

ddxv 4y ago

The reason it feels sketchy to me is that they first block the ads, but then insert their own ads onto the websites. Thus they try to force web publishers to use their services if they want to make any money from showing ads on their site.

stametseater 4y ago
> insert their own ads onto the websites This is very persistent misinformation. Brave used to modify search results pages to insert their referal code, which was scummy as hell and thankfully they went back on that decision and pretended it was an accident (I can't see how that could possibly be done by accident.) Referall codes are not exactly 'ads' though, and other than that, Brave hasn't inserted their own shit into webpages. The ads which Brave displays are in a separate window, not inserted into web pages. Anyway, just stick to Firefox. The perceived "need" to use a Chromium browser is a Google psyop. Firefox works fine, and if it takes a few minutes off my laptop's battery life.. who fucking cares. Not me.
- toyg 4y ago
  They did more than that at the beginning, their original business model was something like "user pays us X, directly or by looking at ads, and we distribute that X to the sites they visit”, effectively inserting themselves in the ad chain by force. They've since changed that model 15378382 times, every time denying that there was a problem with the previous versions, so I stopped caring. I mean I get it: it's a very hard problem to fund a browser that is user-centric, and all solutions found as of today suck in one way or another. Mozilla does it by leveraging Google's need for a fig leaf when talking to authorities about monopolistic behavior. Vivaldi does it by selling pageview counts or something like that. Etc etc. I just wish companies were more honest about it.
  - stametseater 4y ago
    > effectively inserting themselves in the ad chain by force. For values of "insert into the ad chain"* that did NOT mean inserting ads into webpages. They never did that, it is persistent misinformation. I'm beginning to think it is deliberate misinformation.