51–60 of 130 posts
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
But why not just make a browser extension like everybody else? Surely adoption would be easier as well.
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.
> 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…
I think we need to think two steps ahead here. Say everyone starts using ad blockers and disables flash. Then what? Websites still need to make money. 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…
If one agree with ads as a mean to fund specific sites, then they should just whitelist themselves these sites they think should receive advertisement revenues?
I don't get the idea of bringing in even more 3rd parties in between users and publishers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think we need to think two steps ahead here. Say everyone starts using ad blockers and disables flash. Then what? Websites still need to make money. 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…
> Then what? If one agree with ads as a mean to fund specific sites, then they should just whitelist themselves these sites they think should receive advertisement revenues? I don't get the idea of bringing in even more 3rd parties in between users and publishers.
> 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…
I think we need to think two steps ahead here. Say everyone starts using ad blockers and disables flash. Then what? Websites still need to make money. 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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Disabling javascript takes it one step further.
Which breaks HTTP DELETE since HTML5 doesn't have support for it..
Getting there has a massive chicken-and-egg problem, of course, as you need a viable mass of both users and sites for it to get traction, and you can't get one without the other.
Requiring a new browser (vs. an extension to a normal browser) takes your "viable mass of users" problem and makes it about ten times harder.
You are brave, Brave.
> 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…
I think we need to think two steps ahead here. Say everyone starts using ad blockers and disables flash. Then what? Websites still need to make money. 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…
With current Bitcoin you can't even do micropayments. So they're almost certainly looking at doing some grouping and batch pay system anyways.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Miniscule amounts of bitcoin really. Is it the end of the world if I lose 50 cents worth of bitcoin? oooh scary.
> Miniscule amounts of bitcoin really Until it isn't. Good luck displacing ads with average wallet balances of "50 cents"