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

Brave files adtech complaint against Google

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 271 posts

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#161

Post by Nursie »

purple-dragon wrote: post #149
RosanaAnaDana wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an unpopular opinion I also hold. There is no right to advertising to me. If you want me to use your product, pay me.

I don't understand. Is there a certain context you are referring to, or is this how you feel about all online advertising? I'll accept one's claim to rights to browse without advertising if it's accepted that one doesn't have a right to consume ad-supported content without consuming advertisements. It seems only fair to me.

Don't send me the content if you don't want me to render it as I see fit, I make no promises about how I will consume that data.

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#162

Post by jonathansampson »

Cyclone_ wrote: post #138
drb91 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what are the alternatives to ads? They’re going to continue to die until there’s a real alternative.

Brave offers micropayments for content.

Indeed! Subscription models work for some, but not for most. This adds friction to the user. Now they have to manage different accounts, monitor their monthly spending for each, and more.

With Brave Payments, the user needs only to fund their wallet with BAT, and browse the web. By default, each property will receive a portion of the user's monthly allotment, relative to the amount of attention to user spent on that property's domain.

If a user has chosen to give $10 worth of BAT to 5 sites, and one of them received 80% of the user's attention, then that site will get $8 worth of BAT. The rest of the sites will get the remainder, pro rata.

Brave goes a step further though, and issues BAT grants monthly to users. So users don't need to fund their wallets to participate. Soon, users will be able to fund their wallet by opting into Brave Ads.

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#163

Post by buboard »

I 'm all for the EU trying to enact protectionist measures against the US invaders, but I'd rather they would do it in a straightforward, china-firewall way, than with these firework-like regulations that don't benefit the EU at all y (I mean, let's admit it after 20 years, EU just can't compete). On the one hand, GDPR has not reduced my ad revenue (Nor google's), despite not having tracked ads (which reinforces my belief that tracking is marketed as way more effective than it is). Now, this directive will not deprive Google of any revenue, while it will actively hurt the eu publishers big time (which google will drop).

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#164

Post by ChristianBundy »

purple-dragon wrote: post #149
RosanaAnaDana wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an unpopular opinion I also hold. There is no right to advertising to me. If you want me to use your product, pay me.

I don't understand. Is there a certain context you are referring to, or is this how you feel about all online advertising? I'll accept one's claim to rights to browse without advertising if it's accepted that one doesn't have a right to consume ad-supported content without consuming advertisements. It seems only fair to me.

If you're giving out free widgets with ads engraved on them, I have the right to sand off the advertisement or cover it with something I dislike less.

Some widgets are useful. Most ads are not useful. Bundling your free widget with an advertisement doesn't mean I have an ethical obligation to look at the advertisement or keep it there.

If you want to make money on your widgets I'd recommend selling them rather than trying to sell your consumers to advertisers.

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#165

Post by dogweather »

jonathansampson wrote: post #117
quotemstr wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When a site advertises to support itself, it's entering a consensual and mutually beneficial relationship with visitors: readers give up a sliver of their attention and in exchange get otherwise-free content. Are you suggesting that we make it illegal to enter into this kind of consensual and mutually beneficial business arrangement?

Brave doesn't touch first-party ads. If you wish to advertise to your visitors, we respect that. But opening a tunnel to third party ads and trackers, which are foisted upon the user without their consent, is not okay. Ads are no longer pixels on the screen; they're so much more than that. They're monitoring your activity, your movement, your most intimate details, and more. They're collecting this data, storing it,…

> Brave doesn't touch first-party ads. If you wish to advertise to your visitors, we respect that.

That's pretty interesting. So, as an online publisher, if I make my own deals directly with the advertisers and then host and serve the assets myself, Brave doesn't flag it.

I used to do this, but it's very time consuming. I've essentially delegated this work to Adsense.

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#166

Post by purple-dragon »

ChristianBundy wrote: post #164
purple-dragon wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand. Is there a certain context you are referring to, or is this how you feel about all online advertising? I'll accept one's claim to rights to browse without advertising if it's accepted that one doesn't have a right to consume ad-supported content without consuming advertisements. It seems only fair to me.

If you're giving out free widgets with ads engraved on them, I have the right to sand off the advertisement or cover it with something I dislike less. Some widgets are useful. Most ads are not useful. Bundling your free widget with an advertisement doesn't mean I have an ethical obligation to look at the advertisement or keep it there. If you want to make money on your widgets I'd recommend selling them rather than t…

Free and ad-supported are not the same thing. Similarly, advertisements don't require that the provider disregard your privacy entirely. I just don't understand why anyone would think it's ethical to block ads for an online news source that pays its content creators with ad revenue. It's part of the implied contract of consumption.

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#167

Post by purple-dragon »

Nursie wrote: post #161
purple-dragon wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand. Is there a certain context you are referring to, or is this how you feel about all online advertising? I'll accept one's claim to rights to browse without advertising if it's accepted that one doesn't have a right to consume ad-supported content without consuming advertisements. It seems only fair to me.

Don't send me the content if you don't want me to render it as I see fit, I make no promises about how I will consume that data.

That seems like an overly rigid and adversarial perspective. I don't think online advertising is always done well or ethically, but in general, I support the notion that having access to good content requires a way to compensate content creators.

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#168

Post by spiritcat »

jonathansampson wrote: post #147
DevKoala wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Local machine-learning will decide what willing users are interested in, and whether or not to show them particular ads." How are you countering my claim? It is trying to establish a monopoly on the ad-targeting protocol. Brave is not a regulated party, and as well-intended as Brave could be, all it essentially doing is moving one part of the architecture to the client, and granting control over it to a single party…

You're downplaying the implication of "moving one part of the architecture to the client". This inversion of the model means the user is sovereign over their data. It means ad fraud (responsible for billions lost) is dealt a massive blow. It means the publisher doesn't have to watch hand after hand take from their revenue before it reaches them. It means the user, finally, can get paid for the limited commodity calle…

Theoretically, could the (server-side) records of which ads the local machine learning decided to serve be reverse engineered to extract most of tracking info?

Local AI keeps sending this guy ads for shoes and cottage cheese == this guys keeps searching for shoes and cottage cheese?

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#169

Post by guiomie »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #75
britch wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious, do you have any evidence that most people are installing ad blockers as a privacy measure? I don't have any hard evidence, but I imagine most people block ads because they don't want to have to scroll past a bunch of banners and videos to read the article they want to read. Certainly there are many people who are concerned about privacy, but I don' think that's what's driving the popularity of ad blocker…

I install ad blockers because I don't want to get auto redirected to a porn site which some unscrupulous ad vendors make possible. I tried going blocker free at work for 6 months. uBO got installed the day I was sent to a porn site by malicious JavaScript after clicking on an innocuous link. Google won't address the JavaScript problem with their ad network so I cut them off.

Sample bias here. But this hasn't happened to me since the early 2000's. I do not have any ad blocker, no ad bothers me, unless its an adult site, they've gone really crazy there.

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#170

Post by nightsd01 »

From what I understand, Google isn’t actually giving away people’s data to “hundreds of companies” for advertising purposes.

When an advertiser wants to target a specific group of people, Google doesn’t say “here’s everyone’s private data, good luck”. GOOGLE does the filtering and targeting internally.

I’m sorry but that isn’t evil or bad. Unless we want to start paying for google searches and Facebook, this is how it’s going to be. And personally, I actually like getting ads relevant to my life. For example, I even got my current job based off a highly relevant Facebook ad.

My personal suspicion is that people are just jealous of how much success Google and Facebook have had.

Post reply on HN