321–330 of 649 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's perfect for my use case: Chrome but with all the google bits removed and built-in ad-blocking. Can't say any of those things you listed have bothered me. I don't use BAT. Edit: Why do so many new accounts (green text) post to any thread about Brave?
It also has "built-in ad-adding". https://brave.com/brave-ads-waitlist/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would personally much rather allocate actual dollars instead of CryptoBuckOfTheDay backed by ads I have no desire to ever watch. Say, $20/month that gets allocated to sites I visit. The whole "reward people for watching ads" model just seems... wrong.
But the ecosystem around dollars is so parasite-riddled that if you tried to move cents for each ad you didn't see, you'd end up paying more in transaction fees than would make it to the content creators that you're trying to support. The dollar has a scalability problem that BAT doesn't. Is trading dollars for BAT on an exchange and then loading those BAT into your browser's wallet such a bad alternative?
How about if you're a content creator who got paid in these ever-volatile digital currency units...instead of dollars? If those same creators instantly traded out for $, what was their trading fees? Is all of this something to consider when singing the praises of saving a few pennies on transaction costs?
Initially I liked the concept of brave, but they destroyed themselves by bloating it with this coin/payment stuff that is not possible to remove 100%. Back to Firefox now.
What's your agenda? Who's paying you to slander Brave?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That doesn't make it more ethical. Presumably if the sites wanted to operate under that model they would be already. In any case, Brave's effective CPM that they pay out to publishers it complete shit even compared to bottom-of-the-barrel ad exchanges. It's objectively a bad deal for publishers.
It does make it more ethical. There is no easy way to set up an own advertising network for every website, ads are pennies. > Brave's effective CPM You will find that everyone except google has terrible CPMs. I like the fact that they are exploring new delivery technologies though
Huh? This is trivially easy with DFP or if you're smaller AdGlare/AdZerk/etc
> You will find that everyone except google has terrible CPMs.
This is objectively false. OpenX, Amazon, Rubicon, AppNexus, Pubmatic, etc all pay better than Google for large pockets of inventory. Google has the largest distribution, but their CPMs are awful for a very large percentage of that inventory, even in typically high-CPM markets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> which raises the price of BAT Why would the price of BAT raise when uses opt out of ads?
Two mechanisms: 1.) Less inventory. Advertisers bid for spots on the platform, which means that if there're fewer users accepting advertisers, the remaining spots will require more BAT, which requires purchasing more BAT on the open market. Higher demand + constant supply = higher price. 2.) Fewer user rewards. Users receive BAT when browsing, which they can either tip to creators or sell on an exchange (I'm not sure…
Doesn't this assume that advertisers would be willing to pay more for fewer eyeballs? That seems like a pretty big assumption.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>when you compare against the current option To me the current option is no participation because I see no explicit ads. The web is pull and not push, and my browser renders whatever I want it to. As for the revenue, they can keep it for all I care, why would I want to make money browsing the web? It'd be like making money for talking a walk in the park
> To me the current option is no participation because I see no explicit ads. The web is pull and not push, and my browser renders whatever I want it to. Yes and Brave's argument is that if everyone acted like you, the web as we know it would collapse. Perhaps it's an argument worth taking seriously. And I say that as someone who acts like you.
I've used Brave since March, and I'm really not impressed. For a browser that tries to be different, it's incredible how little consideration has been given to things that annoy users and that could probably be trivial to remove. To be more specific, my issues with Brave are: - Still uses the Chrome Web Store as main store - Does not have an easy way to load packaged extensions from 3rd party sources - Even after add…
It's perfect for my use case: Chrome but with all the google bits removed and built-in ad-blocking. Can't say any of those things you listed have bothered me. I don't use BAT. Edit: Why do so many new accounts (green text) post to any thread about Brave?
There's a pretty ridiculous amount of astroturfing going on in these comments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Brave Ads are opt-in, and user-configurable. You decide whether or not to participate, and to what degree (1 to 5 ads per hour). These ads are surfaced as OS notifications, which means they respect settings like Do Not Disturb, Focus Mode, etc. And, as always, you receive 70% of the ad revenue for your participation. Respectfully, that doesn't strike me as an "escalation of hostility" when you compare against the cur…
>when you compare against the current option To me the current option is no participation because I see no explicit ads. The web is pull and not push, and my browser renders whatever I want it to. As for the revenue, they can keep it for all I care, why would I want to make money browsing the web? It'd be like making money for talking a walk in the park
* Google Chrome: mandatory
* Firefox: opt-out [1]
* Brave: blocked
That's the primary issue.
It's great that Brave is pioneering a new opt-in, privacy-respecting funding model for the web - we need innovation here - but it's a secondary issue.
[1] Thanks to Google $, slowly changing presumably thanks to forcing effects of Apple's increasing privacy defaults in Safari
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Brave was founded by Brandon Eich who donated $1000 to Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in California.
Yeah, seems weird that Hacker News is censoring this. I guess they don't want people to know that. Maybe Brave gave them some money to push this announcement.
(Nobody pays us anything, let alone to "push announcements"—of all the things we could do to ruin this community, that would be the stupidest. We don't accept gifts either FWIW.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>what will news articles become? there will be fewer of them which is a good thing because the signal to noise ratio of journalism is about one to two magnitudes too high, they will be smaller and funded by communities who have authentic interest in keeping them alive rather than be incentivised to maximise engagement, and I'd wager they'd be more responsive to the needs of their readers and members.
> funded by communities who have authentic interest in keeping them alive That's naive. Traditional media were always coopted to serve interests