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

91–100 of 130 posts

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

#91

Post by eberkund »

onion2k wrote: post #84
Paul-ish wrote: post #47

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…

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 n…

Websites die out.

No, a certain portion of websites will die out. There is a huge portion of website that do not make any or very little profit from advertising.

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

#92

Post by hsod »

seibelj wrote: post #88
hsod wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm sure you make a lot of good points here, but I'm more interested in the ethical calculus of the individual ad block user than the market forces at play.

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

#93

Post by anonbanker »

0x6c6f6c wrote: post #86
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.

we'll let's help you with your issue: should content providers (reddit, arstechnica, etc) decide to de-prioritize those that aren't directly making them money, the effect is the same as net neutrality, (a tiered-access internet) is it not? Should Brave gain even a minority marketshare, you'll definitely see Google and Mozilla (and likely Microsoft) jump on board with similar solutions.

We've merely pushed the control from the ISP to the content providers. Does this mean it isn't a Net Neutrality hijack anymore?

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

#94

Post by eric_h »

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?

There have been a number of sites that have popped up as submissions here on HN where the site rendered without an adblocker loaded so slowly as to be basically unusable. Rendered in lynx, however, it was both readable and extremely fast to load. Does that count as an adblocker, or a TOS violation? What about curl + an html viewer (without JS capability?)

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

#95

Post by jcoffland »

jcoffland wrote: post #17
cryptarch wrote: post #14

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 mean unethical.

http://grammarist.com/usage/ethics-morals/

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

#97

Post by st3v3r »

jcoffland wrote: post #79
st3v3r wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I cannot agree to this. Your entire premise rests upon the idea that these people are creating content for you for free. That you are entitled to someone else's work for free.

Is my attention worth nothing? Are my contributions in the form of comments without value? Regardless I never agreed to view ads in trade for access to content and to be completely fair it was not offered to me in this way. The usual offer is along the lines of "hey click this link you will like what you find there." This is a far cry from, "view these ads and we will provided you with content."

"Is my attention worth nothing? Are my contributions in the form of comments without value?"

Pretty much. You can't pay rent with "attention". It's just like the people that try to get designers to do work for free because of "exposure".

"Regardless I never agreed to view ads in trade for access to content and to be completely fair it was not offered to me in this way."

Yeah, you kinda did. This is the implicit agreement of the internet. If you don't like it, that's fine; there's nothing wrong with that. The point at which it does become wrong is, instead of going to some other website that doesn't do this, you continue to view the content, draining their bandwidth and resources, as though you are entitled to the content. If you don't want to view ads, go to sites that either offer content on a subscription basis and pay that, or on a donation basis.

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

#98

Post by etatoby »

sp332 wrote: post #52
zimbatm wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But why not just make a browser extension like everybody else? Surely adoption would be easier as well.

Most mobile browsers don't support addons.

That's why Firefox mobile is the best browser for Android.

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

#99

Post by curioussavage »

st3v3r wrote: post #71
curioussavage wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A law does not establish if something is really immoral. And until people with dollar signs in their eyes don't have all the sway in making those calls I reserve the right to resist. 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.

So resist by not visiting those sites. Once you say that you are still entitled to the content, you have lost any claim to moral high ground, and are just acting like an entitled child. "Once you send information out into the world. you DONT own it." This sounds like someone who believes that if something comes up in a Google image search, it's free game for anyone to use.

Oh I don't feel entitled to it at all. But If I send you a GET request and you will just send it to me now questions asked then I'm going to ask for it. Nice try.

Your variation of the old "if you don't like it why don't you just move" argument is the more childish response.

Besides, enforcing this intellectual property racket is paid for by my tax dollars. Lets call those "contributions" to the cause my dues.

"This sounds like someone who believes that if something comes up in a Google image search, it's free game for anyone to use."

Exactly. You imply that it is written in stone that ip is a sacred thing. Not everyone agrees.

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

#100

Post by curioussavage »

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?

Implicit agreements for everything are a side effect of our idiotic and corrupt legal system.

Imagine going to a car lot and having a salesman walk up and say "our TOS say by walking onto a lot you have to buy something, you owe us. Didn't you read them? they are behind that dumpster over there duh. Its on page 53 paragraph 10"

Its really shady to link to some other resource on your domain in small print that is full of legal mumbo jumbo and pretend that constitutes any real agreement between you and somebody else. And yes I understand that all those Judges and lawyers who make a living off of making this crap up disagree with me.

For what ifs - What if you sending me a document without charge or explicitly asking for payment first did not imply that I "have" to download some other document that will annoy me and possible infect my computer.

Post reply on HN