Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher • Hacker News Board

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#341

Post by BrendanEich » Sat, Aug 31, 2019, 1:20 AM UTC

BrendanEich wrote: post #314

smsm42 wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 t…

Tracking is the worst part of ad-tech. Ads can be annoying or entertaining, marketers will keep making them. Brave's opt-in ads use no tracking, match ads locally based on data generated in any browser, kept in cleartext only on your device. Matching is against a catalog that's the same for all users in a large population who speak the same language. Confirmation of views/clicks uses a protocol based on privacy pass…

Update: we are paying more than $5USD in some regions now. Today we sent a new rate card to affiliates, ranging from $7.50 down to $1 (BAT equivalent). This is to close arbitrage gaps in different regions. We'll update at most quarterly.

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#342

Post by JohnTHaller » Sat, Aug 31, 2019, 1:35 AM UTC

JohnTHaller wrote: post #39

We signed up for Brave's setup at PortableApps.com after a few users asked about it. They hold your last 90 days in escrow, so you can find out how successful it is once you sign up. We were looking at around 10 cents a day for a bit under a million monthly users for that timeframe over the summer. And we can't even access it since Brave only works with one crypto provider and they aren't licensed in New York. The pr…

To clarify a couple things since I never expected this to be a top comment... the visitor numbers were overall, we don't know how many monthly Brave users we have by design (Brave blocks Google Analytics and uses a Chrome user-agent). I could possibly come up with a way to specifically identify them anyway, but that kinda goes against what said user is trying to achieve by using Brave, so I don't want to do that. I do roughly calculate page loads that block Google Analytics server-side (anonymized) so we have a better idea of overall visitor numbers than GA alone provides.

Brave fixed a few of the complaints I had in the last few months with logins, header editing, and verifying with Uphold, so I've updated my linked forum post to reflect that.

I think it will be interesting to see how Brave's concept/tech will continue to evolve as it matures and has some traction.

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#343

Post by input_sh » Sat, Aug 31, 2019, 6:04 AM UTC

BrendanEich wrote: post #312

input_sh wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Lotta green handles fibbing about us here. We don't do third party ads. We block third party tracking which takes out third party and most first party ads. We also block fingerprinting, cryptomining, and other threats.

> We don't do third party ads.

Are the ads hosted by the websites your users visit? If not, they're third-party ads, with you being that third party.

> Lotta green handles fibbing about us here.

Oh don't worry, I'd make the exact same comment from my other (non-green, thousands of karma) profile, I just like to occasionally switch aliases.

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#344

Post by onyva » Sat, Aug 31, 2019, 6:34 AM UTC

BrendanEich wrote: post #337

onyva wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 disg…

You've been downvoted, but your words deserve a reply. Profit motive does not go away in a "non-profit" (Mozilla Corp is the for-profit subsidiary of Mozilla Foundation; top salary last seen [2017] was $2.3M+). It takes innumeracy or worse to miss that Mozilla depends for its profits (to pay such salaries and bonuses) mainly on the Google search deal. In my opinion, this conflict of interest between users and Mozilla…

And you, sir, you were fired from Mozilla because of community pressure. I appreciate Mozilla even though I didn’t always use Firefox because of what it represents, and rejecting a CEO who’s homophobic and racist is showing the power of that community.

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#345

Post by Vinnl » Sat, Aug 31, 2019, 9:03 AM UTC

BrendanEich wrote: post #318

Vinnl wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Relevant context: 1. Mozilla only enabled Google Analytics after signing a contract with Google that that data would not be fed into Google's models. There's no reason to believe Google would violate that legal agreement. 2. The Twitter thread you linked is by a Brave employee. It should be judged by the facts it shows, but is good context to keep in mind w.r.t. their presentation.

Are you at Mozilla? That contract was referenced in a bug long ago. I'm not sure it can be enforced, given how Google's revamped Analytics 360 works.

No I'm not. I'd imagine that a contract would be enforced by both parties respecting it, especially given that there's not that much to win for Google, and much to lose if, say, an employee would leak that it was being violated.

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#346

Post by BrendanEich » Sat, Aug 31, 2019, 3:29 PM UTC

onyva wrote: post #344

BrendanEich wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've been downvoted, but your words deserve a reply. Profit motive does not go away in a "non-profit" (Mozilla Corp is the for-profit subsidiary of Mozilla Foundation; top salary last seen [2017] was $2.3M+). It takes innumeracy or worse to miss that Mozilla depends for its profits (to pay such salaries and bonuses) mainly on the Google search deal. In my opinion, this conflict of interest between users and Mozilla…

And you, sir, you were fired from Mozilla because of community pressure. I appreciate Mozilla even though I didn’t always use Firefox because of what it represents, and rejecting a CEO who’s homophobic and racist is showing the power of that community.

Mozilla says I was not fired: https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignat.... Are they lying?

On “racist”, you are wrong. But you seem to have trouble with the truth, so I will stop here.

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#347

Post by BrendanEich » Sat, Aug 31, 2019, 3:31 PM UTC

BrendanEich wrote: post #339

kerkeslager wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It looks like my post fell off the front page, so the hashtag link doesn't work. :/ Copy-pasting my comment here: Looking into this only briefly, it didn't take long to find a lot of very questionable decisions made by Brave: 1. They're positioning themselves as both an advertiser and a privacy advocate[1], which strikes me as more of a strategy for bootstrapping revenue than a trustworthy moral position. The entire…

Too many words, I'll use fewer. 1. Ad spend last year was over $100M in the US alone, ~$300M globally. Heading toward $1T globally. Users subscribing or paying out of goodwill won't cover this if we block it all and corner the market. We are doing anonymous and private ads (also donations and subscriptions, note well), no conflict with user in data or revenue share. Read my comments here, e.g., https://news.ycombinat…

$100B of course, my B key turned into an M key lol.

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#348

Post by BrendanEich » Sat, Aug 31, 2019, 3:37 PM UTC

kerkeslager wrote: post #338

BrendanEich wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only if you assume we enable tracking for Brave Ads. But we do not. Please look deeper, otherwise you're just writing false stuff based on assumptions.

No, nothing in my post is false. I knew how your ad model works when I wrote that post. You're in bed with advertisers because you're taking money from them and providing them a service. Look, I don't have anything against you personally. I'm sure you're a good, kind person with pure intentions. But tracking or not, advertising is not the way to fund a browser that serves users. You'll always be beholden to advertise…

You did not justify “in bed with” or even define it usefully. My reply said we don’t track, and if you know about us, you also know we give the larger revenue share to the user. And ads are opt in per user, so “in bed with” better fits our relationship with our users.

Any browser requires high trust, but most of the bigs have not stopped tracking, as they have been built or coopted by ad companies. Who is in bed with whom?

On Lavabit, you are changing the threat model from ad businesses to national security agencies, but I will play along. Read https://brendaneich.com/2014/01/trust-but-verify/ and think it through. If we tried cheating our users to help advertisers somehow, we would be found out and roasted into a crisp on all media by our lead users.

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#349

Post by BrendanEich » Sat, Aug 31, 2019, 3:50 PM UTC

input_sh wrote: post #343

BrendanEich wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lotta green handles fibbing about us here. We don't do third party ads. We block third party tracking which takes out third party and most first party ads. We also block fingerprinting, cryptomining, and other threats.

> We don't do third party ads. Are the ads hosted by the websites your users visit? If not, they're third-party ads, with you being that third party. > Lotta green handles fibbing about us here. Oh don't worry, I'd make the exact same comment from my other (non-green, thousands of karma) profile, I just like to occasionally switch aliases.

The contract-based party numbering, first and third remain in common vocabulary, does not distinguish the browser or user as zeroth party. Putting tags on a page that cause tracking ads to run from unrelated businesses and their servers is the only useful “third party ad” definition here. Browser-based ads that use anonymity tech are a different category.

If you insist on a reductionistic definition that rules out anything other than a static ad on the same site as the publisher, you will get stuck trying to improve the Web and how it is funded. I understand objecting to all ads other than static images that click through into same origin forms, or whatever, but that won’t pay the bills for most publishers.

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#350

Post by pbhjpbhj » Sat, Aug 31, 2019, 3:51 PM UTC

TheArcane wrote: post #308

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably they also have a veto, at least, on Firefox development as they're paying handsomely for it?

They're paying to let FF make Google it's default search provider

Yes, and you think Google will keep paying regardless of how they develop? If there's not review system in place then Google must be extremely poor at negotiating contracts and conducting business relationships. Similarly Mozilla probably would be reckless to not even know that a change would cause their primary source of income (100s of millions $USD) to stop.