61–70 of 229 posts
Everything I've seen about the browser seems tied to him, and generally his interactions with people seem testy and confrontational.
It's ironic that Google owns the browser and ad network. Brave wants to change that by creating a new browser and ad network. But until they can make brave less tied to him it'll be hard.
I think the privacy crowd drawn to Brave couldn't care less what the (current) digital advertising industry wants. Anyone who's been involved in the current ad-tech industry knows it's a total tire fire of fraud, technical incompetence and deep hostility to end-users. Brave's model is very interesting and also a threat to the current ad-tech cesspool, so there should be no surprise to see attempts to misinform people…
Why would I use Brave over a modified Firefox install?
> Brave will give users a 70 percent cut of its advertising revenue, which Eich estimates could work out to about $5 a month. Brave will pay users with its own bitcoin-style "cryptocurrency” called Basic Attention Tokens or BAT, which has traded for as little as 12 cents and as much as 46 cents over the past 12 months, according to CoinMarketCap. Today, there’s no way for users who receive BAT for viewing ads to swap their digital currency for dollars, but Eich says Brave will partner with cryptocurrency exchanges to make that possible.
Brave is just an intermediary that replaces ads with other ads. It's an adnetwork delivered as a browser that creates ad inventory on top of the page instead of within it. That being said, the tokens are basically worthless. This is not what the digital advertising industry wants and Brave is not going to get any decent advertisers with this. They'll end up with the same shady affiliate/performance marketers running…
Regardless, Brave is a pretty great browser. It increases battery life on my machine by an hour or two compared to Chrome by blocking all those ads.
How about the more privacy-respecting Firefox with an ad-blocker?
Brave got to where it is because Brendan Eich is the face of it. Everything I've seen about the browser seems tied to him, and generally his interactions with people seem testy and confrontational. It's ironic that Google owns the browser and ad network. Brave wants to change that by creating a new browser and ad network. But until they can make brave less tied to him it'll be hard.
There's a lot of negativity here about brave. But the fact is that the web desperately needs a new financial model, and as far as I can tell brave is a lot further along on that than any other project. Would anyone like to argue that the present web financial model is fine? Or would anyone like to point to someone else who has an alternative that would be workable and is anywhere near usable? And let met add one more…
I don’t agree that the web needs any financial model at all. Content creators want a financial model and advertisers wants to continue to be in business, but neither of those desires indicates a “need” for a single financial model for the web.
I think the privacy crowd drawn to Brave couldn't care less what the (current) digital advertising industry wants. Anyone who's been involved in the current ad-tech industry knows it's a total tire fire of fraud, technical incompetence and deep hostility to end-users. Brave's model is very interesting and also a threat to the current ad-tech cesspool, so there should be no surprise to see attempts to misinform people…
>I think the privacy crowd drawn to Brave couldn't care less what the (current) digital advertising industry wants. Why would I use Brave over a modified Firefox install?
You can read a lot more detail within the research section of their site [1].
My previous browser setup was Firefox Dev Edition with uBlock origin, but Brave is just a better browser all-round now so I've completely switched.
I particularly like where the sync-chain stuff is going [2].
I think the privacy crowd drawn to Brave couldn't care less what the (current) digital advertising industry wants. Anyone who's been involved in the current ad-tech industry knows it's a total tire fire of fraud, technical incompetence and deep hostility to end-users. Brave's model is very interesting and also a threat to the current ad-tech cesspool, so there should be no surprise to see attempts to misinform people…
>I think the privacy crowd drawn to Brave couldn't care less what the (current) digital advertising industry wants. Why would I use Brave over a modified Firefox install?
Can't wait until someone automates it.
"Today, there’s no way for users who receive BAT for viewing ads to swap their digital currency for dollars, but Eich says Brave will partner with cryptocurrency exchanges to make that possible." So people can pay to buy tokens but can't sell them, seems legit.
Actually people can buy and sell BAT. They just can't convert any BAT rewarded for ad participation into fiat right now. It's on the roadmap though, but even then you'll have to go through KYC AML providers so there'll be no option of anonymous earnings.
When BAT is paid out to people surfing the web, does someone knows what ads they saw, maybe what webpages they visited to see those ads?