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

Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

brave.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 381 posts

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#171

Post by phjesusthatguy3 »

furyofantares wrote: post #165
phjesusthatguy3 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EDIT: I let my parent comment get the best of me, and I apologize for using the language I did. I'm going to leave it here, though, because it does express my frustration at whataboutism. Excuse my profanity, but what the fuck are you on about? Why the fuck would I use a browser that has the explicit fucking purpose of tracking me, whatever fucking base they base their fucking browser on?

It’s just confusing because then your original comment is a non-sequitur, not particularly relevant to the context of the discussion about trusting Brave on FF vs Brave on Chromium, because, as you say, if you don’t trust Brave then the base doesn’t matter. There isn’t any whataboutism in the post you are replying to.

No, you didn't go back to my original post, which said I don't trust Google. My apology was about the language I used.

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#172

Post by RandomBacon »

cameronbrown wrote: post #167
RandomBacon wrote: post #166

I understan Wikipedia does not have ads, but other websites do. In the early 2000s, toolbars that replaced a website's ads with different ads were considered malware. Instead of the website that bears the cost of delivering content getting the money, the browser is now getting the money. How is Brave Browser different in this regard than those malware toolbars?

The only difference is that consumers have agreed to let the browser do this.

How do we know that all the consumers realize the browser is doing this? How do we know all consumers with those toolbars didn't know?

I imagine those consumers also "agree" to website Terms of Service that don't allow this.

I wonder if websites will fight back, closing accounts or doing more to stop people who use adblockers or Brave.

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#173

Post by boring_twenties »

thefj wrote: post #41
songshuu wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eye roll on this take. If you have a better business model for content producers on the internet feel free to build it.

How about the business model the content producers choose for themselves, instead of one that is forced on them by a rent seeking company with good PR? If I have ads on my site, I have no interest in someone replacing them and taking a cut.

How does your site deal with ad blocking users? Do you block them from your website? Isn't it kind of nice that at least some of these users, despite not wanting your ads, still want to find a way to pay you, even going to the point of installing an alternate browser for the opportunity to do so?

And in any case, you could always block Brave users from your site if you wanted to. How's anything being forced on you here?

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#174

Post by Circuits »

jonathansampson wrote: post #13
seren wrote: post #3

I had never read the Brave ad model before. They want to display ads while respecting user privacy, which is nice from a user point of view, but do advertisers actually want that rather than being able to target 35-40 years old in Ohio that are using shaving products twice a week ?

Brave developer here. Great question! Brave Ads are entirely opt-in, and work via on-device machine-learning. The machine-learning bits study your browsing habits in a private, non-leaky manner. Once a day, your device downloads an aggregate catalog of many ad options to be studied locally. If/when an ad is found that fits your interests (as inferred by your browsing habits), the ad is displayed as an OS notification…

Totally confused... why should it matter to me, the user, if it's you tracking me or if it's Google tracking me?

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#175

Post by Eli_P »

trpc wrote: post #18

1. Build a theme over Chromium 2. Add your ads and tracking system over it 3. Brand it as "X Browser" This is not a browser, this is a skin over Chrome with a business model that's built over a crypto scam. Your army of online shills and your attempts to connect yourselves with reputable online entities such as Wikipedia won't change that fact.

There have been another similar project called MetaMask[1], a browser extension exposes a payment API for tipping content creators. MM had their brawls with Google too like taking down from app market, so what Brave guys are doing is understandable.

It's interesting what devs from Brave think about previous attempts like MetaMask? Why didn't it take off, leave out difficulties with configuration for non-blessed users? Having BAT token based on ETH platform, how is it going to deal with ETH network congestion? If it's off-chain, who controls it? Is it possible to split profits from ads or tips in case a bunch of people are collaborating on the same piece of content?

[1] https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-extension

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#176

Post by omnimus »

onyva wrote: post #155
zargon wrote: post #12

I really like what Brave is doing. I wish it was built on Firefox instead of Chromium. I just don't see myself leaving Firefox without major upheaval in the browser space.

Mozilla's focus is user's rights online and privacy. They have a track record doing that. Brave (AKA AdBuddy) is just another product, desperately looking for a revenue stream, notably believing contaminating all news regarding browser technology with its presence is the way to go. The last thing the world needs is a predatory vendor trying to force itself somewhere it's not needed. Its non existing market share is t…

I think he meant build on Gecko/Servo not Blink.

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#177

Post by input_sh »

jefftk wrote: post #131
bad_user wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On iOS, Brave is forked from Firefox You mean the platform that specifically disallows competing browser engines, making Firefox just a shell over a Safari-enabled web view and that can't even access Safari's content blockers? The only Firefox that's not running a Firefox engine under the hood? That Firefox? Given you're a developer for Brave, it's not possible for you to not know this, therefore your statement is…

> Brave should recognize its total dependence on Google and its continued goodwill What do you mean? Brave is based on Chromium, which is open source. Google can't stop people from using it. (Disclosure: I work for Google)

Google is the dictator of what gets accepted into Chromium and what does not. That's how open source development works -- even if the code is available to everyone, its maintainers control its future.

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#178

Post by ryacko »

input_sh wrote: post #177
jefftk wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Brave should recognize its total dependence on Google and its continued goodwill What do you mean? Brave is based on Chromium, which is open source. Google can't stop people from using it. (Disclosure: I work for Google)

Google is the dictator of what gets accepted into Chromium and what does not. That's how open source development works -- even if the code is available to everyone, its maintainers control its future.

More significantly, (as far as I know) there is not much open discussion about Chromium’s goals or roadmap. The reduction of Adblock blacklists in Chromium was announced, there wasn’t some public mailing list where a flame war began over it.

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#179

Post by input_sh »

BrendanEich wrote: post #92
orblivion wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would the story be different with Quantum now?

No, the decision was based on a spreadsheet with many items concerned with web compatibility, HTML5 DRM plugin free-as-in-beer, extension support, etc. Chromium without Google tracking is dominant, this is just a fact (it will change some day; not soon). The best way to counter this is not to die on the wrong hill (engine wars) right now -- it is to go a level up and fight for privacy and user sovereignty where Googl…

"Fighting for privacy" and third-party ads do not belong in the same sentence.

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#180

Post by vesche »

jonathansampson wrote: post #13
seren wrote: post #3

I had never read the Brave ad model before. They want to display ads while respecting user privacy, which is nice from a user point of view, but do advertisers actually want that rather than being able to target 35-40 years old in Ohio that are using shaving products twice a week ?

Brave developer here. Great question! Brave Ads are entirely opt-in, and work via on-device machine-learning. The machine-learning bits study your browsing habits in a private, non-leaky manner. Once a day, your device downloads an aggregate catalog of many ad options to be studied locally. If/when an ad is found that fits your interests (as inferred by your browsing habits), the ad is displayed as an OS notification…

I would never opt-in to ads even if there was some upside. That's like asking if I'd like to see billboards on a beautiful drive through Colorado and in return you'll throw some change in my center console. I'll just take the beautiful drive and you can keep the cash.

> The machine-learning bits study your browsing habits in a private, non-leaky manner.

I think everyone's been around the internet long enough to know that nothing is private forever and everything has leaks. Relevant: https://twitter.com/briankrebs/status/1045091640480804864

Post reply on HN