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

371–380 of 381 posts

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#371

Post by onyva »

BrendanEich wrote: post #368
onyva wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 L…

“Polite” conversation about homophobia and race? Tell that to the people who are victims of bigotry. Also, I didn’t retract anything. I’m pointing out the obvious fault in your excuses. I repeat, supporting people like you (with views we’ve only accidentally became aware of) is funding bigotry.

And BTW repeatedly attacking Mozilla and accusing it (of all organizations) of “crimes” against users, is pathetic and too obvious, as well as all the aggressive promotion of Brave, which was noted before by many here.

Polite company indeed. And if you don’t mind, I’m not going too get too offended by you ignoring me. You didn’t earn the respect for your disregard to have any weight.

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#372

Post by BrendanEich »

kerkeslager wrote: post #369
BrendanEich wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I never said that either. Don’t put words in my mouth.

I said 3 of 4 top browsers are owned by or almost wholly dependent for revenue on huge ad businesses. That matters. You can see it in Apple’s ITP and prior third party cookie blocker, in Safari from 2003. Apple is not dependent on ads that need tracking.

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#373

Post by kerkeslager »

BrendanEich wrote: post #372
kerkeslager wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I never said that either. Don’t put words in my mouth. I said 3 of 4 top browsers are owned by or almost wholly dependent for revenue on huge ad businesses. That matters. You can see it in Apple’s ITP and prior third party cookie blocker, in Safari from 2003. Apple is not dependent on ads that need tracking.

Okay, yes, it does matter that 3 of the 4 top browsers are dependent on ads for revenue. Where I'm confused is why you think that this is a defense of Brave, which is also dependent on ads for revenue.

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#374

Post by BrendanEich »

kerkeslager wrote: post #373
BrendanEich wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never said that either. Don’t put words in my mouth. I said 3 of 4 top browsers are owned by or almost wholly dependent for revenue on huge ad businesses. That matters. You can see it in Apple’s ITP and prior third party cookie blocker, in Safari from 2003. Apple is not dependent on ads that need tracking.

Okay, yes, it does matter that 3 of the 4 top browsers are dependent on ads for revenue. Where I'm confused is why you think that this is a defense of Brave, which is also dependent on ads for revenue.

Because as I diagrammed repeatedly, the problem is not “ads” as ritually impure funding model, but tracking. Safari and Brave block tracking. Edge and Firefox are late to this party and not yet blocking hard by default.

It is not ads but tracking which creates perverse conflicts and hazards, including regulatory and ‘browsers as blind ad tech runtimes’ capture.

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#375

Post by onyva »

jonathansampson wrote: post #319
reportgunner wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, perfect. I absolutely want to download ALL ads instead of NO ads.

With all due respect, that isn't how the solution works. Users must first opt-in to Brave Ads. Once they do, they download a regional catalog. This is a text document, compressed down to about 3 MB in size. Your machine (via on-board machine-learning) studies this for relevancy. When a relevant ad is found, you are given 70% of the revenue, and a notification is displayed on your operating system. You have control fr…

Why would anybody be interested in this? Content that depends on ad revenu especially written for it, is not worth consumption. The idea of solving a non existing problem is the problem with AdBuddy (AKA Brave). The way to go is ad and tracking blockers and let advertisers find a way to get to users without exploiting their ignorance. I don’t care and don’t need to build a relationship or accommodate a publisher. This is not what the internet of for.

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#376

Post by boring_twenties »

thefj wrote: post #225
boring_twenties wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 he…

Let's say I put out a cookie jar out with a sign that says "Take a cookie, leave a dollar". You come by and take a cookie and leave a piece of string. You're not improving my business model. The Brave thing is just a weird way to feel better about breaking an implicit social contract.

I don't think your analogy is valid unless you at least warn ad-blocking users that you don't approve of it. Otherwise the sign on the jar is more like "Take a cookie, and if you feel like it, leave a dollar."

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#377

Post by thefj »

boring_twenties wrote: post #376
thefj wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's say I put out a cookie jar out with a sign that says "Take a cookie, leave a dollar". You come by and take a cookie and leave a piece of string. You're not improving my business model. The Brave thing is just a weird way to feel better about breaking an implicit social contract.

I don't think your analogy is valid unless you at least warn ad-blocking users that you don't approve of it. Otherwise the sign on the jar is more like "Take a cookie, and if you feel like it, leave a dollar."

I guess we disagree, since to me, serving ads with my page is making my position about wanting to show ads with the page pretty clear.

But even if it wasn't, Brave has special filters for sites that have anti-adblock measures, and it's spoofing the user agent to make it seem like regular Chrome.

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#378

Post by jsgo »

BrendanEich wrote: post #323
jsgo wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not OP, but I'd imagine that it is Brave seems to be a browser that advocates for the user (and presumably in the future, publishers too with the pay thing). As such, the ideals seem more aligned with Firefox than Chrome (and by extension, Chromium). Basically, you guys are in a weird space where your decisions aren't looked at purely from a technical lens, but also an ideological one.

Welcome to current year. But don't let browsers pretend to be neutral runtimes for the terrible third party scripts on which surveillance advertising depends. They are not neutral. The big-4 browsers in the west apart from Apple are partly or fully captured by $100B ad businesses. We are all in a weird space. Best to fight back at the endpoint with the right browser. Could be Safari, Firefox, or Chrome with opt outs…

Not saying you guys are wrong, just saying where it seems you get blowback for what another vendor doing more or less the same thing wouldn’t even register as a talking point. Not saying it’s fair, but it seems people hold you to something of a righteous/ideological expectation that Google et al can’t meet so they don’t even complain of it there.

In my mind, considering the push you’re making, you’d validate that vanilla chromium meets the requirements to achieve said push. If it didn’t, it’d be a non-starter and you’d have went a different route (leveraging aspects of Firefox’s stack maybe if, again, it met requirements).

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#379

Post by RenRav »

rjf72 wrote: post #270
RenRav wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been using Brave for almost a year and haven't been shown a single ad, I think it's only been a few months since the ads were enabled though. I wonder if the same happens for others.

Just to be clear you opted in to the program? Top right menu icon -> Brave Rewards. By default no ads are shown.

Right, as soon as ads became enabled on mobile I made sure to opt in.

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#380

Post by xtracto »

BrendanEich wrote: post #316
lol768 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. This is a spreadsheet I'd be interested to see. Was this compiled before or after Firefox supported WebExtensions?

This was in late 2015, but WebExtensions support in Firefox is never complete vs. Chrome, and you are ignoring DRM and all the other junk (gmeet screen sharing extension! ChromeCast! the list goes on... Chrome is the new IE, but at least most is open source or free as in beer).

> or free as in beer

IE was also free as in beer.

Post reply on HN