Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher • Hacker News Board

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#361

Post by BrendanEich » Sat, Aug 31, 2019, 6:55 PM UTC

nexuist wrote: post #9

eganist wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For what it's worth: https://www.coinbase.com/price/basic-attention-token

Wait, that's actually kind of really good!? Out of 50,000 views, if 0.01% donated (500 BATs) that translates to $85! Maybe my expectations are low but that's more than enough to cover server costs for a month. It certainly doesn't pay rent but it's better than not making any money at all.

Wikipedia relies on donations, this adds another method of donating, automatically and regularly, plus tips on top. In the nonprofit space you don’t turn down more and easier ways to donate.

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#362

Post by onyva » Sat, Aug 31, 2019, 6:56 PM UTC

BrendanEich wrote: post #346

onyva wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So you admit you’re a homophobe but god forbid not a racist. Great. Appreciate the honesty.

There’s a refresher.

https://www.leafandcore.com/2016/09/03/brave-is-a-browser-th...

The technicalities of you being fired or left no choice is hardly the point. We’re at a point in time that we need less bigotry and racism, not accidentally financing more of it.

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#363

Post by BrendanEich » Sat, Aug 31, 2019, 6:58 PM UTC

TremendousJudge wrote: post #130

kylehotchkiss wrote: post #124

I switched from Chrome to Brave this week after getting overwhelmed with some of Google's recent design decisions on Chrome. The web inspector and yubikey support in Brave made the transition super easy. The adblocking works about the same as ublock did for me in Chrome so the browsing experience feels similar. Great work Brave team on giving Chrome users a privacy-friendly option to easily switch to.

If you are still using chromium you're still part of the problem

Same for oxygen breathed by bad and good alike. Or tools, where the details and how the tool is used make problems or solutions, depending.

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#364

Post by BrendanEich » Sat, Aug 31, 2019, 6:59 PM UTC

jammygit wrote: post #87

How come more websites do not accept brave payments? If I had a website, what is the process required to begin accepting them? Edit: typo

Sign up at https://publishers.basicattentiontoken.org/.

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#365

Post by BrendanEich » Sat, Aug 31, 2019, 7:00 PM UTC

drusepth wrote: post #153

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.

I'm not sure I'd go as far as to say Brave is a scam, but it does extort companies and websites by effectively saying, "We're shutting down your monetization sources (no longer showing your ads). If you want that money (or a different cut), sign up for our platform instead."

Our users have rights to block or unblock ads, and to try our alternative ways of supporting sites. No site has an overriding right to force ads on its users, not by law or by the design of the web standards.

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#366

Post by BrendanEich » Sat, Aug 31, 2019, 7:05 PM UTC

Eli_P wrote: post #175

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…

MetaMask is more of a dev tool, has sharp edges, requires users to be expert and to bring their own crypto funds (Brave pays users to give back, or if the user signs up with Uphold, to take out), and most challenging of all, can’t send to a site unless it is Web3-enabled.

Look up Metcalfe’s Law. It is hard to grow if both sides of a protocol have to be upgraded at once for each peer-pair (user and website). We avoid that by helping users with a faster browser, so we grow just on the speed, safety, battery and data plan savings. Then we add options for tipping and donating that help users buffer (in browser, for 90 days) tips to unverified creators to attract the creators to sign up. This helps avoid the catch-22 trap of Metcalfe’s Law.

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#367

Post by BrendanEich » Sat, Aug 31, 2019, 7:10 PM UTC

xacky wrote: post #298

the_duke wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please back that up with some references. It should be easy by linking to the respective edits.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Bl... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=cryptocu... Major cryptocurrencies deleted include Cardano, Chainlink, IOTA and Lisk. Also the Wikipedia admin David Gerard runs an anti cryptocurrency blog.

David is quite a character. I did not know he was a wp admin.

Brave has tons of verified publishers, see https://batgrowth.com/. Our verifying a site or channel does not thereby endorse all or any of its content. As noted elsewhere here, we aim to distribute if not decentralize verification so it is even more censorship resistant.

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#368

Post by BrendanEich » Sat, Aug 31, 2019, 7:21 PM UTC

onyva wrote: post #362

BrendanEich wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So you admit you’re a homophobe but god forbid not a racist. Great. Appreciate the honesty. There’s a refresher. https://www.leafandcore.com/2016/09/03/brave-is-a-browser-th... The technicalities of you being fired or left no choice is hardly the point. We’re at a point in time that we need less bigotry and racism, not accidentally financing more of it.

I admit nothing except you are a terrible arguer and not great at virtue signaling. See here on another HN page where you tried the same garbage and I rejected your definition:

https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=BrendanEich&next=208...

If we do not agree on the definition of words, there is no point talking.

Your calling Mozilla liars does neither you nor them any favors. It is in fact illegal under California Labor Law 1101 et seq. to fire anyone over political acts. I was not fired in 2014. I was not fired in 2012 when the L.A. Times publicized the names in California’s Political Reform Act database of donors who gave $100 or more. Does that make Mozilla soft on “bigotry”? No.

At this point your “racist” slur seems retracted without an apology just as device to repeat “homophobe”, but it looks like you admit you were wrong to label me. That you take your misconduct here so unseriously disqualifies you from polite HN society in my view, and I hope mods and others agree. I frankly don’t want to be citizen in any utopia you might confect, so I am going to ignore you now. Try to do better, instead of discrediting your own cause.

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#369

Post by kerkeslager » Sat, Aug 31, 2019, 7:39 PM UTC

BrendanEich wrote: post #356

kerkeslager wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. You said in your other post to me: "Ad spend last year was over $100M in the US alone, ~$300M globally. Heading toward $1T globally. Users subscribin…

> This is a perfect solution fallacy. No Sir -- not from me, anywhere in anything I ever wrote. Browsers are imperfect. For one thing they have 0days. Brave is imperfect too. Before we correspond more, please tell me how you took my big-picture realpolitik point about western ad powers acquiring or otherwise getting control over 3 of 4 top browsers as having anything to do with perfect vs. good?

It's pointing at other browsers and saying, "Look, they're not perfect either, so it's okay for Brave to not be perfect". Sure, that's true, but it's no excuse for Brave not aiming for perfection.

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#370

Post by kerkeslager » Sat, Aug 31, 2019, 7:42 PM UTC

BrendanEich wrote: post #354

kerkeslager wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. If you're saying that it's impossible to make money without accepting money from funders whose motivations conflict with users', that just means that a for-profit organization is not the way to build a browser that serves users. A "conflict of interest" doesn't necessarily imply that you've done anything wrong yet, it merely says that the incentives are strongly in favor of you doing something wrong. In my experie…

I will be brief, as replies growing ever longer is a bad condition. Also I do not want to argue about imponderables. I’m aware of Namecoin, whose Wikipedia page says “A 2015 study found that of the 120,000 domain names registered on Namecoin, only 28 were in use.[12] Onename co-founder Muneeb Ali on 12 September 2015 at the Blockstack Summit 2015 stated that the Namecoin network is not decentralized and the mining gr…

We were never really likely to reach any agreement, so I'm fine with parting ways as amicably as is possible given that we disagree so fundamentally. I really do wish you the best; I hope I'm wrong and that you succeed in a way that's good for users.