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

Brave files adtech complaint against Google

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 271 posts

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#141

Post by fiatjaf »

nil_pointer wrote: post #116
fiatjaf wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn't know that. It's good news people are willing to reimplement BAT. Special about Bitcoin+Lightning is that these are probably going to last and truly function as money while these others you cited don't.

Both of the projects mentioned are in the top 10 of crypto projects and have billions in their marketcap, why don't you think they'll exist in the future? Over 100 engineers and scientists work at the IOTA foundation, and EOS probably has similar numbers.

Well, much more than 100 engineers once worked at a lot of companies that vanished soon after. There are lots of arguments on why Bitcoin will last and not the others (and vice-versa) and I can't cite them all here, but the most important one is: in the end, there can only be one money.

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#142

Post by buboard »

jonathansampson wrote: post #54
martindale wrote: post #14

Brave's strategy of replacing ads with other ads isn't going to do anyone any good. They could've used payment channels to build a content distribution network, but alas...

I'd like to respond, as a developer on the Brave project. We don't simply replace ads with other ads. The entire ad landscape has been co-opted by those who aim to collect as much data about you as is possible. Over 600 million devices were running some form of ad-blocking software in 2017, and that was an increase of 30% from the year prior. This number keeps growing, year over year. Something has to be done. Users…

For the average user, i believe problem #1 is the ads themselves when they are obnoxious and annoying. Plain ads, even when super-targeted are not that annoying i think. Apart from rare cases when the ad touches something sensitive (which the user should be have been able to block in the 1st place). What does Brave do to reduce the "annoying" factor of ads? If your system becomes popular, you are going to have a lot of obnoxious ads in the system.

I hope brave is able to make a dent in this system - alternatives and competitoin are always welcome.

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#143

Post by buboard »

Fiahil wrote: post #74
jonathansampson wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to respond, as a developer on the Brave project. We don't simply replace ads with other ads. The entire ad landscape has been co-opted by those who aim to collect as much data about you as is possible. Over 600 million devices were running some form of ad-blocking software in 2017, and that was an increase of 30% from the year prior. This number keeps growing, year over year. Something has to be done. Users…

Maybe we, the people, don't want you to rescue this industry. Maybe the "digital ad fraud" they're screaming is the sign they belong rightfully in the void we're trying to bury them. We've seen enough shit from the ad industry, and it's time to leave them behind as humanity progress and improve.

and how are we going to find out about the new products of humanity? from hacker news?

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#144

Post by stcredzero »

Sephr wrote: post #16
_red wrote: post #7

Its admirable what brave is trying to do. Practically speaking, its one of the best chance we have of creating a new internet where the incentives are more privacy focused. Hope they succeed.

They're so admirable that they take a 5% cut of your donations to sites you visit and replace ads with their own. Call me crazy, but in no future can I imagine anyone willingly paying their browser vendor for anything. Brave isn't the future, it's yet another cash grab. The real future is fully-decentralized websites, and it doesn't require new browsers. Edit: Fixed inaccuracy pointed out by Brave developer

Call me crazy, but in no future can I imagine anyone willingly paying their browser vendor for freely-implemented adblocking.

If the browser provides a value add through integration and support, then I could completely imagine that.

Brave isn't the future, it's yet another cash grab. The real future is fully-decentralized websites, and it doesn't require new browsers.

If we make it too hard to make a profit while protecting our privacy while it's too easy to make a profit by eliminating privacy, there's only one way that story can end.

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#145

Post by downandout »

jonathansampson wrote: post #136
downandout wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basically what I developed was a local engine that could use characteristics like browser history, programs installed, computer usage stats, etc. to target ads. It had a scripting language so that instructions to implement new targeting criteria to scan the computer for could be sent down without changes to the underlying software. For example, if Netscape wanted advertisers to be able to target Microsoft Office user…

Was all of this to lie dormant until user consent was granted? Curious how that process would have looked.

At the time, clickthrough/shrink wrap license agreements were not nearly as controversial/legally questionable as they are today. My thought was to just include it in the license agreement, and give users the ability to opt out in the settings. In many ways the technology actually protected privacy, and thus I (perhaps naively) viewed it more as a privacy enhancement than something sinister that needed special permission. But given their sensitivity to the issue, had they actually implemented it, I am certain they would have at least given it its own checkbox during install.

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#146

Post by s73v3r_ »

jessaustin wrote: post #73
s73v3r_ wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In all that, I noticed you weren't giving the publishers any kind of choice in the matter.

They get the same deal they offer consumers: take it or leave it.

Consumers are choosing to go to those websites. Publishers are not choosing to serve their content through Brave.

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#147

Post by jonathansampson »

DevKoala wrote: post #139
jonathansampson wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Respectfully, you're not at all correct. Brave is aiming to cut out the tracking entirely. No user tracking. That's our default, out of the box behavior. Brave Ads, which is an optional component, also will not track the user. Local machine-learning will decide what willing users are interested in, and whether or not to show them particular ads. The Brave Ads system is antithetical to the current form of digital adve…

"Local machine-learning will decide what willing users are interested in, and whether or not to show them particular ads." How are you countering my claim? It is trying to establish a monopoly on the ad-targeting protocol. Brave is not a regulated party, and as well-intended as Brave could be, all it essentially doing is moving one part of the architecture to the client, and granting control over it to a single party…

You're downplaying the implication of "moving one part of the architecture to the client". This inversion of the model means the user is sovereign over their data. It means ad fraud (responsible for billions lost) is dealt a massive blow. It means the publisher doesn't have to watch hand after hand take from their revenue before it reaches them. It means the user, finally, can get paid for the limited commodity called "Attention".

As for what guarantees Brave won't do evil, look at our design principles. When it came to syncing data from one device to another, we designed it in such a way that we could never see what data was moving from device to device. Encryption on the machine shields all eyes, including our own, from your data. Consider also Payments--the user's ability to support content creators. Even here we implemented the ANONIZE protocol to protect your anonymity and privacy. That alone wasn't satisfactory, so we also channel the info through a VPN to mask your location as well.

All that we do remains open, and engineered in such a way that Brave couldn't abuse your trust even if we wanted to. This future friendly principle ensures that Brave couldn't turn sour on you in the future; not without a massive re-engineering effort beforehand. But even then, all of our code is open and auditable.

Google was "Don't be evil," but Brave is "Can't be evil." The difference is subtle, yet profound.

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#148

Post by jonathansampson »

downandout wrote: post #145
jonathansampson wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was all of this to lie dormant until user consent was granted? Curious how that process would have looked.

At the time, clickthrough/shrink wrap license agreements were not nearly as controversial/legally questionable as they are today. My thought was to just include it in the license agreement, and give users the ability to opt out in the settings. In many ways the technology actually protected privacy, and thus I (perhaps naively) viewed it more as a privacy enhancement than something sinister that needed special permis…

I appreciate the walk down memory lane; curious what the web would have been had it been for something client-side like that, rather than web bugs.

Better models definitely exist, and I'm convinced Brave has proposed one with great potential. Let's catch up in 10 years to discuss this again ;)

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#149

Post by purple-dragon »

RosanaAnaDana wrote: post #131
some_account wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use it because the web becomes usable and fast again, and also because I don't want ad companies making money from my activity and privacy. When they pay me, they can get some of my data. I'm just waiting for their call.

This is an unpopular opinion I also hold. There is no right to advertising to me. If you want me to use your product, pay me.

I don't understand. Is there a certain context you are referring to, or is this how you feel about all online advertising? I'll accept one's claim to rights to browse without advertising if it's accepted that one doesn't have a right to consume ad-supported content without consuming advertisements. It seems only fair to me.
Post reply on HN