491–500 of 501 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not to nitpick, but you still didn’t answer the question. I don’t think anyone is confused over the concept “view ad -> get token”. The parent comment was wondering how you determine an ad was viewed.
Apologies, I thought I did address that. Here's a deep-link to the process of "confirmation," which means a user has viewed an ad: https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/wiki/Security-and-pri... .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It has to be good that there are more than exactly one engine... Well, that is kinda the point. No, it doesn't. It might be worse than having one great de-facto standard engine. Having 2+ splits web developers in what they choose to support. In this instance, we literally have a young company (Brave Software, Inc) that chose to go head-to-head with Google. Their CEO is deeply entwined with the history of first Nets…
Using Gecko (or Webkit) would have added extra risk for Brave. When you're starting a company, especially a browser company that's going to take on Google at some level, you need to minimize all unnecessary risks. I don't blame Brendan for doing that. Plus, when Brendan started Brave, Firefox was further behind in performance and architecture than it is now. Plus, Brendan's departure from Mozilla was somewhat messy a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nice video, but it almost completely misses the point: Even if all ads on all websites were made in a privacy-respecting way, people would still use adblockers. This is because people simply hate ads in their browser. It is because they make browsing experience miserable. They add bloat. They distract from the content. They add cognitive overhead. They slow down browsing. They are literally unwanted guests in our bro…
Different people want different things; many people install ad-blockers because they don't like ads, period. Others install them because they aren't comfortable with the security and privacy risk. Quite a few people are conflicted when it comes to blocking ads, knowing that it cuts off the funding for content creators. Brave is for everybody; no ads by default, and privacy-respecting ads for those who would like to s…
And the content creator argument has long been debunked as smoke screen planted by companies in the ad business (and Brave qualifies as one), because monetizing any content through ads is the least efficient way to monetize creative work. What this model actually does though is incentivizes the creation of large quantities of low quality content.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems like a pretty important piece of information to share with potential users up front though, for something marketing itself with a privacy focus.
No, because KYC is not mandatory to use rewards and anonymously contribute to your favorite sites and channels. Only if you want to add funds or take out some or all of your revshare is it required. It's not required by default, which is why it should not be advertised as if mandatory. HTH
This is Brave's own cryptocurrency that they use to sell their privacy-based browser. It's an important distinction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We deliver exactly what we advertise; users can enjoy the default ad-free experience, or opt-in, earn, and support content creators across the Web. Nowhere in our marketing or elsewhere do we suggest you can anonymously receive cash from companies like Amazon, Twitch, Walmart, etc.
You don't have the ability to offer private money collection and your advertising should reflect that.
I don't like the crypto nonsense of Brave, and while I like Firefox in theory, its performance leaves a lot to be desired and they don't seem to know who their user base is. Microsoft Edge got a decent native vertical tab solution before Firefox did! Edge! I wish some nonprofit would make a Chromium browser with sane defaults and take my donations. That's all I need.
Firefox has had the "down-arrow" Tabs menu, which does exactly the same thing, since, uh, about forever.
I would never use brave personally, however given the fact this post is essentially just a copy pasta of typical /g/ arguments. Everyone should take the post with a mountain full of salt (just look at their post about systemd).
The latter felt more convincing, so I don't see it as an argument for distrusting the one on Brave.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't have the ability to offer private money collection and your advertising should reflect that.
He just said they don't advertise the ability to offer private money collection. Are you claiming they do? If not, then it would seem their advertising already correctly reflects this fact.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He just said they don't advertise the ability to offer private money collection. Are you claiming they do? If not, then it would seem their advertising already correctly reflects this fact.
They claim to be a privacy focused browser that can pay users via cryptocurrency. Yet there is no point to pay via cryptocurrency when there is no privacy for receiving it.
That this optional payout requires identification seems to be A) a legal requirement, and B) an implementation detail of second-rank importance in the grand scheme of things.
Feels far-fetched to get one's knickers in a bunch over stuff like that not being at the forefront of their marketing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They claim to be a privacy focused browser that can pay users via cryptocurrency. Yet there is no point to pay via cryptocurrency when there is no privacy for receiving it.
As I understood it, they claim to be a privacy focused browser that distributes some sort of currency-like tokens to users, which the users can then distribute to websites they want to reward, or optionally pay out as cryptocurrency to recipients that may (or may not?) be identical with the users themselves. That this optional payout requires identification seems to be A) a legal requirement, and B) an implementation…
Look, maybe this is a good idea, and it is the future of getting people to pay for stuff like news or software. If so then they need someone who understands that vision and can project it with confidence. Right now I have no idea who runs Brave or what person I would look to for understanding their goals. For such an innovative concept you really do need a visible delivery vehicle with whom people can relate.