13 ms·

This is pretty much the inevitable end-game of the web, in no small part funded by ad-based business models (as the analog gap pretty much destroys most attempt

by saurik 3y ago

This is pretty much the inevitable end-game of the web, in no small part funded by ad-based business models (as the analog gap pretty much destroys most attempts to use this stuff to do copy protection) and enabled by developers who have insisted we shove as much difficult-to-implement functionality (by which I am talking about CSS complex stuff, not powerful-but-easy-to-code APIs for OS-level access) into the browser as possible. The result: there is now effectively one dominating web browser run by an ad company who nigh unto controls the spec for the web itself and who is finally putting its foot down to decide that we are all going to be forced to either used fully-locked down devices or to prove that we are using some locked-down component of our otherwise unlocked device to see anyone's content, and they get to frame it as fighting for the user in the spec draft as users have a "need" to prove their authenticity to websites to get their free stuff. (BTW, Brave is in the same boat: they are also an ad company--despite building ad blocking stuff themselves--and their product managers routinely discuss and even quote Brendan Eich talking about this same kind of "run the browser inside of trusted computing" as their long-term solution for preventing people blocking their ads. The vicious irony: the very tech they want to use to protect them is what will be used to protect the status quo from them! The entire premise of monetizing with ads is eventually either self-defeating or the problem itself.)

asistla 3y ago
I do not see this as practical at all. To begin with, pretty much every government employee in the world has some proprietary software developed within the country for security reasons. Old, even obsolete machines. Out of date software, unlicensed/unregistered software, etc, etc. Much of this is also true of banks. This means if this is put in place as in the spec, it will affect banks and governments negatively. And as powerful as Google is, I don't think it will win over governments + banks. But again, all the above could be nonsense, and Google will gatekeep the web. It found itself as the loser in the AI race, and it knows pursuing AI during the ongoing arguments on privacy and who owns the data AI is being trained on - the next best thing is to own the playground where the AI trains. That may not be an entirely bad thing either; sad, perhaps, but as this goes on, and browsing becomes a pain, maybe this will result in people just spending less time online? That's a good outcome in my books.
tentacleuno 3y ago
> who is finally putting their foot down and deciding that we are all going to be forced to either used fully-locked down devices The person who wrote the proposal[0] is from Google. All the authors of the proposal are from Google[1]. I've been thinking carefully about this comment, but I really don't know what to say. It's absolutely heartbreaking watching something I really care about die by a thousand cuts; how do we protest this? Google will just strong-arm their implementation through Chromium and, when banks, Netflix & co. start using it, they've effectively cornered other engines into implementing it. This isn't new to them. They did it with FLoC, which most people were opposed to[2]. The most they did was FLoC was deprecate it and re-release it under a different name. The saving grace here might be that Firefox won't implement the proposal. [0]: https://github.com/RupertBenWiser https://github.com/RupertBenWiser [1]: https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/blob/main/explainer.md#authors https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/... [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26344013 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26344013
- tapoxi 3y ago
  I mean Firefox caved to support EME. This isn't the early days of the web anymore either, the enthusiasts are a small minority of global web traffic that this will probably succeed even with a large scale boycott.
  - tentacleuno 3y ago
    I still remember the controversy surrounding EME, a LOT of people came out against it (including the EFF[0]); despite that, they still triumphed on[1]. [0]: https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-makes-formal-objection-drm-html5 https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-makes-formal-objectio... [1]: https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media
    - ahahahahah 3y ago
      And thank god for that, otherwise we'd still need to support flash to use most popular websites.
madeofpalk 3y ago
> and enabled by developers who have insisted we shove as much difficult-to-implement functionality (by which I am talking about CSS complex stuff, not powerful-but-easy-to-code APIs for OS-level access) Interesting that fixing "how to center a div" is considered harmful, but WebSerialPort is actually very good? > The result: there is now effectively one dominating web browser run by an ad company who nigh unto controls the spec for the web itself I don't think this this reality. Google proposes a bunch of APIs that goes nowhere because the other browser vendors consider them harmful. Google's previous attempts at trying to drive more adtech into the browser have failed due to a lack of support from other browser vendors. I think "who drives the web specs" is probably in the best situation possible. It's largely Google, Mozilla, and Apple who all have slightly different interests in what makes a good web platform, and the web ends up better for it.
- saurik 3y ago
  > Interesting that fixing "how to center a div" is considered harmful, but WebSerialPort is actually very good? It is certainly "interesting", but "true" nonetheless: one determined person--think Fabrice Ballard if you want an example--is in a great position to throw together a web browser and even implement ALL of the crazy API wrapper specs, but when if they aren't you simply don't need most of them to browse any given website. But, as it stands, my only a-few-year-old copy of Safari can barely even browse the web anymore as it is missing some new corner case of CSS or web components or whatever and I just get blank screens a lot; the result: people have burned years of large teams into trying to maintain implementations of HTML/CSS and have given up. The web should really just be a handful of really core specs for getting platform access--which of course have innovated over the years so you'd have all of canvas, WebGL 1/2, and WebGPU, which would take SOME effort but isn't like, INSANE--and then all of the layout should be done end-to-end in libraries. The world NEEDED to be like this to prevent us from ending up with only a handful of web browsers that can only be maintained by giant companies: it needs to be sufficiently easy to build a web browser that we would end up with a ton of small implementations that would be difficult to move as a unit, forcing progressive enhancement as a permanent norm.
  - saagarjha 3y ago
Aerbil313 3y ago
Yeah this is really the endgame. I think the issue is systemic though, this is more than just ad money. Bots and automatability of the web was always an anomaly and a flaw, as the web was and is always designed for humans. Strict human verification was always a need. One can say we did achieve this with 2FA and such, but what is technology all about? Convenience. If it's more convenient, people will prefer remote assertion every day of the week: https://gabrielsieben.tech/2022/07/29/remote-assertion-is-coming-back-how-much-freedom-will-it-take/ https://gabrielsieben.tech/2022/07/29/remote-assertion-is-co...
- rpastuszak 3y ago
  It is systemic, but I think you underestimate how deeply the adtech money and everything surrounding it is embedded in our mindset. It's essentially the Goodhart's Law taken to the extreme, where every single new iteration of the system brings in new middlemen, new misaligned incentives, then putting those middlemen between the person providing a service and the person who'd like to pay for it. Here's an exercise: try to draw a diagram of all parties required to display a video ad on your page. I suggest starting with the OpenRTB and VAST specs. It's creepy. The biggest shame here is that most people are convinced that we need advertising because otherwise people would not pay for content.
troupo 3y ago
> we shove as much difficult-to-implement functionality (by which I am talking about CSS complex stuff, not powerful-but-easy-to-code APIs for OS-level access) into the browser as possible. "powerful-but-easy-to-code APIs for OS-level access" are actual hard-to-implement-right functionality that is often pushed to browsers with very little discussion or considerations.
- saurik 3y ago
  But the chance of a web page actually needing that functionality to render at all is rare for hopefully-obvious reasons. The status quo is that progressive enhancement is dead: a few-year old copy of Safari can now simply not browse much of the web anymore because it is missing some corner case of CSS or web components or whatever: I often am stuck at loading spinners or are simply thrown into a blank page... the best case is a client-side rendered 500 error on many pages. It was critical for the web to be easy to implement the core of for a small team or even a single concerted god-tier developer--imagine Fabrice Ballard--and the current spec has failed so hard at this that even tech megacorps have thrown in the towel. People get upset about WebUSB... but that's not the API surface that is causing us issues. If I had to single-handedly implement all of canvas/WebGL/WebGPU and JavaScript/WebAssembly I could pull it off (noting I used to be a video game engine developer).
  - troupo 3y ago
    > But the chance of a web page actually needing that functionality to render at all is rare for hopefully-obvious reasons. The chance of a page using something has no bearing on how dificault something is to implement. > People get upset about WebUSB... but that's not the API surface that is causing us issues. It's one of the hundreds of APIs, and yes, it causes issues, too. Because it also needs to be implemented, and it also adds to the complexity of the web browser.
    - saurik 3y ago
      No: it doesn't need to be implemented unless you actually want to do something with USB. Random websites aren't not working because you don't support USB. My iPhone doesn't support WebUSB even if I updated its firmware.
chrisco255 3y ago
Do you have a quote from Eich saying that because you've provided no source.
- saurik 3y ago
  > you've provided no source. Yeah: it isn't shocking and can be quickly found using Google (as I just did now). (I have provided some extra links but am only quoting Brendan Eich as you seemed particularly interested in him saying the words himself rather than his team.) https://www.reddit.com/r/BATProject/comments/bw6sek/ https://www.reddit.com/r/BATProject/comments/bw6sek/ https://www.reddit.com/r/BATProject/comments/b7rwbx/ https://www.reddit.com/r/BATProject/comments/b7rwbx/ > 1/ native C++/Rust code, no JS tags on page that have zero integrity. That means ability to use SGX/TrustZone to check integrity and develop private user score from all sensor inputs in the enclave; ... > We already have to deal w/ fraud. That is inherent in any system with users and revenue shares or grants. We do it better via C++ and (under way) SGX or TrustZone integrity checking + OS sensor APIs, vs today’s antifraud scripts that are routinely fooled. > What Brave offers that's far better than today's joke of an antifraud system for ads is as follows: 1/ integrity-checked open source native code, which cannot be fooled by other JS on page; ... (1) requires SGX or ARM equivalent, widespread on mobile. They are also building an SDK and talk about using this tech to ensure the ads presented by their SDK in someone else's app are legitimate. https://www.reddit.com/r/BATProject/comments/9yys6b/ https://www.reddit.com/r/BATProject/comments/9yys6b/ https://www.reddit.com/r/BATProject/comments/97trex/comment/e4axu6h/?context=1 https://www.reddit.com/r/BATProject/comments/97trex/comment/... > Part of the roadmap (details in update) is a BAT SDK. Obviously it would be open source, but more: we would require Secure Remote Attestation (Intel SGX broken but ARM TrustZone as used by Trustonic may be ok) to prove integrity of the SDK code in app. Again: the very tech they are excited about to make their ad-based business model work against people cheating and blocking their ads is the same tech that Google is going to use to make their ad-based business model work against Brave cheating and blocking their ads ;P.
  - chrisco255 3y ago
    These are Reddit posts from 4 and 5 years ago, has anything material changed in the last 4 and 5 years? Highy likely.
keepamovin 3y ago
While the 'Web Environment Integrity API Proposal' is portrayed as a measure to enhance web security and prevent fraud, it poses potential threats to competition, especially for open-source browsers like ours. It may seem to protect the ad business model, but what it could lead to is the monopoly of Google Chrome, curbing the emergence of new competitors. We are an open-source browser developer and these concerns deeply resonate with us. We understand the paradox Alphabet faces, yet we firmly believe the solution isn't about exerting "DRM" level control over a ubiquitous means of access. We're committed to standing up for the future of the web. We don't just see ourselves as a browser company but as advocates for an open, fair, and free web. We invite you to join us in this endeavor. Visit https://github.com/dosyago/BrowserBoxPro https://github.com/dosyago/BrowserBoxPro today. Stand with us for an open, free, and fair web.
yoavm 3y ago
It's important to note that a browser that implements something like this is simply not a User Agent, in the most clear way - it's just not there to serve the User, it's there to serve the website. When you consider this, it's clear that this goes against the core principals of the WWW, making this an Anti-WWW feature, or better put, a regression. Hopefully this will not be implemented, but still it's a good wake up call for those who still think that Chrome is more than an ads-delivery app with some browser functionality.
anonzzzies 3y ago
It feels like this cannot fly in the EU already though. And if they someone found a way around the regulatory, there will be amendments to shoot it down. The entire premise of 'people want expensive to make websites, but don't want to pay for them' is already a bit flawed. I do pay for youtube to not see ads, I wish I could pay Google (and Meta) to not serve me ads on any site including Google search, they have ads on. That would make life a lot nicer. And I personally know no-one who would not sign up for that. But that doesn't happen, I guess because ads make more (not from me, but he)?
1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago
Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36823871 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36823871 Got flagged and killed. :)
jonathansampson 3y ago
Hello! I am Sampson, from Brave. Brave is an advertising company, but we’re quite different from Google and others in this space. Brave's ad notifications are opt-in and engineered in such a way to protect and preserve user privacy. I'm not sure where you saw Brave engineers talking about ways to prevent users from blocking our ads—we don’t try to prevent users from blocking Brave Ads. If you wish not to see Brave’s ad notifications, you can easily avoid them (by not opting-in in the first place, or by throttling/disabling-entirely). There are no special hoops to hop through, or technical incantations to utter. We believe digital advertising is better when it is built on user-first principles and consent. If a user opts-in to Brave’s ad notifications, their device proceeds to routinely download-and-maintain a regional catalog of available inventory. The user's device then evaluates the catalog entries for relevance. User data is NOT sent off-device in Brave’s model. If a relevant ad entry is found, it is then displayed to the user in such a time and manner for minimal distraction. When an ad notification is shown, the user receives 70% of the associated ad revenue for their attention (no clicks required). Again, if the user wishes to not see ad notifications, they can simply choose not to opt-in to viewing them. If the user wishes to not see the occasional sponsored image on the New Tab Page, they can turn those off from the New Tab Page itself with 2 clicks ( Customize › Show Sponsored Images). Importantly, the user is always in control. They decide whether ads will be displayed, and to what degree (e.g., the user can set a limit on ad notifications per hour). Brave isn't interested in coercing users to view advertisements.
- ererk 3y ago
  For now. Remote attestation will devalue non-attested advertising. Once your stream of revenue dries up due to devaluation, that's when the executives will have a choice to make.
- dminik 3y ago
  Does Brave support this proposal?
leshenka 3y ago
the scariest thing is that they genuinely believe this is good for the web. kinda abusing if you ask me

by saurik 3y ago

asistla 3y ago

I do not see this as practical at all. To begin with, pretty much every government employee in the world has some proprietary software developed within the country for security reasons. Old, even obsolete machines. Out of date software, unlicensed/unregistered software, etc, etc. Much of this is also true of banks. This means if this is put in place as in the spec, it will affect banks and governments negatively. And as powerful as Google is, I don't think it will win over governments + banks. But again, all the above could be nonsense, and Google will gatekeep the web. It found itself as the loser in the AI race, and it knows pursuing AI during the ongoing arguments on privacy and who owns the data AI is being trained on - the next best thing is to own the playground where the AI trains. That may not be an entirely bad thing either; sad, perhaps, but as this goes on, and browsing becomes a pain, maybe this will result in people just spending less time online? That's a good outcome in my books.

tentacleuno 3y ago

> who is finally putting their foot down and deciding that we are all going to be forced to either used fully-locked down devices The person who wrote the proposal[0] is from Google. All the authors of the proposal are from Google[1]. I've been thinking carefully about this comment, but I really don't know what to say. It's absolutely heartbreaking watching something I really care about die by a thousand cuts; how do we protest this? Google will just strong-arm their implementation through Chromium and, when banks, Netflix & co. start using it, they've effectively cornered other engines into implementing it. This isn't new to them. They did it with FLoC, which most people were opposed to[2]. The most they did was FLoC was deprecate it and re-release it under a different name. The saving grace here might be that Firefox won't implement the proposal. [0]: https://github.com/RupertBenWiser https://github.com/RupertBenWiser [1]: https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/blob/main/explainer.md#authors https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/... [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26344013 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26344013

tapoxi 3y ago
I mean Firefox caved to support EME. This isn't the early days of the web anymore either, the enthusiasts are a small minority of global web traffic that this will probably succeed even with a large scale boycott.
- tentacleuno 3y ago
  I still remember the controversy surrounding EME, a LOT of people came out against it (including the EFF[0]); despite that, they still triumphed on[1]. [0]: https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-makes-formal-objection-drm-html5 https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-makes-formal-objectio... [1]: https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media
  - ahahahahah 3y ago
    And thank god for that, otherwise we'd still need to support flash to use most popular websites.

madeofpalk 3y ago

> and enabled by developers who have insisted we shove as much difficult-to-implement functionality (by which I am talking about CSS complex stuff, not powerful-but-easy-to-code APIs for OS-level access) Interesting that fixing "how to center a div" is considered harmful, but WebSerialPort is actually very good? > The result: there is now effectively one dominating web browser run by an ad company who nigh unto controls the spec for the web itself I don't think this this reality. Google proposes a bunch of APIs that goes nowhere because the other browser vendors consider them harmful. Google's previous attempts at trying to drive more adtech into the browser have failed due to a lack of support from other browser vendors. I think "who drives the web specs" is probably in the best situation possible. It's largely Google, Mozilla, and Apple who all have slightly different interests in what makes a good web platform, and the web ends up better for it.

saurik 3y ago
> Interesting that fixing "how to center a div" is considered harmful, but WebSerialPort is actually very good? It is certainly "interesting", but "true" nonetheless: one determined person--think Fabrice Ballard if you want an example--is in a great position to throw together a web browser and even implement ALL of the crazy API wrapper specs, but when if they aren't you simply don't need most of them to browse any given website. But, as it stands, my only a-few-year-old copy of Safari can barely even browse the web anymore as it is missing some new corner case of CSS or web components or whatever and I just get blank screens a lot; the result: people have burned years of large teams into trying to maintain implementations of HTML/CSS and have given up. The web should really just be a handful of really core specs for getting platform access--which of course have innovated over the years so you'd have all of canvas, WebGL 1/2, and WebGPU, which would take SOME effort but isn't like, INSANE--and then all of the layout should be done end-to-end in libraries. The world NEEDED to be like this to prevent us from ending up with only a handful of web browsers that can only be maintained by giant companies: it needs to be sufficiently easy to build a web browser that we would end up with a ton of small implementations that would be difficult to move as a unit, forcing progressive enhancement as a permanent norm.
- saagarjha 3y ago

Aerbil313 3y ago

Yeah this is really the endgame. I think the issue is systemic though, this is more than just ad money. Bots and automatability of the web was always an anomaly and a flaw, as the web was and is always designed for humans. Strict human verification was always a need. One can say we did achieve this with 2FA and such, but what is technology all about? Convenience. If it's more convenient, people will prefer remote assertion every day of the week: https://gabrielsieben.tech/2022/07/29/remote-assertion-is-coming-back-how-much-freedom-will-it-take/ https://gabrielsieben.tech/2022/07/29/remote-assertion-is-co...

rpastuszak 3y ago
It is systemic, but I think you underestimate how deeply the adtech money and everything surrounding it is embedded in our mindset. It's essentially the Goodhart's Law taken to the extreme, where every single new iteration of the system brings in new middlemen, new misaligned incentives, then putting those middlemen between the person providing a service and the person who'd like to pay for it. Here's an exercise: try to draw a diagram of all parties required to display a video ad on your page. I suggest starting with the OpenRTB and VAST specs. It's creepy. The biggest shame here is that most people are convinced that we need advertising because otherwise people would not pay for content.

troupo 3y ago

> we shove as much difficult-to-implement functionality (by which I am talking about CSS complex stuff, not powerful-but-easy-to-code APIs for OS-level access) into the browser as possible. "powerful-but-easy-to-code APIs for OS-level access" are actual hard-to-implement-right functionality that is often pushed to browsers with very little discussion or considerations.

saurik 3y ago
But the chance of a web page actually needing that functionality to render at all is rare for hopefully-obvious reasons. The status quo is that progressive enhancement is dead: a few-year old copy of Safari can now simply not browse much of the web anymore because it is missing some corner case of CSS or web components or whatever: I often am stuck at loading spinners or are simply thrown into a blank page... the best case is a client-side rendered 500 error on many pages. It was critical for the web to be easy to implement the core of for a small team or even a single concerted god-tier developer--imagine Fabrice Ballard--and the current spec has failed so hard at this that even tech megacorps have thrown in the towel. People get upset about WebUSB... but that's not the API surface that is causing us issues. If I had to single-handedly implement all of canvas/WebGL/WebGPU and JavaScript/WebAssembly I could pull it off (noting I used to be a video game engine developer).
- troupo 3y ago
  > But the chance of a web page actually needing that functionality to render at all is rare for hopefully-obvious reasons. The chance of a page using something has no bearing on how dificault something is to implement. > People get upset about WebUSB... but that's not the API surface that is causing us issues. It's one of the hundreds of APIs, and yes, it causes issues, too. Because it also needs to be implemented, and it also adds to the complexity of the web browser.
  - saurik 3y ago
    No: it doesn't need to be implemented unless you actually want to do something with USB. Random websites aren't not working because you don't support USB. My iPhone doesn't support WebUSB even if I updated its firmware.

chrisco255 3y ago

Do you have a quote from Eich saying that because you've provided no source.

saurik 3y ago
> you've provided no source. Yeah: it isn't shocking and can be quickly found using Google (as I just did now). (I have provided some extra links but am only quoting Brendan Eich as you seemed particularly interested in him saying the words himself rather than his team.) https://www.reddit.com/r/BATProject/comments/bw6sek/ https://www.reddit.com/r/BATProject/comments/bw6sek/ https://www.reddit.com/r/BATProject/comments/b7rwbx/ https://www.reddit.com/r/BATProject/comments/b7rwbx/ > 1/ native C++/Rust code, no JS tags on page that have zero integrity. That means ability to use SGX/TrustZone to check integrity and develop private user score from all sensor inputs in the enclave; ... > We already have to deal w/ fraud. That is inherent in any system with users and revenue shares or grants. We do it better via C++ and (under way) SGX or TrustZone integrity checking + OS sensor APIs, vs today’s antifraud scripts that are routinely fooled. > What Brave offers that's far better than today's joke of an antifraud system for ads is as follows: 1/ integrity-checked open source native code, which cannot be fooled by other JS on page; ... (1) requires SGX or ARM equivalent, widespread on mobile. They are also building an SDK and talk about using this tech to ensure the ads presented by their SDK in someone else's app are legitimate. https://www.reddit.com/r/BATProject/comments/9yys6b/ https://www.reddit.com/r/BATProject/comments/9yys6b/ https://www.reddit.com/r/BATProject/comments/97trex/comment/e4axu6h/?context=1 https://www.reddit.com/r/BATProject/comments/97trex/comment/... > Part of the roadmap (details in update) is a BAT SDK. Obviously it would be open source, but more: we would require Secure Remote Attestation (Intel SGX broken but ARM TrustZone as used by Trustonic may be ok) to prove integrity of the SDK code in app. Again: the very tech they are excited about to make their ad-based business model work against people cheating and blocking their ads is the same tech that Google is going to use to make their ad-based business model work against Brave cheating and blocking their ads ;P.
- chrisco255 3y ago
  These are Reddit posts from 4 and 5 years ago, has anything material changed in the last 4 and 5 years? Highy likely.

keepamovin 3y ago

While the 'Web Environment Integrity API Proposal' is portrayed as a measure to enhance web security and prevent fraud, it poses potential threats to competition, especially for open-source browsers like ours. It may seem to protect the ad business model, but what it could lead to is the monopoly of Google Chrome, curbing the emergence of new competitors. We are an open-source browser developer and these concerns deeply resonate with us. We understand the paradox Alphabet faces, yet we firmly believe the solution isn't about exerting "DRM" level control over a ubiquitous means of access. We're committed to standing up for the future of the web. We don't just see ourselves as a browser company but as advocates for an open, fair, and free web. We invite you to join us in this endeavor. Visit https://github.com/dosyago/BrowserBoxPro https://github.com/dosyago/BrowserBoxPro today. Stand with us for an open, free, and fair web.

yoavm 3y ago

It's important to note that a browser that implements something like this is simply not a User Agent, in the most clear way - it's just not there to serve the User, it's there to serve the website. When you consider this, it's clear that this goes against the core principals of the WWW, making this an Anti-WWW feature, or better put, a regression. Hopefully this will not be implemented, but still it's a good wake up call for those who still think that Chrome is more than an ads-delivery app with some browser functionality.

anonzzzies 3y ago

It feels like this cannot fly in the EU already though. And if they someone found a way around the regulatory, there will be amendments to shoot it down. The entire premise of 'people want expensive to make websites, but don't want to pay for them' is already a bit flawed. I do pay for youtube to not see ads, I wish I could pay Google (and Meta) to not serve me ads on any site including Google search, they have ads on. That would make life a lot nicer. And I personally know no-one who would not sign up for that. But that doesn't happen, I guess because ads make more (not from me, but he)?

1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago

Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36823871 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36823871 Got flagged and killed. :)

jonathansampson 3y ago

Hello! I am Sampson, from Brave. Brave is an advertising company, but we’re quite different from Google and others in this space. Brave's ad notifications are opt-in and engineered in such a way to protect and preserve user privacy. I'm not sure where you saw Brave engineers talking about ways to prevent users from blocking our ads—we don’t try to prevent users from blocking Brave Ads. If you wish not to see Brave’s ad notifications, you can easily avoid them (by not opting-in in the first place, or by throttling/disabling-entirely). There are no special hoops to hop through, or technical incantations to utter. We believe digital advertising is better when it is built on user-first principles and consent. If a user opts-in to Brave’s ad notifications, their device proceeds to routinely download-and-maintain a regional catalog of available inventory. The user's device then evaluates the catalog entries for relevance. User data is NOT sent off-device in Brave’s model. If a relevant ad entry is found, it is then displayed to the user in such a time and manner for minimal distraction. When an ad notification is shown, the user receives 70% of the associated ad revenue for their attention (no clicks required). Again, if the user wishes to not see ad notifications, they can simply choose not to opt-in to viewing them. If the user wishes to not see the occasional sponsored image on the New Tab Page, they can turn those off from the New Tab Page itself with 2 clicks ( Customize › Show Sponsored Images). Importantly, the user is always in control. They decide whether ads will be displayed, and to what degree (e.g., the user can set a limit on ad notifications per hour). Brave isn't interested in coercing users to view advertisements.

ererk 3y ago
For now. Remote attestation will devalue non-attested advertising. Once your stream of revenue dries up due to devaluation, that's when the executives will have a choice to make.
dminik 3y ago
Does Brave support this proposal?

leshenka 3y ago

the scariest thing is that they genuinely believe this is good for the web. kinda abusing if you ask me