Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Brave launches 1.0

brave.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 649 posts

Re: Brave launches 1.0

#101

Post by _bxg1 »

triangleman wrote: post #60
_bxg1 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, that was a pretty terrible thing to do and learning it does color my perception of Brave. I just wish the OP had provided that context (and they probably wouldn't have gotten so downvoted by others if they had).

How is donating money to a campaign that passed with 7 million votes a "terrible thing to do"? Are we not allowed to have an opinion that is different from the intelligentsia? This sort of thing does color my perception of Brave in the other direction. The fact that Eich refused to "confess and recant" in the face of internet lynch mobs and getting fired as CEO of Mozilla makes him rather brave in my estimation.

Donating money (or voting) towards restricting others' individual liberties is a terrible thing to do, period.

But that's all I'll say on the matter, so as to avoid a flame-war.

Re: Brave launches 1.0

#103

Post by buboard »

bvda wrote: post #26
judah wrote: post #13

I've been using Brave rewards, both as a user and a content maker. It's really great, and I feel this may be a reasonable alternative to the invasive trackers+ads we have today. For the uninitiated, Brave lets users opt-in to Brave rewards: - You set your browser to reward content creators with Basic Attention Token (BAT). You set a budget (e.g. 10 BAT/month), and Brave distributes it the sites you use most, e.g. if…

I wonder why they chose to use (yet another) crypto currency for this.

So that they can't control who gives money to whom? Unlike google/patreon who can take away your ad/tips revenue stream with flimsy excuses.

Re: Brave launches 1.0

#105

Post by brokensegue »

Sargos wrote: post #43
bvda wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder why they chose to use (yet another) crypto currency for this.

You need some sort of cryptocurrency for this as microtransactions don't really work in the legacy system. Also by using their own token they can boot strap the ecosystem cheaply as they can mint the tokens themselves with the value accruing later after network participants are onboarded and transacting.

microtransactions don't work on cryptocurrency...

Re: Brave launches 1.0

#106

Post by Crisco »

mattlondon wrote: post #31
simon_weber wrote: post #10

I used Brave for a while on Android and found it to work well. However, in the last month or so something changed and it started freezing constantly. I've since switched to Firefox, which is much better on Android than when I last tried it.

I've been using Brave on android for a while now and it has been really good - it is basically the same as chrome, except with a built-in ad blocker. Highly recommend it as your daily driver. I use firefox on desktop, but found firefox on android to be a bit clunky the last time I tried it (years ago)

Firefox on Android is a bit clunky, but Mozilla is currently working on a new version that will (hopefully) be much cleaner and faster. You can try it now as "Firefox Preview" on the Google Play Store.

I use it pretty much exclusively now, and though it doesn't block all ads and doesn't have addon support yet, it seems to prevent the intrusive ones from being a problem. I do keep Firefox for Android around with uBlock Origin just in case, but I rarely have to use it.

Re: Brave launches 1.0

#107

Post by jonathansampson »

mk89 wrote: post #11

I don't know if I understood it right, but BATs are only given when users see the ads, right? If this is the case, it seems that Brave fosters the use of ads, not reduce it. Is my understanding right?

Ads aren't inherently bad, but modern digital advertising has been co-opted by bad actors. Brave offers an ad-free experience by default; this is necessary for your privacy and safety online.

But users are increasingly more aware that protecting themselves from harmful ads also means stripping their favorite creators of support. This is where Brave steps in to offer a complete solution, rather than the partial solution of "just block and forget".

Brave Ads are opt-in, entirely private (data never leaves your device), and pay the user 70% of the ad revenue. By default, that 70% will flow out to the sites/properties you visit on a monthly basis. If you like, you can choose to keep some (or all) of it for yourself.

So we don't necessarily want a Web full of ads. We want a Web full of empowered users who have control over their data and attention.

Re: Brave launches 1.0

#108

Post by blacksmith_tb »

Angeo34 wrote: post #75

Whoever uses Brave for "privacy" reasons should understand that Chrome offers more privacy due to fingerprintability. I see the downvotes coming yet it is true check it for yourself. Brave is so easy to fingerprint compared to Chrome it defeats any purpose ever to use Brave in the first place if privacy is your main goal. Removing all the Google bits from the Chromium base doesn't help since you are so fingerprintabl…

Hmm, I get identical results from Chrome and Brave on my Ubuntu desktop in Panopticlick, which doesn't disprove your argument, but it looks like Chrome is fingerprintable-enough that the difference may not matter.

Re: Brave launches 1.0

#109

Post by buboard »

have_faith wrote: post #71
buboard wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If people aren't willing to look at ads, what will news articles become? ads. What will HN comments become? Ads (many blog posts already are). Advertising covers a need

I know advertising covers a need, there's nothing inherently wrong with advertising in an academic sense. News organisations do not offer anything of consistent high quality that people are willing to pay for though. I have no faith that quality will improve if only we all switched off our adblockers and clicked some ads. People's propensity to read clickbait will not decline as a result of higher revenue from advert…

> quality that people are willing to pay for though

You 're only talking about news sites. While they are the loudest to complain, most of the web traffic is not news sites, but sites with immense amounts of valuable information, most of which is not compensated well. The only one who gets compensated well is Google, and we should change that.

Businesses are constantly willing to give money for advertising, and they will do that even if 100% of users use adblocking. That is a 0.5 trillion industry which is a great fit for attention-grabbing media, from printed press to the internet. It's not going away. It's just broken, largely because of centralized tracking, and we have to fix that.

Re: Brave launches 1.0

#110

Post by RandomBacon »

Spivak wrote: post #80
RandomBacon wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

10 (5?) years ago, that used to be called malware.

It's not malware if it's done at the users request. And the user is free to display the web pages it downloads in any way they want.

Users willingly installed toolbars too.
Post reply on HN