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

371–380 of 649 posts

Re: Brave launches 1.0

#371

Post by emptysongglass »

eigenvalue wrote: post #345
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 v…

No, of course not. I would have had them base on Gecko.

Re: Brave launches 1.0

#372

Post by sneak »

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…

There is no meaningful technical criticism of Chromium that I have seen. All of the anti-engine folks’ main argument seems to be “it has the Google stink on it”, but I can’t see how that is relevant in an application explicitly designed to avoid their ad/tracking/cloud services. It’s just a renderer.

Re: Brave launches 1.0

#373

Post by readams »

petemill wrote: post #181
thefreeman wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

doesn't Brave have to track your browsing history in order to accurately award sites "you visit the most"? Isn't that exactly the issue a lot of people have with ads in the first place?

The decisions are all done locally by your browser on your computer.

I'm sure there are no attack targets for malware here.

Re: Brave launches 1.0

#374

Post by nfoz »

EpicEng wrote: post #333
nfoz wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to provide TV content, go for it. But if your content has ads, don't be surprised when people skip all the ads, because ads are offensive, and they're free to skip them. So that's an awkward business model to rely on. The consumers aren't the ones being unethical; you chose to put yourself in an aggressive and dubious position in the first place. I prefer public and collectively-funded broadcasting.

I was only commenting on the "...then don't publish on the web" bit, which you seem to be back peddling on.

Ah I see what you're getting at now. Sure, ads are unethical and they shouldn't publish them, but since they will anyway, and it would be too heavyhanded to prevent them (by making it illegal, say), we should look at ways to defend ourselves against them.

Re: Brave launches 1.0

#375

Post by buboard »

jamiequint wrote: post #346
buboard wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> if not determined by the market?

Exactly that, the market is skewed by monopolies. You can easily setup an ad server, but good luck getting the attention of an advertiser. Google has a stronghold on display ads, almost a monopoly.

Re: Brave launches 1.0

#376

Post by sneak »

BrendanEich wrote: post #226
_bxg1 wrote: post #17

I tried out Brave ~3 years ago when it was still Electron-based, and it was unfortunately too laggy to be a daily driver. Then I tried it out again ~6 months ago after they'd switched it to being a Chromium fork. The speed was much-improved, but it suddenly started spamming me with push notifications about various features, Brave rewards, etc. I felt like I was blocking web ads just to get native ads instead. You can…

You turned on Brave Rewards at some point, it seems. If you want to tip and contribute anonymously but not get ads, just turn off ads (upper left of rewards settings).

Did you fix that issue yet where you were fraudulently claiming that you could receive tips for any content creator on the web but those sent to creators that hadn’t signed up went to Brave instead?

Re: Brave launches 1.0

#377

Post by cwkoss »

NelsonMinar wrote: post #200
have_faith wrote: post #30

If people like Brave's ad model, all the power to them. I would personally never touch it. I'm not philosophically on board with the idea that paying people to look at ads is a pragmatic way forward. It doesn't matter if it's opt-in, free-to-play games with loot crates are opt-in, but the decision to go down that road will effect their decision making process when designing new features and I don't want to be part of…

Brave is unethical. The key problem is they insert themselves into the revenue stream without the consent of the web publishers. It's fine to block ads entirely, but substituting your own ads and collecting money from that is wrong.

Modern online advertising is more unethical, so shrug

Re: Brave launches 1.0

#378

Post by cwkoss »

buboard wrote: post #44
have_faith wrote: post #30

If people like Brave's ad model, all the power to them. I would personally never touch it. I'm not philosophically on board with the idea that paying people to look at ads is a pragmatic way forward. It doesn't matter if it's opt-in, free-to-play games with loot crates are opt-in, but the decision to go down that road will effect their decision making process when designing new features and I don't want to be part of…

If people aren't willing to look at ads, what will news articles become? ads. What will HN comments become? Ads (many blog posts already are). Advertising covers a need

This has already happened.

Re: Brave launches 1.0

#379

Post by SlowRobotAhead »

Waterluvian wrote: post #348
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?

You could skip some steps and install a proper ad blocker. IDK, call me old fashioned.

Re: Brave launches 1.0

#380

Post by buboard »

lliamander wrote: post #301
buboard wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 am. I find some excellent Youtube channels, and i m sure google is not compensating them enough. Depending upon youtube ads for your revenue is not a good model anyway. Many channel owners have their own monetization through sponsors ("this video was sponsored by..."), patreon, affiliate links, merchandise, etc. For others, they may either produce the content for pleasure (i.e. without intent to monetize) or as a…

> aside from money

obviously people do, but considering that the tech exists, why not have an option? Also, consider that many blog posts are essentially blogvertisements anyway, and there is apparenty a market for buying upvotes here.

> you have to put a lot of work into connecting directly

That is a lot harder because people's attention is limited and the big tech cos have a stronghold on it. E.g. it's very hard to pull people away from youtube.

Post reply on HN