Brave files adtech complaint against Google • Hacker News Board

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#151

Post by jonathansampson » Wed, Sep 12, 2018, 10:07 PM UTC

jordigh wrote: post #135

jonathansampson wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brave doesn't touch first-party ads. If you wish to advertise to your visitors, we respect that. But opening a tunnel to third party ads and trackers, which are foisted upon the user without their consent, is not okay. Ads are no longer pixels on the screen; they're so much more than that. They're monitoring your activity, your movement, your most intimate details, and more. They're collecting this data, storing it,…

What is the fraud you're trying to reduce? I know advertisers think that not watching their ads is fraud. Is that what you mean?

Not at all. Fraud is more like ad-stacking; triggering false impressions, bot-driven click-farms, and more.

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#152

Post by jancsika » Wed, Sep 12, 2018, 10:08 PM UTC

quotemstr wrote: post #103

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…

So you're replacing ads with other ads, and you have reasons. Everyone who makes money has reasons why his profit is in reality some kind of selfless social good. It's what it takes to reconcile human psychology with capitalism. You're still replacing ads with other ads.

> So you're replacing ads with other ads, and you have reasons.

If a website owner changes from an ad supported website to reading ad copy in a podcast, your same criticism would apply.

Yet:

* by changing from ads to ads they get rid of entire classes of bugs: cryptominers, drive-by malware, click-jacking, etc. Perpetuating a capitalist system by requiring users to take undue risks to support my content != perpetuating a capitalist system without making users take those risks.

* by changing from ads to ads, I get rid of an entire class of privacy-invasions for my audience. Perpetuating a capitalist system while making users leak enormous amounts of data to who knows where != an perpetuating a capitalist system without making users do that.

There are probably other points to make. But that's enough to assert that ads != ads in your comment.

Halting.

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#153

Post by jonathansampson » Wed, Sep 12, 2018, 10:09 PM UTC

drb91 wrote: post #122

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…

Do you have any alternatives planned for monetization of ads? I would highly prefer to simply pay the content provider itself.

We're experimenting with that model today; users can simply purchase BAT from someplace like Uphold, and give it to the sites they visit most.

For users who don't necessarily have the funds to purchase BAT, safe, private ads offers an option to learn BAT (which can, in turn, be given to their favorite sites).

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#154

Post by jonathansampson » Wed, Sep 12, 2018, 10:12 PM UTC

nohnce wrote: post #24

Sephr wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It seems to me that a lot of tech companies do slightly shady things under the guise of social progress and what not. It's the gateway to market share, then "dominance" to dictate whatever they want. While challenging Google is important, it's a good PR move nonetheless. Brave is also built on top of Chromium. What ramifications that might have I'm not sure.

Chromium is a tool; how you use it is up to you. Brave removes any parts that may phone-home to Google. At the end of the day though, Chromium is less important than the principles upon which the company is founded. With Brave vs Google, that's "Can't be evil" vs "Don't be evil". The difference is subtle, yet profound.

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#155

Post by brandnewlow » Wed, Sep 12, 2018, 10:28 PM UTC

drb91 wrote: post #123

Cyclone_ wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just the ad industry, publishers need some form of revenue in order to do what they do.

So what are the alternatives to ads? They’re going to continue to die until there’s a real alternative.

More and more publishers are moving to subscriptions and seeing real, sustainable businesses materialize.

NYTimes seeing 2/3 of its digital revenue from subscriptions: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/08/business/media/new-york-t...

TheAthletic growing like wildfire on subscription model: https://www.adweek.com/digital/the-athletic-built-its-compan...

SubStack raises for subscription newsletters: https://www.axios.com/substack-raises-2-million-newsletters-...

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#156

Post by techntoke » Wed, Sep 12, 2018, 10:28 PM UTC

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…

Wasn't Brave created by the person who created JavaScript (the biggest privacy/security issue in browsers) and donated money to support Prop 8 in California? Not exactly a trustworthy brand if you ask me.

https://techcrunch.com/2014/03/28/after-supporting-prop-8-br...

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#157

Post by jonathansampson » Wed, Sep 12, 2018, 10:28 PM UTC

buboard wrote: post #142

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…

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…

There's a great deal of focus being given to solving the "annoying ads" problem today. Sadly, these are considering only the aesthetics. Ads are permitted to track and harvest users and data as long as they do so quietly. See https://twitter.com/jonathansampson/status/94326717839616000... for a fun short story ;)

We're currently testing user-private ads right now; these originate as signals outside of the browser (system-level prompts). If the user engages the notification, a private tab is opened and the advertisement is shown. In the future, we'll be testing publisher-ads (but only with publisher consent).

We'll have more information to share in the future on how quality will be handled. Please keep following official channels for further developments.

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#158

Post by jonathansampson » Wed, Sep 12, 2018, 10:29 PM UTC

komali2 wrote: post #140

brettz wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's about privacy then why not just block trackers and allow ads? It seems like a page from Eyeo's playbook, another company trying to insert itself as a middleman for advertising.

Someone can correct me if wrong but I believe tracking can be as simple as monitoring the IP address doing a GET for even a static ad image, which you then save with information such as the referer header to track a person across the internet.

It can. Which is why Brave modifies the referer header, and has integrated support for Private Tabs with Tor (for users who wish to go even deeper into the shadows). Not to mention, by cutting out third-party ads and trackers, you greatly reduce the size of your footprint. The first-party may attempt some degree of tracking, but it would pale in comparison to what presently exists online.

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#159

Post by jonathansampson » Wed, Sep 12, 2018, 10:35 PM UTC

techntoke wrote: post #156

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…

Wasn't Brave created by the person who created JavaScript (the biggest privacy/security issue in browsers) and donated money to support Prop 8 in California? Not exactly a trustworthy brand if you ask me. https://techcrunch.com/2014/03/28/after-supporting-prop-8-br...

Privacy and security issues predate the creation of JavaScript. Web Bugs (beacons, tracking pixels, etc) popped into existence with in 1993 after cookies and third-party images began to flourish on the web.

JavaScript came along in 94/95 to breath life into the web. It's an amoral tool; what matters more is the hand that wields it. Sadly, many have chosen to do some pretty terrible things with it. But many more have chosen to do some pretty terrific things with it.

Brendan created JavaScript, helped it to grow strong, and is now here to combat the abuse we see online by those who have chosen to do harm with it. You're watching the arch of redemption unfold before your very eyes ;)

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#160

Post by jessaustin » Wed, Sep 12, 2018, 10:36 PM UTC

s73v3r_ wrote: post #146

jessaustin wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Their situations seem pretty similar to me. "Take it or leave it" for the little human doesn't translate to "choose among these options or leave it" for the big corporation. They can read headers. They're also running javascript in the browser itself, so we'll see something like those pathetic "please turn off your ad blocker" messages soon enough...

No one deserves to stay in business. If the model doesn't work, find one that does.