41–50 of 130 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not their site, and it's not their content. It is not ok, not in the least.
It's the not the site owner's browser, so it's fine.
Not according to copyright law. Just because you have a computer (with a browser) doesn't give you the right to do what you want with someone else's content.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By the time you're done manifesting that concretely, you've nearly got Patreon. Yes, it's not quite identical, but, for instance, once you accept that the site still has to opt-in it ceases to be magic.
Or Flattr.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And I think a site's ToS could potentially forbid this and thus provide an avenue to sue either you, Brave or both. Aside from that, I don't think the "my device, my choice" adblock arguments go here. I think it's pretty obviously immoral.
You send me some html, css and Javascript from YOUR domain to MY computer. I reserve the right to do what I want with it. YOU have NO right to determine what I do with it after you send it to me. It is pointless to think that rules regarding that can be enforced anyways. To me that is the reality of the situation, its like we are debating if gravity should pull us down or not. Edit: for civility (with lack of sleep a…
> On the desktop, Brave provides a 40% to 60% speed increase, and a 2x to 4x speed increase on mobile devices. Mobile users see a direct reduction in both battery and data plan consumption. Brave also protects users with privacy and security features such as HTTPS Everywhere to encrypt data traffic, fingerprinting shields, phishing protection, malware filtering, and script blocking. Maybe this is a good enough argume…
> But I seriously doubt you will get people to voluntarily pay money I've always been curious about this. I'd definitely pay $25/mo if it was distributed amongst the websites I visit. Bonus points if it would distribute it more heavily to the smaller sites than the bigger ones.
I'm sure the right business could pull it off, but I don't think it's going to be voluntary donations.
> On the desktop, Brave provides a 40% to 60% speed increase, and a 2x to 4x speed increase on mobile devices. Mobile users see a direct reduction in both battery and data plan consumption. Brave also protects users with privacy and security features such as HTTPS Everywhere to encrypt data traffic, fingerprinting shields, phishing protection, malware filtering, and script blocking. Maybe this is a good enough argume…
It doesn't make much sense to be honest. I've heard about this browser a few times now and I still have no idea how is it supposed to gain traction. The performance/bandwidth benefits of less shitty ads can be had by simply disabling flash and using an ad blocker, and otherwise average people just aren't going to care to switch. As far as I can tell the only reason investors threw $7M at them is because Brendan Eich…
Personally I'd love to pay for using websites and get a faster experience (versus the alternative ways to do it), because I really want publishers to get paid. But I'm skeptical until I see that it's really happening. No transparency means 0% chance I use it.
> On the desktop, Brave provides a 40% to 60% speed increase, and a 2x to 4x speed increase on mobile devices. Mobile users see a direct reduction in both battery and data plan consumption. Brave also protects users with privacy and security features such as HTTPS Everywhere to encrypt data traffic, fingerprinting shields, phishing protection, malware filtering, and script blocking. Maybe this is a good enough argume…
In this case Brave is betting that websites will want to ask for money from their users, but that each website maintaining their own subscription service is not viable. Maybe large websites like WSJ can get people to subscribe, but most probably cannot. Do you want to be subscribed to every website you ever read a single article on?
I think Brave in this case is positioning themselves to be the middle man. They want to become an essential layer that sits on top of the ISP. If their vision of the future turns out to be accurate, being the first mover here will be very profitable.
Internet users with browsers full of bitcoin... what could possibly go wrong?
Miniscule amounts of bitcoin really. Is it the end of the world if I lose 50 cents worth of bitcoin? oooh scary.
Until it isn't. Good luck displacing ads with average wallet balances of "50 cents"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the not the site owner's browser, so it's fine.
>so it's fine. Not according to copyright law. Just because you have a computer (with a browser) doesn't give you the right to do what you want with someone else's content.
Once you send information out into the world. you DONT own it. Real ownership is the ability to exert control over something. Divulged information cannot be controlled by the original source.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't make much sense to be honest. I've heard about this browser a few times now and I still have no idea how is it supposed to gain traction. The performance/bandwidth benefits of less shitty ads can be had by simply disabling flash and using an ad blocker, and otherwise average people just aren't going to care to switch. As far as I can tell the only reason investors threw $7M at them is because Brendan Eich…
I want to support the sites I visit but I really dislike ads. I subscribe to a few but it would be a pain to set up individually for every site. Other people are also worried about being tracked online. This lets you conveniently support sites as you browse, without being tracked.