Brave: Brendan Eich's clean-ads browser startup • Hacker News Board

Re: Brave: Brendan Eich's clean-ads browser startup

#211

Post by thetmkay » Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 5:24 PM UTC

jordigh wrote: post #70

I will repeat this one more time, because Eich seems to be missing the point.[1] I don't adblock for privacy, security, or speed. Those are just nice-side effects. I adblock because I do not want to be manipulated into buying things I do not need. I wonder what would happen if, as a society, we said, "enough, no more ads". Would it really be the capitalist apocalypse that the ad industry is trying to make us believe…

Agreed.

Many of the use-cases for ads have been replaced by search engines, marketplaces and aggregator sites. There's troves of information and access out there for a consumer to make informed purchasing choices.

If I need something, I can actively find it.

The use-case for ads is:

1. I don't need the thing 2. I am not aware of my need for thing

Advertisers probably claim (2) when almost certainly it's just (1)

Re: Brave: Brendan Eich's clean-ads browser startup

#212

Post by akkartik » Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 5:24 PM UTC

rockdoe wrote: post #208

akkartik wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to add the opposing viewpoint: after watching browsers get incredibly sluggish over the past year on up-to-date hardware (desktop and mobile), I absolutely care about speed and bandwidth consumption[1]. So Brave's 'manifesto' absolutely resonates. Very happy to see the principal agent problem on the web stated so clearly. I've been calling it the tragedy of the commons in comments here and elsewhere. Thanks! [1]…

Is it the browsers that are getting slower, or the websites that you visit?

Both, I think. The rash of huge background videos is a prime culprit. Here's a bug I filed, for example: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1197460

Re: Brave: Brendan Eich's clean-ads browser startup

#213

Post by rockdoe » Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 5:25 PM UTC

davnn wrote: post #143

jacquesm wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the logical extension of that is that you actually get paid to browse, that might be a gamechanger. Keep in mind that the supply side right now ends at the owner of the web property that starts the ball rolling when in fact it actually starts with the person sitting behind the computer looking at the page. So this is a giant cut-out-the-middle-men opportunity and Eich is fairly uniquely positioned to take advan…

Is getting paid to browse a positive thing or just a sign that something major is going wrong?

We've always been paid to watch advertising. By free websites, free browsers, free content...

This just makes it more explicit, which may have appeal.

Re: Brave: Brendan Eich's clean-ads browser startup

#214

Post by chris_wot » Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 5:25 PM UTC

jbigelow76 wrote: post #164

billconan wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to say exactly the same thing. I block ads because I don't want to see ads at all. As long as there is the ad blocker, I don't want to use brave.

If you don't want to see ads at all why not just refrain from visiting the offending sites?

To know that there are ads at all you first need to visit the website.

Re: Brave: Brendan Eich's clean-ads browser startup

#215

Post by petra » Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 5:26 PM UTC

mille562 wrote: post #152

RodericDay wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't emphasize this enough. Every time someone rattles out a list of "annoyances" regarding ads, I wish that I could plead with them to consider that there's even bigger reasons. Plenty of people try to sell the idea that ads let us have content "for free", and that all we have to tolerate is "a little annoyance". It's insane. If companies are buying ad-space, it's because they expect to get more business in retur…

There are people with needs and people with solutions. I understand where you are coming from, but advertising a solution to people that may have that need is not always evil. There are many times where I am glad I saw advertising: my favorite band is coming to town, a new product that will save me hours a day just got released, the shoes I have been looking for are being sold at 30% off. I don't want to give up all…

Once could imagine some software app installed on your machine, that tracks you and gives you interesting offers , without loss of privacy.

Re: Brave: Brendan Eich's clean-ads browser startup

#216

Post by anonx » Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 5:26 PM UTC

jsvaughan wrote: post #74

Surely we are soon going to see server side ad-injection and the end of ad blocking

That doesn't work well with AD networks though. Site owners will either have to use links of the form: siteOfAdNetwork.com?id=smthhere and it still will be possible to block them. Or AD network will be unable to check the number of clicks.

Re: Brave: Brendan Eich's clean-ads browser startup

#217

Post by notahacker » Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 5:27 PM UTC

abhv wrote: post #2

How will Brave prevent anti-ad-blocking mechanisms from interfering with the page? For example, cbs/abc/nbc seem to detect muBlock and then stop serving content.

Presumably it makes it easier to do so.

To be honest, if I was running a media company I'd be rather more inclined to block/redirect users of browsers designed to inject replacement "good" ads into my page than worry about users on a mainstream browser who happen to be using a plugin.

Re: Brave: Brendan Eich's clean-ads browser startup

#218

Post by phaed » Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 5:27 PM UTC

juandazapata wrote: post #171

It's funny when AdBlock tells you that brave.com has 2 blocked Ads. Oh the irony.

ABP > AB.

Re: Brave: Brendan Eich's clean-ads browser startup

#219

Post by Natsu » Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 5:27 PM UTC

RodericDay wrote: post #89

jordigh wrote: post #70

I will repeat this one more time, because Eich seems to be missing the point.[1] I don't adblock for privacy, security, or speed. Those are just nice-side effects. I adblock because I do not want to be manipulated into buying things I do not need. I wonder what would happen if, as a society, we said, "enough, no more ads". Would it really be the capitalist apocalypse that the ad industry is trying to make us believe…

I can't emphasize this enough. Every time someone rattles out a list of "annoyances" regarding ads, I wish that I could plead with them to consider that there's even bigger reasons. Plenty of people try to sell the idea that ads let us have content "for free", and that all we have to tolerate is "a little annoyance". It's insane. If companies are buying ad-space, it's because they expect to get more business in retur…

There are certainly disgusting and slimy ads out there, but, to cite a recent example, if I am sent a 10% off coupon and I happen to want to buy a major appliance, am I wrong for choosing that store to buy it at over the others? Did they wrong me by giving out a discount?

You can say that they 'manipulated' me into going to their store, but that's only because it was in my own interest to do so in the first place.

If we put the bar for 'manipulation' low enough, it would seem that one shouldn't talk to anyone or get any information from anywhere, lest it change your mind in some way and thus manipulate you.

Re: Brave: Brendan Eich's clean-ads browser startup

#220

Post by davnn » Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 5:27 PM UTC

BrendanEich wrote: post #141

jordigh wrote: post #70

I will repeat this one more time, because Eich seems to be missing the point.[1] I don't adblock for privacy, security, or speed. Those are just nice-side effects. I adblock because I do not want to be manipulated into buying things I do not need. I wonder what would happen if, as a society, we said, "enough, no more ads". Would it really be the capitalist apocalypse that the ad industry is trying to make us believe…

I get your point, and it is a good one. We have a micro payments channel to publishers, frictionless and anonymous, under construction, for folks who want no ads and who will pay. Other users than you will be able to mix and match, too: better and more private ads on sites they don't support, with a revenue share to these users that they can spend on sites they do. We aren't saying "only ads". We do see ads as a nece…

It looks like current ad-blockers are sufficient for most people. Privacy also does not seem to be a large problem for the vast majority of web users.

> We have a micro payments channel to publishers, frictionless and anonymous, under construction, for folks who want no ads and who will pay.

That's in my opinion the interesting part. I would not maintain a browser for that reason, especially not for the .5% geeks that value that stuff. Directly supporting your favourite content creators would be an awesome thing. There already are micropayments providers like flattr or google contribute but they have different goals (flattr) or different approaches (google).

I'm just not sure if a for-profit organisation would be the right way to do this in web-land.