111–120 of 229 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Funny statement about free expression coming from the guy who donated to California Prop 8.
Eich founded Mozilla and invented Javascript. He's done far more to promote free expression than to hamper it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Brave's an open-source, privacy-respecting browser with a digital wallet baked in. The microtransaction opportunities that are opened up by having such a low-friction economic layer native to the browser is what's particularly interesting about Brave. Even the criticisms of Brave's microtransaction potential are encouraging, because they're usually unserious, rely on hand-waving references to previous weak and incomp…
Microtransactions are about user behavior, not tech. We had a low-friction experience with a browser extension and that's been possible for several years. Convincing people to value content, judge the price, and spend their own money is the real challenge. And if people aren't spending their own money then it's just an ad network in the browser to replace an ad network on the page. Not revolutionary and open to all t…
Your exploratory attempts with a browser plugin do not sound comparable to what Brave is attempting.
Attempting to dismiss Brave by begging the question isn't convincing: "Brave won't succeed and isn't revolutionary if we assume the revolutionary bits won't succeed."
Claiming - after your initial uninformed and dismissive commentary - to now be an honest and good-faith participant is curious.
Innovating on a new utility-scale ad / content model in a multi-sided market with a new browser relying on a new cryptoeconomic infrastructure which if successful threatens huge, well-funded industry participants is certainly a challenge.
But the Brave team are pretty peerless when looking at the needed skillset, the moment in time for an industry-wide shift seems to be here and the mix of incentives: battery life, speed, memory, privacy, user growth pool tokens for donations, future content payment options, on-device learning model, zero-knowledge proof privacy, cross-device syncing etc are very compelling.
I think the privacy crowd drawn to Brave couldn't care less what the (current) digital advertising industry wants. Anyone who's been involved in the current ad-tech industry knows it's a total tire fire of fraud, technical incompetence and deep hostility to end-users. Brave's model is very interesting and also a threat to the current ad-tech cesspool, so there should be no surprise to see attempts to misinform people…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of that income is from tracking users, storing that data, and then selling it. I don't feel one ounce of sympathy for them.
You're lumping all publishers together. Brave blocks static banner ads whether they track you or not - whether they're served by an ad network or not. Whether it's delivered by a for-profit or non-profit. Brave's stated model is disingenuous at best.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The mischaraterization, which you seem determined to double-down on, was an attempt to paint Brave as a fraudulent company trying to build a 'patreon for thieves'. Any honest onlooker doing the barest of research would understand the absurdity of the claim, but the amplification of that mischaracterisation was (and is) clearly aimed at herd programming to try to suppress Brave's growth.
I can see how you might view it that way. On the other hand, let's say Chrome started replacing all non-Adsense ads on every site you visited with Adsense ads -- without notifying the webmaster no less. Then, if the content creator decided they'd like their cut of the revenue, they had to sign up for Adsense. And if they didn't, Google would just pocket it 90 days later. I don't think you'd be as sympathetic to Googl…
Brave does not replace publisher ads with their own.
Brave does not block first party ads. Google's search ads display. Facebook's ads display. Twitter's ads display.
Brave does block other ads by default, and as a user agent, it's reflecting the valid, ethical choices of the user not to load the untrustworthy content and scripts from these poorly-coded, user-hostile third party ad networks.
If a user opts-in to Brave's ad ecosystem, then they've also made a decision about what content funding model they want to support.
There are many browsers out there, but till now there's really only been one privacy-invading ad model.
Now we have not just another browser, but another ad model which respects privacy, and after all we've learned about the current ad-tech ecosystem I'd prioritise user agency over all other considerations.
If the primacy of user agency begins to take hold, then the market will adapt and survive and even thrive within this new model.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you want advertisers, you need to care about what the industry wants. Obviously that's for Brave to deal with, not the users, but showing ads for money is an ad network. Microtransactions have been tried many times. I spent half a million testing it. Didn't work because of user behavior. And unless users are buying with their own money, it's just converting the BAT they earn from ads into BAT they pay the publishe…
Brave doesn't need advertisers though, it needs users. Once it has users then advertisers need Brave. I don't see how Brave has to win over advertisers at all, they'll come around when Brave can offer some non-insignificant amount of money to them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Funny statement about free expression coming from the guy who donated to California Prop 8.
Eich founded Mozilla and invented Javascript. He's done far more to promote free expression than to hamper it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd rather use Chromium with uBlock than install Brave.
I'd rather use Firefox with uBlock Origin installed. Remember, uBlock still displays ads, uBlock Origin does not display ads.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I remember some friends using it with some tools to move the mouse around so they could get paid without staying in front of the computer. But it was very little money and it was probably costing more electricity than the money they were getting but for a teenager it was ok.
I managed to get one or two checks, I tweaked the programs I was running anyway (AIM, mIRC, etc) to have Internet Explorer in the window title, so I got credit when I was doing whatever I was going to do anyway. Sometimes I moved the ad window off screen with LiteStep though :D