Why I’m Worried About Google • Hacker News Board

Re: Why I’m Worried About Google

#311

Post by user812 » Thu, Oct 04, 2018, 8:26 PM UTC

lern_too_spel wrote: post #309

user812 wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that's essentially was Google is doing: dictating things unilaterally. And that's also how the web was founded. No one agreed to anything. People just started to build. If there isn't a law against it, they are allowed to do it. Everyone who uploads free content on the web without a paywall essentially says "take it and display it however you like". Besides that, Brave is essentially building a sustainable model…

> But that's essentially was Google is doing: dictating things unilaterally Nonsense. The publishers agreed to sell their inventory to Google, just as the movie studios agreed to license their content to Netflix or sell it on DVD. Everything else from your post stems from this fundamental misunderstanding about how publishers monetize their content. > That's why publishers like the Guardian are already on board. Then…

Brave does not monetize content. Everything that is monetized goes to the wallets of publishers, minus a fee.

Publishers don't "sell their inventory", since everything a website puts up on the web is essentially free. Consequently there isn't a licence involved, in contrast to your movie example. The publishers chose Google as their middle-man to make money with ads.

Re: Why I’m Worried About Google

#312

Post by BrendanEich » Fri, Oct 05, 2018, 1:15 AM UTC

tannhaeuser wrote: post #173

GnwbZHiU wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's also Brave browser by Brendan Eich. It's still very young and have issues, but it's getting better over time.

Before using Brave, you should consider if you value their business model as ethical (I don't). What they do is filter-out ads and replace them with ads of their customers.

No, we do not. We talked about this model in 2016 but without specifying publishers as consenting partners -- which was implicit and is the only way we might do such third-party ad slot filling in Brave (work under way with partners, e.g., Dow Jones Media Group). The ad slot owner, in this case the publisher, gets 70%; the user gets 15%.

We would not replace ads on page without both user and publisher consent.

We are focused first on user-private ads that go in the user's inventory (notification channel and private tab), paying the user in tokens which then flow by default to the user's top sites and creators on YouTube, Twitch, etc. These ads involve no publisher at all so we pay the user 70%. In either case: 1/ ad "inventory" owner gets 70%, way above the programmatic norm of 40% or much lower due to fraud; 2/ user gets at least as much as we do. HTH.

Re: Why I’m Worried About Google

#313

Post by derReineke » Fri, Oct 05, 2018, 5:26 AM UTC

As soon as I can find a decent, stable job I'm going to start degoogling more of my life. Unfortunately, I have a Pixel 2 and a Pixelbook (unfortunately because Google, otherwise they're great), and I don't have the money to replace them right now. I do use Firefox and DDG on my desktop though. I really like them.

Re: Why I’m Worried About Google

#314

Post by tannhaeuser » Fri, Oct 05, 2018, 7:01 AM UTC

user812 wrote: post #311

lern_too_spel wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But that's essentially was Google is doing: dictating things unilaterally Nonsense. The publishers agreed to sell their inventory to Google, just as the movie studios agreed to license their content to Netflix or sell it on DVD. Everything else from your post stems from this fundamental misunderstanding about how publishers monetize their content. > That's why publishers like the Guardian are already on board. Then…

Brave does not monetize content. Everything that is monetized goes to the wallets of publishers, minus a fee. Publishers don't "sell their inventory", since everything a website puts up on the web is essentially free. Consequently there isn't a licence involved, in contrast to your movie example. The publishers chose Google as their middle-man to make money with ads.

> everything a website puts up on the web is essentially free

No it's not, at least in the EU as of last month's copyright reform. Meaning aggregator and search sites need to pay royalties for syndicating significant portions to publishers. That it's technically possible to scrape content doesn't mean scraping doesn't run afoul of copyright legislation and press norms such as proper attribution. You could also technically "scrape" written books; yet re-publishing your own book copies isn't considered legal.

Re: Why I’m Worried About Google

#315

Post by user812 » Fri, Oct 05, 2018, 11:03 AM UTC

tannhaeuser wrote: post #314

user812 wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brave does not monetize content. Everything that is monetized goes to the wallets of publishers, minus a fee. Publishers don't "sell their inventory", since everything a website puts up on the web is essentially free. Consequently there isn't a licence involved, in contrast to your movie example. The publishers chose Google as their middle-man to make money with ads.

> everything a website puts up on the web is essentially free No it's not, at least in the EU as of last month's copyright reform. Meaning aggregator and search sites need to pay royalties for syndicating significant portions to publishers. That it's technically possible to scrape content doesn't mean scraping doesn't run afoul of copyright legislation and press norms such as proper attribution. You could also techni…

The copyright reform doesn't affect user agents.

Besides, it isn't even in effect yet.

Re: Why I’m Worried About Google

#316

Post by LiterallyDoge » Fri, Oct 05, 2018, 2:35 PM UTC

I just want a company that respects me and my data. Likewise, I want tools that behave in predictable and understandable ways. Google does not produce these kinds of products anymore. The small change in workflow with a different tool is minimal, the gain in quality from working with companies that treat me with respect is immeasurable.

Re: Why I’m Worried About Google

#317

Post by lern_too_spel » Fri, Oct 05, 2018, 2:45 PM UTC

user812 wrote: post #311

lern_too_spel wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But that's essentially was Google is doing: dictating things unilaterally Nonsense. The publishers agreed to sell their inventory to Google, just as the movie studios agreed to license their content to Netflix or sell it on DVD. Everything else from your post stems from this fundamental misunderstanding about how publishers monetize their content. > That's why publishers like the Guardian are already on board. Then…

Brave does not monetize content. Everything that is monetized goes to the wallets of publishers, minus a fee. Publishers don't "sell their inventory", since everything a website puts up on the web is essentially free. Consequently there isn't a licence involved, in contrast to your movie example. The publishers chose Google as their middle-man to make money with ads.

> Brave does not monetize content. Everything that is monetized goes to the wallets of publishers, minus a fee [emphasis added].

Your second sentence contradicts your first sentence.

> Publishers don't "sell their inventory", since everything a website puts up on the web is essentially free.

They have spots on their web pages for advertisements that they sell to Google or other ad networks. Brave unilaterally takes those spots from the publisher for a price the publisher never agreed to.

> The publishers chose Google as their middle-man to make money with ads.

That's the point. They sold that inventory to Google, not to Brave.

Re: Why I’m Worried About Google

#318

Post by user812 » Fri, Oct 05, 2018, 9:49 PM UTC

lern_too_spel wrote: post #317

user812 wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brave does not monetize content. Everything that is monetized goes to the wallets of publishers, minus a fee. Publishers don't "sell their inventory", since everything a website puts up on the web is essentially free. Consequently there isn't a licence involved, in contrast to your movie example. The publishers chose Google as their middle-man to make money with ads.

> Brave does not monetize content. Everything that is monetized goes to the wallets of publishers, minus a fee [emphasis added]. Your second sentence contradicts your first sentence. > Publishers don't "sell their inventory", since everything a website puts up on the web is essentially free. They have spots on their web pages for advertisements that they sell to Google or other ad networks. Brave unilaterally takes t…

Well, after all it's called user-agent, not publisher-agent ;)