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

221–230 of 271 posts

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#221

Post by notriddle »

dogweather wrote: post #165
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,…

> Brave doesn't touch first-party ads. If you wish to advertise to your visitors, we respect that. That's pretty interesting. So, as an online publisher, if I make my own deals directly with the advertisers and then host and serve the assets myself, Brave doesn't flag it. I used to do this, but it's very time consuming. I've essentially delegated this work to Adsense.

But AdSense doesn't do a good job of it. I've seen ads that mess my browser's scroll bar, mine Monero, and pretend to be warnings from the FBI. That's why I use an ad blocker.

Frankly, you should take responsibility for every resource that your web page pulls down. I don't really care whether you do it yourself or have someone else do it, but if your ad network is serving up malicious JavaScript on a regular basis, then they're not doing their job right and you should fire them.

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#222

Post by jonahx »

nightsd01 wrote: post #170

From what I understand, Google isn’t actually giving away people’s data to “hundreds of companies” for advertising purposes. When an advertiser wants to target a specific group of people, Google doesn’t say “here’s everyone’s private data, good luck”. GOOGLE does the filtering and targeting internally. I’m sorry but that isn’t evil or bad. Unless we want to start paying for google searches and Facebook, this is how i…

> My personal suspicion is that people are just jealous of how much success Google and Facebook have had.

Ah, yes, a classic: "All criticism of success and power stems from envy."

Impervious to pushback (since that would only prove you'd pushed the hot button of painful truth) and always plausible-sounding, this is truly a brilliant weapon for snuffing out legitimate complaints and healthy conversation.

> Unless we want to start paying for google searches

I, and many others, would jump at the chance to pay for an internet without advertising and dark advertising tactics. I happily pay $10/month for youtube red, just to avoid the ad videos, and that's cheap at the price.

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#223

Post by zormino »

andirk wrote: post #193
_oadw wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is an adblock on by default going to save the internet? No one likes paywalls.

Content creators get paid via Basic Attention Token. Wow ppl reply without reading anything. BAT is all about attention. Pay attention!

But what if I'm not interested in these particular digital tokens out of the pool of thousands? I get they have a dollar value associated with them, but I don't want them. I want exactly 0 of them. I want 0 pretend cash tokens of any kind. Why would the browser vendor get to decide this on my behalf?

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#224

Post by tjoff »

manigandham wrote: post #179
tjoff wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GDPR consent doesn't work like that...

People keep saying this but that's exactly how it's being done. This is what happens with regulation "on principle" instead of by the letter, which is what GDPR chose to be.

So, what you are saying is that my gmail doesn't work. Huh, that's weird, should I tell google?

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#225

Post by h43k3r »

jonahx wrote: post #222
nightsd01 wrote: post #170

From what I understand, Google isn’t actually giving away people’s data to “hundreds of companies” for advertising purposes. When an advertiser wants to target a specific group of people, Google doesn’t say “here’s everyone’s private data, good luck”. GOOGLE does the filtering and targeting internally. I’m sorry but that isn’t evil or bad. Unless we want to start paying for google searches and Facebook, this is how i…

> My personal suspicion is that people are just jealous of how much success Google and Facebook have had. Ah, yes, a classic: "All criticism of success and power stems from envy." Impervious to pushback (since that would only prove you'd pushed the hot button of painful truth) and always plausible-sounding, this is truly a brilliant weapon for snuffing out legitimate complaints and healthy conversation. > Unless we w…

There are more than billion people in India who will be internet users and who don't have the ability to shell out this kind of money. 10 dollars is probably 2 day salary for many workers.

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#226

Post by finnh »

h43k3r wrote: post #225
jonahx wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My personal suspicion is that people are just jealous of how much success Google and Facebook have had. Ah, yes, a classic: "All criticism of success and power stems from envy." Impervious to pushback (since that would only prove you'd pushed the hot button of painful truth) and always plausible-sounding, this is truly a brilliant weapon for snuffing out legitimate complaints and healthy conversation. > Unless we w…

There are more than billion people in India who will be internet users and who don't have the ability to shell out this kind of money. 10 dollars is probably 2 day salary for many workers.

By the same logic, Google cannot charge much for targeting ads at those same people. So I am not sure what your point is.

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#227

Post by GW150914 »

mertd wrote: post #184
boxspam wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do think that Google has data sharing with "hundreds of companies". These are not advertisers, these are ad companies. They recently updated to comply with GDPR. https://support.google.com/admanager/answer/9012903 https://developers.google.com/third-party-ads/adx-vendors Edit: And about it being "evil" or "bad", let's just say that it is "unnecessary" (from a user viewpoint). You can still make money from ads witho…

You'd prefer paid reviews over ads? Ads are honest. You know who paid for them and the intent is clear.

At least reviews don’t mine bitcoin on my box, come with malware, chug my processor, and track me across the web. Ads stink, but it’s the fact that ads have become synonymous with info brokering, spying, and all of the rest that makes me ready to dance on the industry’s grave. Maybe 5 or 6 years ago I’d have cared about what Brave had to say, now I have uBlock Origin and uMatrix and I evangelize it to everyone I know offline. I won’t be going back because of a long delayed come-to-Jesus moment had out of desperation.

Besides, a lot of ad supported sites are hideous, and the sooner they can’t support themselves and stop cluttering the net, the better. HN will still be here, most of the sites with articles submitted here will be too. The best content out there is free, crowdfunded, or paywalled, while the worst of clickbait is ad supported. Besides, it’s so much more relaxing to avoid ads, I don’t have to waste thinking about how they’re trying to manipulate me into buying tat, make me feel inadequate unless I buy their products, etc. When you stop seeing ads online, on tv, and then you watch some cable or unfiltered internet... it’s horrible. Marketing is a grim, tiring, assault on the senses aimed at the absolute lowest common denominator, and I’m glad to be rid of it and hopefully eventually, the businesses which make it.

This industry that abused everyone it could until a technical means to fight back was developed, doesn’t deserve any more chances. This whole, “oh we’re the good parasites, we’ve figured out that it’s bad to kill the host, we just want a slice out of you,” shtick deserves to go over like a lead balloon.

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#228

Post by krisgenre »

ehnto wrote: post #219
rwesty wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not the point. The point is the ad is clearly marked and separate from the content you want to see. The other type of ad is known as "selling out." Where a legit content creator abuses their viewers trust in them to put out false information for financial gain. I would much rather have the first option. Although I think a paid tier with no ads is respectable as well.

Modern advertising is an industry rife with abuse and coercion. The ad industry is to blame. Content creators can be evil to, but enabled by the ad industry who is happy to be in like company. If I followed you around with a paper advertisement, wrote down where you frequent and who you talk to in my notebook, and left a copy of the advertisement everywhere you went, you would call the police. Online advertising does…

You can't really draw parallels with the virtual and real world. Starting at someone's Facebook profile pic is not the same as standing next to the person and doing the same.

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#229

Post by GW150914 »

jonathansampson wrote: post #118
jordigh wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More like, "in exchange, we'll make more honey that you can buy from us too." I gain nothing by watching ads. All I get is the creation of a need or desire that I didn't have before I watched the ad. Ads increase demand. Telling me that your business will fail unless I voluntarily inconvenience myself is not endearing me to your business.

If you wish not to see ads (even ads which don't track, and pay you 70% of their revenue), then you stick with the default, out-of-box experience. Brave is an ad and tracker blocker, by default.

No, if I don’t want ads I use an ad blocker and script manager that only exists to block out what you’re selling. As a bonus I get to hope that far from being able to help save this wretched industry, I can help to hammer some nails in its coffin. Your business model would only be remotely appealing if things like uBlock Origin, NoScript and uMatrix didn’t exist. Fortunately they do, so I don’t even have to think about malware ads, inefficient ads, and just plain annoying ads. Even better I don’t have to “be the product being sold” or have to waste my mental energy critically thinking through the bullshit that is advertising.

Life without endless, wheedling attempts to sell, upsell, and generally manipulate you into buying more crap is frankly better than the alternatives. I can’t tell you how many cord cutters I’ve met who lost their tolerance for tv advertisement once they weren’t bathing in it every day. Ads are miserable, they drive a consumer culture that is pointless, and lead to endless loads of clickbait and “content” thst exists just be a platform form advertisement.

The industry doesn’t need saving, it needs euthanizing.

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#230

Post by zethraeus »

finnh wrote: post #226
h43k3r wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are more than billion people in India who will be internet users and who don't have the ability to shell out this kind of money. 10 dollars is probably 2 day salary for many workers.

By the same logic, Google cannot charge much for targeting ads at those same people. So I am not sure what your point is.

Price discrimination is harder to scale than ad targeting.
Post reply on HN