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

Brave launches 1.0

brave.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 649 posts

Re: Brave launches 1.0

#341

Post by dang »

Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #327
colordrops wrote: post #45

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?

> 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.

This comment breaks the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Would you please review them and stick to the rules when posting here? Gratuitous insinuation about astroturfing is probably the most toxic of the common internet poisons, and it's important not to spread that unless you have some specific evidence for thinking so—and in that case you should email hn@ycombinator.com so we can look into it.

Note, however, that accounts posting opposing views on a topic doesn't count as evidence of astroturfing—only evidence that people have opposing views on the topic, which is the most routine of internet forum facts.

Lots more explanation: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme....

Re: Brave launches 1.0

#342

Post by sailfast »

bad_user wrote: post #187
brettnak wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this largely ignores "how" ads are distributed. The website you are looking at did not select _any_ of the ads you see. They chose a network who is delegating that placement to someone else. Depending on which ad network, this could delegated by several different ad networks until an advertiser is finally selected by the final intermediary. In principle this may not be a very important distinction. However, I…

> The website you are looking at did not select _any_ of the ads you see. That's irrelevant. In general the content creator gets to choose how their content gets monetized. They own the copyright after all. That ads blocking isn't considered yet a copyright violation in the court of law probably has to do with the upsides, like protecting against malware and privacy. But blocking ads for commercial reasons, like Brav…

I’m not sure how you can use the internet to distribute your content and claim copyright over how the user consumes the content. You’re distributing code to a user. The user can interact with that code however they see fit via their browser. That is the nature of the internet. Anything else (I’m looking at you Washington Post Subscription Runtime) is trying to have things both ways.

Just because a content owner copyrights the content does not mean they can control the user’s environment once the content has been provided to the user - unless of course you own that too (cough Kindle cough). Thank God we still have options for web browsers.

Re: Brave launches 1.0

#343

Post by ohithereyou »

leftyted wrote: post #307
TremendousJudge wrote: post #256

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.

>Yes and Brave's argument is that if everyone acted like you, the web as we know it would collapse.

Maybe the people that rely on the ad supported, user data selling model that primarily destroys the privacy of technologically less advanced users should have thought about that before they started the invasive ad arms race?

So fewer people will make money unethically on the web. If we adopted Brave's point of view then making money from cryptolocker ransomware would be okay because only ignorant users would not have anti-virus and backups in place, so it's really the users fault.

Re: Brave launches 1.0

#344

Post by didericis »

jamiequint wrote: post #324
buboard wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

>There is no easy way to set up an own advertising network for every website 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 v…

It might be trivially easy for you, as you seem to have experience, but I don’t think it’s easy for your average joe who wants to set up a blog, local news site, forum, etc.

Re: Brave launches 1.0

#345

Post by eigenvalue »

emptysongglass wrote: post #272

Two big issues for me that have kept me on Firefox despite being a huge cryptocurrency nerd: 1. The decision to base on Chromium is a bigger negative for me than any feature. We're all going to regret contributing to the One True Engine someday and it's going to be so painful to fix. 2. BAT is a pure money play. There's no inherent utility outside buying and spending. And Ethereum is nothing if not the biggest utilit…

What would you have the Brave team do? Create a new html rendering engine from scratch? That is an incredibly challenging engineering project that would probably require years and many tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars to do well, and what would be the benefit to Brave's users and investors? It would just lead to loads of performance and compatibility issues, and it is fundamentally irrelevant to the core value proposition of Brave, which is to monetize ads on behalf of users and content creators.

Re: Brave launches 1.0

#346

Post by jamiequint »

buboard wrote: post #143
have_faith wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't just mean news sites, they are a good example though. There is a lot of sites out there with very valuable information, I'm not convinced that they inherently need compensating though? but I might be mis-interpreting what you mean. More specifically I don't think encouraging these valuable sites to survive on new ad driven or donation modals is pragmatic, especially one backed by a crypto like BAT. If I crea…

> I'm not convinced that they inherently need compensating though? I am. I find some excellent Youtube channels, and i m sure google is not compensating them enough. I find interesting comments here or on reddit which are never compensated. For small audiences, there is just no way to be compensated. IF people take the time to provide value to me, simple logic says there should be a way to compensate them (but there…

> I find some excellent Youtube channels, and i m sure google is not compensating them enough.

What is "enough" if not determined by the market?

Presumably these channel creators could leave YouTube and create their own websites and sell their own ads. If they're being grossly underpaid vs. the value that YouTube provides (largely in distribution and monetization) presumably they'd be doing that, but they're not. Why not?

Re: Brave launches 1.0

#347

Post by AgentME »

maelito wrote: post #296

What if I really don't want to see ads at all ? Can I pay Brave in € and let it distribute this money to the content creators ?

Yes-ish. You can put your own BAT (or Bitcoin or ETH) into your Brave wallet. You can buy BAT from Coinbase/Uphold/other exchanges.

Re: Brave launches 1.0

#348

Post by Waterluvian »

judah wrote: post #13

I've been using Brave rewards, both as a user and a content maker. It's really great, and I feel this may be a reasonable alternative to the invasive trackers+ads we have today. For the uninitiated, Brave lets users opt-in to Brave rewards: - You set your browser to reward content creators with Basic Attention Token (BAT). You set a budget (e.g. 10 BAT/month), and Brave distributes it the sites you use most, e.g. if…

Can I just buy BAT with cash and never ever see ads?

Re: Brave launches 1.0

#349

Post by n3k5 »

judah wrote: post #13

I've been using Brave rewards, both as a user and a content maker. It's really great, and I feel this may be a reasonable alternative to the invasive trackers+ads we have today. For the uninitiated, Brave lets users opt-in to Brave rewards: - You set your browser to reward content creators with Basic Attention Token (BAT). You set a budget (e.g. 10 BAT/month), and Brave distributes it the sites you use most, e.g. if…

In some ways, this looks promising: Maybe in a few years, they'll be supporting many more countries and payment providers. I'm not overly skeptical about Brave being able to become a viable alternative to my current go-to browsers either — though I hope Safari and Firefox will keep ramping up privacy-protecting features, and I think for the purpose of getting Brave Rewards to critical mass, it would be best to provide plug-ins for integrating that functionality with other browsers as well.

But I see one big problem: For a significant amount of media, a browser isn't the most desirable content delivery mechanism. Take Youtube, for example. The web site is great on PC, but on mobile, the native apps are much better. There's no way those will add support for Brave Rewards, and the chances of the browser-based version catching up don't look so good either. Similarly, there's music streaming, podcasts, F2P games …

I don't want to be in a situation where I have to choose between accessing content in the way I prefer and jumping though hoops for the sake of shuffling those precious BATs around.

Equating the value I'd assign to a creator's work with the time I spend on perusing it seems quite iffy, too.

Meanwhile, Patreon already has most of these issues solved; in a super simple way.

I used to be interested in Brave because of their pro-privacy stance. The more I think about that BAT stuff, the less attractive I find the entire project. I can give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they're idealists striving to build an ecosystem where everyone can help to create valuable on-line content, rather than entrepreneurs trying to syphon a portion of existing revenue streams into their accounts. But then I'm inclined to question their competence.

Re: Brave launches 1.0

#350

Post by jonatanheyman »

k_vi wrote: post #308
TremendousJudge wrote: post #256

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

It'd be like taking a walk in the park and paying/supporting the park if you feel the need to.

> It'd be like taking a walk in the park and paying/supporting the park if you feel the need to.

It'd be like taking a walk in the park and paying/supporting the park - by having a salesperson walking beside you trying to pitch some product - if you feel the need to.

Post reply on HN