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

271–280 of 381 posts

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#271

Post by Buge »

phjesusthatguy3 wrote: post #171
furyofantares wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I still don't understand why you would prefer if Brave was based on Firefox instead of Chrome. One of your comments sounds like you're worried about Brave inserting tracking. Brave could do that regardless of what it's based on.

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#272

Post by echelon »

Ayesh wrote: post #244

I'm a publisher relying on ad revenue, and I hate Brave. It's not because it blocks my ads (I also contribute to an ad blocker list myself), but because Brave can swap my ads with its own. This is theft! Brave is similar to Opera. It's not a mainstream browser, and they also want to make money. Dipping into publisher revenue and using some broken BAT crypto currency to reward publishers is not the way to do it. The c…

> Brave can swap my ads with its own. This is theft!

If true, this should be at the top. Brave should be sued into the ground for doing this.

I'm fine with ad blocking, but this is outright larceny.

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#273

Post by rjf72 »

riquito wrote: post #261
marichards wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Mozilla wanted to respect privacy the "UI that is designed to act as a search field for Google" could be a "UI that is designed to act as a search field for DuckDuckGo", it wasn't that long ago it was a search field for Yahoo. What's notable here is that Google is the default and in doing so is endorsed and recommended by Mozilla for its users. So the fact here is that Mozilla made that choice to be in bed with Go…

Let's completely neglect in those "facts" that Google offers the best search engine and that people want to use it

I think that ship has pretty much sailed, but in either case that has nothing to do with Firefox's decision. If they wanted to use Google, for whatever reason, they could do so while supporting user privacy by piping it through e.g. Startpage.

They just want the Google $$$, privacy be damned.

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#274

Post by codezero »

Ayesh wrote: post #244

I'm a publisher relying on ad revenue, and I hate Brave. It's not because it blocks my ads (I also contribute to an ad blocker list myself), but because Brave can swap my ads with its own. This is theft! Brave is similar to Opera. It's not a mainstream browser, and they also want to make money. Dipping into publisher revenue and using some broken BAT crypto currency to reward publishers is not the way to do it. The c…

I don't want to be uncivil and call you a liar, but can you explain why what you are saying about the ad replacement is true?

Brendan Eich has repeatedly said that they do not replace ads: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20831627

For what it's worth, I find Brendan's position on homosexuality to be on the wrong side of history and on the wrong side of faithfulness (I do not intend to put words in his mouth, but this comment feels like a strong acceptance that he has feelings or opinions about gay people that are hard to rationally, and intelligently defend) [0]

I want to make it clear I have no stake in protecting Brendan or Brave (I work for an analytics company!), but parroting bullshit you heard, or misrepresenting a company that affects your business is not taking the high ground even when the thing you are shitting on is led by a person whose position many people find despicable.

[0] Brendan Eich says, "As for homophobe, I reject your definition. Call me what you want there" // https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20792783

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#275

Post by pedro2 »

Ayesh wrote: post #244

I'm a publisher relying on ad revenue, and I hate Brave. It's not because it blocks my ads (I also contribute to an ad blocker list myself), but because Brave can swap my ads with its own. This is theft! Brave is similar to Opera. It's not a mainstream browser, and they also want to make money. Dipping into publisher revenue and using some broken BAT crypto currency to reward publishers is not the way to do it. The c…

> but because Brave can swap my ads with its own. This is theft!

AFAIK this is not true. To get in-page ads, you (the page owner) have to opt-in and will be paid over 60% of the profit.

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#276

Post by [deleted] »

codezero wrote: post #274
Ayesh wrote: post #244

I'm a publisher relying on ad revenue, and I hate Brave. It's not because it blocks my ads (I also contribute to an ad blocker list myself), but because Brave can swap my ads with its own. This is theft! Brave is similar to Opera. It's not a mainstream browser, and they also want to make money. Dipping into publisher revenue and using some broken BAT crypto currency to reward publishers is not the way to do it. The c…

I don't want to be uncivil and call you a liar, but can you explain why what you are saying about the ad replacement is true? Brendan Eich has repeatedly said that they do not replace ads: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20831627 For what it's worth, I find Brendan's position on homosexuality to be on the wrong side of history and on the wrong side of faithfulness (I do not intend to put words in his mouth, but…

[deleted]

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#277

Post by JohnTHaller »

rjf72 wrote: post #269
JohnTHaller wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All users. We don't track brave users as they block Google analytics. The users who requested we participate thought it would be a good way to get 'free money' from Brave users like them that we were leaving on the table. That's definitely not the case.

Free money isn't free money? Sure it's only a few bucks a month but look at that in terms of your user base. What are you going to assume your marketshare of Brave users is? For context consider the marketshare of Firefox is in the single digits. Brave is probably a fraction of that. If we assume Brave's popularity is 10% of that of Firefox, that'd give you an expected userbase of That'd be $3/month for, at most, 10k…

If our entire userbase switched to Brave and we made $300 a month from them, I'd have to shut the site down.

Either way, it's really not worth the time and effort to set it up right now unless you're a huge site like wikipedia and you don't have any ad revenue to lose.

I do think it will be interesting what this does to donations to wikipedia. It would make sense, I think, that Brave users may donate less per user overall as they feel they are contributing by using Brave.

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#278

Post by smsm42 »

Ayesh wrote: post #244

I'm a publisher relying on ad revenue, and I hate Brave. It's not because it blocks my ads (I also contribute to an ad blocker list myself), but because Brave can swap my ads with its own. This is theft! Brave is similar to Opera. It's not a mainstream browser, and they also want to make money. Dipping into publisher revenue and using some broken BAT crypto currency to reward publishers is not the way to do it. The c…

> What we need is an ad provider that provides a meaningful experience to advertisers and non-invasive ads to publishers

That's like saying "all we need is some honest and wise politicians and some smart non-corrupt government officials". Excellent idea, too bad nobody figured out how to get some and have them stay that way. Until we find a magic way to do it, we should assume the way it is now is the one we'd have to deal with, and deal with it in ways that are available presently, not imaginary.

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#279

Post by onyva »

marichards wrote: post #204
onyva wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Whatever Mozilla's focus is when you load Firefox you experience the following: 1. On ESR first time it loads two pages load including https://www.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/60.8.0/firstrun/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/firefox/ You then find first party cookies are set by Google Analytics _ga GA1.2.1671101194.1567114471 _gat_UA-36116321-1 1 _gid GA1.2.377831647.1567114471 In the EU this would breach the ePri…

Talking about the cesspool of Brave employee lurking here, this discussion might be interesting when you guys start identifying as such.

It didn’t go unnoticed that you guys are all over the place attacking Firefox and Mozilla !!! on privacy. Really? Clearly you think this is your entry point for some reason.

Brave is a corporation. For profit. It can’t and shouldn’t be trusted. Especially not a company run by a disgraced ex Mozilla employee accused of homophobia and racism.

No thanks. Lesson was learned with like trillion other for profit corporations offering to save the world and then using the first opportunity to betray their customers (customers, not users) when investors or stock holders demand that.

You’re not fooling anyone.

Just to make a point Mozilla’s data collection for its own operations is understood. If it’s unwanted Mozilla can be pressured to change the defaults. This is because it’s a non for profit working for users, not for share holders.

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#280

Post by craftyguy »

root_axis wrote: post #257
craftyguy wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not silly. Google 100% controls upstream chromium, and they can afford to make decisions about it in a vacuum.

So what? Brave does not have to incorporate every decision from upstream.

They would be screwed if google decided to actively cut off downstream chromium projects by making breaking code changes, licensing changes, etc.
Post reply on HN