361–370 of 580 posts
So why do I have to "sign up" for this supposedly privacy-enhanced browser? They don't have a need to know who I am. "Then we put clean ads back". This is open source, right? It's on Github. Can someone fork this and remove all the ads? Thank you.
Well, given that's it's a fork of Firefox itself, you could just un- fork it :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I write blog posts from time to time and I do it for pleasure because I enjoy writing about things that interest me and sharing it with others. I do the same thing, but I realized a while back there is a flaw in this model. It means the available creative works—which in turn effectively means the engine of culture—is determined almost entirely by people who are well-off enough to have the free time to do that. I do…
>It means the available creative works—which in turn effectively means the engine of culture—is determined almost entirely by people who are well-off enough to have the free time to do that. From where I sit, that's the problem ad-supported media has, not the other way around. Look at TV before Netflix/iTunes/etc. came along. It was pretty much a crap-fest of lowest-common-denominator programming that was created bas…
You can bitch all you want about the poor state of journalism, but the institutions that are trying to maintain it in a market where no one wants to pay for it are struggling. People won't pay subscriptions (the majority), don't want ads, but still want all that content.
The startup/software development equivalent is open source but that only works for largely one group of people: well off white males.
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 don't like ads at all (99.9% of the time not their target), I do respond a lot to efficiency arguments a lot. I felt delighted to find better adblockers (less lag, less heat, more battery). The ad problem won't go away, unless you're top tier brand your business rely on it. You may tame it but it's like weed, it comes back.
>I don't like ads at all (99.9% of the time not their target)
Just because you don't ever act on ads doesn't mean you aren't still a target.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I adblock because I do not want to be manipulated into buying things I do not need. I don't understand this argument. How are ads "manipulating" you? They're just ads. They're not an argumentative authority figure with a gun. The only reason to block ads is because of speed of user experience. The "manipulation" argument is the weakest reason to block ads. In any case, you manipulate other people for your own perso…
I am affected by my environment. Aren't you? A page full of ads for things that tend to make me feel slightly less optimal is, well, suboptimal.
Pretty much everyone in this thread says they won't do payment, will block ads, and seemingly has a problem with people earning a living who aren't software developers or startup owners.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Manipulation, yes. Unethical, maybe? (when you look at its effect in aggregate) Honestly I just want all the advertising (be it physical (signage, billboards, smells, etc) or digital) to get out of my environment. It's almost always noise and it's ugly. There's no reason we couldn't build a hyper-connected system where if I'm looking for something, I can find it. I want socks? Ok, how many sock stores are local? Ok,…
ok, let's assume such a hyper-connected system exists and ads disappear completely. You decide to buy socks. You find a supplier you like. Socks come in black and orange. You like black, but your wife prefers orange. She convinces you to change your mind with arguments such as "orange is more vibrant". Do you consider that a form of manipulation? is it unethical? The truth is, we as human being are constantly target…
I'd rather avoid the manipulation altogether by people I don't know and they can fuck right off with their attempts to sell me something I don't need or am not interested in (all the while contributing to hidden negative externalities). I want to support (manipulate) and be supported by (manipulated by) people I love and know to share my values.
@oldmanjay in another response says this is contrary to free speech, imagines I must be a unhappy unless I'm a hermit, and doesn't mind that he'd be offending me with his noise if we were in the same room. Well guess what, I wouldn't have entered the room in the first place. That's the problem. You can't walk down the street without getting blasted in the retinas by all this damn noise. The fact that it happens on highways while people need to be focusing on the road is just insane. I live in NA.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Paywall every newspaper website. Nearly every newspaper website is already paywalled, and every time someone posts a story from those sites to HN all the comments are people complaining about the paywalls. HN even added a special little link to let people skip around them, because why would we want to encourage people to pay for quality work they appreciate?
newspapers are un-needed intermediaries. For whatever weird reasons AP and Reuters and the like don't want the hassle of 6 billion individual subscribers, so they contract out to an intermediary who pays them a vaguely fixed amount per month based on viewer numbers and then the intermediary stuffs the pages with ads and clickbait headlines to profit more than their 1000 competitors trying to do the same thing, which…
> With Brave, you can choose whether to see ads that respect your privacy or pay sites directly. Either way, you can feel good about helping fund content creators. How do they plan on doing that? Not like it hasn't been tried before. The problem is you can't collect money on someone's behalf without them opting in, and if it is opt-in only you get the chicken and the egg problem for adoption.
>or pay sites directly. Call me crazy, but if I wanted to "pay the site" I'm using I'd just allow their ads. This company is really sleezy. Its playing the "replace their ads with ours" game and trying to make it sound like some wonderful moral position against advertising. People aren't this stupid. This thing isn't going to catch on.
The point of this browser is to factor out random third-party ad networks. If you elect to see ads on the site, they are presumably served by Brave. The site still gets paid (so it's not like the ISP's replacing ads on the fly), but you don't have to worry about unknown trackers following you around the internet and putting a strain on your CPU.
Whether it will catch on is another question...
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…
http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/hosts
But I can't do that on my phone without jailbreaking it. Stupid phone.