Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Internet for people who don't know about ad blockers must be a horrible place, it's no wonder everybody started using apps for everything.
Aren't apps also crippled by ads?
Not nearly as much as mobile web.
Brave files adtech complaint against Google
261–270 of 271 posts
Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google
#262Earlier quoted context omitted.
So can I ask, how would I as a website developer do that? If I don't want you blocking my ads, costing me money for servers and hosting, and removing my income stream, how do is signal to you or enforce that I will only send you content on the stipulation that you make a few promises on what you will display? Because in my experience, offering paid options to remove all ads and tracking if you want doesn't stop or ev…
Sounds like you've covered all the bases, including shutting down your service, but you've rejected every option that doesn't involve selling out your users to advertises. It comes off as a sense of entitlement that you have some sort of right to profit off this service when you don't.
I don't sense much entitlement in thoroughly thinking through the options of how to keep a website running.
Actually, the air of entitlement I detect in this entire discussion is around people who strongly believe that everything should be free and magically self-sustaining.
Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google
#263Earlier quoted context omitted.
Price discrimination is harder to scale than ad targeting.
... they engage in price discrimination when they do ad targeting. You know it doesn't cost an advertiser the same amount to target people in India as it does over here, right?
Yes. Perhaps consider reading comments in the light of, rather than in order to snarkily make, the obvious points.
Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google
#264From 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 i…
I would be all over any search engine subscription that guaranteed that none of my information would ever be stored in any way. Just give me the option to pay!
Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google
#265Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's say bees. "I see the problem is bees in your car. We would like to solve this by filling your car with different, quieter bees. In exchange for this, we are willing to give you some of the honey."
No, Brave says "no bees" by default. Secondly, you are hoisting upon ads a prejudicial bias by likening them, necessarily, to bees. Ads aren't the problem; the bees who hide behind them are. Either way, if you don't want them, you don't get them. It's an opt-in system.
Brave's home page proudly promises to "Block Ads" in big red tags and tries to convince you that the "average" user is losing hundreds of dollars a year over ads. Are you sure you want to talk about hoisting a prejudicial bias upon ads?
Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google
#266Brave's strategy of replacing ads with other ads isn't going to do anyone any good. They could've used payment channels to build a content distribution network, but alas...
I'd like to respond, as a developer on the Brave project. We don't simply replace ads with other ads. The entire ad landscape has been co-opted by those who aim to collect as much data about you as is possible. Over 600 million devices were running some form of ad-blocking software in 2017, and that was an increase of 30% from the year prior. This number keeps growing, year over year. Something has to be done. Users…
"For users who opt in, Brave can deliver better quality ads, without the risk of personal data leakage. We do this by using local machine-learning to understand the user better, and making local decisions as to which ads should or should not be shown, and when (the user controls all of this). Furthermore, the user gets 70% of the ad revenue for browser-private ads."
Sorry. This is just wrong. You don't nor never will have the volume of data that the major ad platforms have collected for 15+ years. You don't have the pure analytical power of these companies in compute capacity. You will not serve better ads by disabling third party retargeting platforms.
There are many positive ways to spin an obvious blockchain-craze inspired endeavor, and I applaud the Brave team for blazing a trail, but you are calling out all the wrong value propositions.
Fraud is not as big of a deal as you state it is. It is not a problem for the primary ad networks to which the lions share of the ad revenues goes to in the first place. Companies like WhiteOps and Moat already do a great job of fraud detection when an advertiser is not buying from one of the popular and safer exchanges.
I applaud your conviction, but the problem with advertising is not solved by attempting to de-throne Google and Facebook.
Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google
#267From 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 i…
> Unless we want to start paying for google searches and Facebook, this is how it’s going to be.
Not necessarily. There is always the model of selling ads without such obnoxious tracking. If Google would base their targeting only on the phrase typed into the search bar, then I'd be okay with that. But them stalking me everywhere I go around the web is not cool.
Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google
#268Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That seems like an overly rigid and adversarial perspective It's the truth. You don't get to control how I render the page, on what device, whether I've decided to use links (or lynx) today, or any of that. It's my computing device, I'll render data as I please. > I support the notion that having access to good content requires a way to compensate content creators. Sure, but again if you send me the data, I'll rend…
That's a design consequence, not a design consideration. Local TV stations can't control the way you consume their signals either, but it's not as easy to for you to filter out the content and disregard the pulp, i.e., inline advertisements.
That's entirely true. But then the tv signal doesn't ask the tv to tell a few dozen other entities its deepest secrets.
That I know of. With smart TVs I guess it could well.
Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google
#269Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds like you've covered all the bases, including shutting down your service, but you've rejected every option that doesn't involve selling out your users to advertises. It comes off as a sense of entitlement that you have some sort of right to profit off this service when you don't.
I don't sense much entitlement in thoroughly thinking through the options of how to keep a website running. Actually, the air of entitlement I detect in this entire discussion is around people who strongly believe that everything should be free and magically self-sustaining.
I don't believe that.
But neither do I believe that I'm obligated to render data the way you ask me to.
Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google
#270Earlier quoted context omitted.
While there is some evil involved with targetted advertising there is a significant difference between that and direct data selling. The latter would be way worse. One tries to sell you weird stuff after you look up the infamous giant barrel of lube after hearing about all of the joke reviews. The other gives the lines of an honest man to hang you with to anyone willing to pay and spin you as a colossal pervert. It i…
Fair enough. N:M surveillance is worse than N:1 surveillance from a personal perspective. Though unclear if that also holds at scale. They are still both evil and much worse than no surveillance.
I wonder about the disconcerting counterpart of radical transparency as in everyone surveilled and everyone has access. It would require a lot of soul searching about destroying all of the uncomfortable private hypocrisies but would force honesty and limit corruption. It would probably force either tolerance of previously dark secrets or conformity. Unfortunately cognitive dissonance is also a powerful force. Hypocrisy is only okay when we do it and all that.