Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

‘Bitcoin Browser’ Brave Raises $4.5M, Readies for 1.0 Launch

news.bitcoin.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 130 posts

Re: ‘Bitcoin Browser’ Brave Raises $4.5M, Readies for 1.0 Launch

#81

Post by seibelj »

hsod wrote: post #74
seibelj wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This person's phrasing of his / her sentiment is a tad off-putting, which is why I imagine people are downvoting, but honestly I see it as the same way: I made a TCP request and fetched your data. How my data display device (i.e. web browser) displays it is up to me. If I choose to alter it or enhance it, that's up to me. It was your decision to send me your data, not to tell me how to display it.

This assumes that there is no implicit or explicit agreement between you and the content host. What if the site's TOS made you explicitly agree not to block ads (not in a hidden legalese way but with clear UX)? Would that change your calculus? What if the site owner was a friend of yours, and asked you personally not to block ads? Would that?

Well, if they made me register an account and agree to a ToS, I think it changes things. I have now signed an agreement, and the data is only delivered through an authenticated manner. But if it's publicly available, like a blog post, I don't see how you can place any restrictions on me. I think you are speaking about ethics, and you can try to convince me that my ethics are inferior to your ethics, and I can try to convince you that my ethics are better than your ethics, but that becomes a parlor game. Surely, a blind person has a need to display the data retrieved differently? Perhaps your ethics change for the disabled?

I've gone off topic, but the point is, if the ad-supported business model is failing, that's a problem for business to solve, not pleas to my "morality".

Re: ‘Bitcoin Browser’ Brave Raises $4.5M, Readies for 1.0 Launch

#83

Post by azakai »

Mahn wrote: post #11
seibelj wrote: post #2

> 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…

> 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.

I think the point is that average people wouldn't know how to get an ad blocker, but would notice the massive perf benefits of having one.

A browser whose entire focus is on adblocking is therefore exactly what they would appreciate: out of the box, it works great.

Of course for us tech people here, installing an ad blocker is easy, so it seems a little silly. But we are a tiny fraction of the market.

Re: ‘Bitcoin Browser’ Brave Raises $4.5M, Readies for 1.0 Launch

#84

Post by onion2k »

Paul-ish wrote: post #47
seibelj wrote: post #2

> 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…

I think we need to think two steps ahead here. Say everyone starts using ad blockers and disables flash. Then what?

Websites die out.

We're only 30 years in to the web, and only 20 or so of those where advertising has been a workable system for funding an online business. In business model terms that's still very much in the "proof of concept" stage. Arguably the concept has been proven only to work when users have no way to block it. When they can block it and still view the media they often choose to do so, which means the business model fails.

This is true everywhere. The hayday of TV advertising was 40 years ago but now people have demonstrated a preference for subscription services that don't carry adverts (Netflix etc). Ad-funded print newspapers and magazines are dying because they don't offer something that many readers want, so their advertising model falls apart because they don't have the scale necessary to make it work. Radio seems to be bucking the trend somewhat as commercial radio is actually bouncing back, but that may be due to the costs falling dramatically.

Now it's online advertising lead businesses time for a reality check. 10 years ago online businesses could make a great deal of money by showing adverts to users who came for the content, but with the rise of social and the contraction in ad revenue they can't really continue. Maybe the answer is subscriptions (eg paywalls). Maybe it's micropayments (eg Brave). Or maybe, and this is what I'd bet on for the overwhelming majority of websites, it's just death. Everyone moves their content to Youtube and Facebook.

Re: ‘Bitcoin Browser’ Brave Raises $4.5M, Readies for 1.0 Launch

#85

Post by hsod »

seibelj wrote: post #81
hsod wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This assumes that there is no implicit or explicit agreement between you and the content host. What if the site's TOS made you explicitly agree not to block ads (not in a hidden legalese way but with clear UX)? Would that change your calculus? What if the site owner was a friend of yours, and asked you personally not to block ads? Would that?

Well, if they made me register an account and agree to a ToS, I think it changes things. I have now signed an agreement, and the data is only delivered through an authenticated manner. But if it's publicly available, like a blog post, I don't see how you can place any restrictions on me. I think you are speaking about ethics, and you can try to convince me that my ethics are inferior to your ethics, and I can try to…

I'm solely challenging your assertion that you have zero ethical obligation to a content provider because of the mechanism by which they provided you content. I don't think your digression into meta-ethics is very interesting, so I'll focus what seems to be your concrete point.

> Well, if they made me register an account and agree to a ToS, I think it changes things. [...] But if it's publicly available, like a blog post, I don't see how you can place any restrictions on me.

What if there was no authentication mechanism, but just a heartfelt request in the text of the content which asked you kindly to whitelist that site in your ad blocker?

What if they didn't explicitly request it, but you simply know that that's what they would want?

What I'm trying to get at with these questions is this idea that web users are freed from the obligations of fairness and honest dealings due to the technical mechanisms of the internet.

Re: ‘Bitcoin Browser’ Brave Raises $4.5M, Readies for 1.0 Launch

#86

Post by 0x6c6f6c »

anonbanker wrote: post #67

isn't this just Net Neutrality through the backdoor?

I fail to see how ad blocking on the client side relates to prioritized network traffic.

ISPs are the only ones with control over the system to really hijack net neutrality anyway. Using a browser that blocks/replaces sources by your choice has nothing to do with that.

Re: ‘Bitcoin Browser’ Brave Raises $4.5M, Readies for 1.0 Launch

#87

Post by sp332 »

st3v3r wrote: post #69
sp332 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the not the site owner's browser, so it's fine.

The same argument could be used to not pay you the money your employer pays you.

My employer and I have an agreement that we came to ahead of time. It's not like I showed up, started working, and then demanded money. I have no idea what argument you think I'm making that would be comparable to being employed.

Re: ‘Bitcoin Browser’ Brave Raises $4.5M, Readies for 1.0 Launch

#88

Post by seibelj »

hsod wrote: post #85
seibelj wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if they made me register an account and agree to a ToS, I think it changes things. I have now signed an agreement, and the data is only delivered through an authenticated manner. But if it's publicly available, like a blog post, I don't see how you can place any restrictions on me. I think you are speaking about ethics, and you can try to convince me that my ethics are inferior to your ethics, and I can try to…

I'm solely challenging your assertion that you have zero ethical obligation to a content provider because of the mechanism by which they provided you content. I don't think your digression into meta-ethics is very interesting, so I'll focus what seems to be your concrete point. > Well, if they made me register an account and agree to a ToS, I think it changes things. [...] But if it's publicly available, like a blog…

Let me shift the conversation, and say that by the time you are trying to save an industry by arguing about morals, it is effectively doomed. A simple technical fix (installing an adblocker), a fix which is not illegal and in fact hundreds of millions of people do, renders the whole discussion moot.

I think what many adtech companies have done is immoral. Excessive data use, tracking, distraction, and so on. But that's my opinion. Whose really in the "right" here? Does it matter? A new model will have to emerge, or at least a tweaked one. The adtech industry destroyed trust and angered people, thus motivating people to find a solution. Now businesses are springing up, like Brave, to solve the issue.

Can you outlaw ad blocking? No. Can you force me to use a certain web browser? No. So what are you going to do about it? Whine on HN about unethical assholes like me? I think innovation and creativity will have to crack the nut.

Re: ‘Bitcoin Browser’ Brave Raises $4.5M, Readies for 1.0 Launch

#89

Post by mikeyouse »

lmm wrote: post #76
wyager wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> With current Bitcoin you can't even do micropayments. False. https://bitcoinj.github.io/working-with-micropayments

That still requires 2 transactions for every (user, site) pair. On a network that can do 10 transaction/second total. It might be usable for certain classes of micropayment, but certainly not for a "every website I visit" scenario.

I agree, but 10TPS is actually about 4x as many as Bitcoin can handle. It's more like 2.7TPS with actual usage:

https://www.quora.com/How-many-transactions-per-second-shoul...

Re: ‘Bitcoin Browser’ Brave Raises $4.5M, Readies for 1.0 Launch

#90

Post by tombrossman »

recursive wrote: post #4

Last time I looked at Brave, it was replacing some served ads with its own ads. I do not think that's ok.

I don't particularly like ads but I don't have a problem with the idea of ad substitution. This isn't very different from ad injection that WiFi hotspot and other captive portal operators do. For me, it is more about privacy than not seeing ads (provided the ads are not annoying and don't interfere with my viewing content).

Now for Brave, their incentive is to maximize profits just like any other ad broker. This is not necessarily aligned with my interests as a user. I get their theory, I just worry about how this works out in practice. To trust Brave, I have to believe they will never get greedy and never relax their privacy or security standards, even if these interfere with profit-making. That's a big ask. I would be tempted, too.

I also have concerns about 'malvertising', which has affected many high-profile sites who employ world-class security teams. They haven't been able to stop malware infecting their users via ads.

Admittedly this whole comment is pure FUD but that's just it - I am not certain Brave is the answer, and the easiest thing for me to do is keep using an open-source browser with an ad-blocker. Bonus, I'm using NoScript and have a gigabit FTTH connection and let me tell you, the web is lightning fast!

Good luck Brave team, but I don't think I am your target demographic.

Post reply on HN