Brave: Brendan Eich's clean-ads browser startup • Hacker News Board

Re: Brave: Brendan Eich's clean-ads browser startup

#381

Post by stonogo » Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 8:21 PM UTC

morgante wrote: post #356

stonogo wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This directive would be just if it were possible for me to know, in advance of clicking on a given link, if the destination I'm clicking on embraces advertising revenue. Instead, I'm just supposed to Figure It Out, wasting bandwith and processing power for ads I don't want to see? Your business model sucks. Sorry.

If there were an ad blocker which blocked the entire page if ads were present, would you use it? At the very least, you should know by now that most major websites depend on advertising revenue. So I assume you won't click on any of them. I also assume you never use Google or Facebook.

I would absolutely use that ad blocker. In fact, I think umatrix or ublock origin could be configured to do so. It's a good idea, and I'll look into it.

I do not indeed ever use Google or Facebook. As I said, I do not approve of their business model, nor do I wish to participate in it.

Re: Brave: Brendan Eich's clean-ads browser startup

#382

Post by Joeri » Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 8:23 PM UTC

oldmanjay wrote: post #309

Joeri wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The purpose of advertising is to make you buy more than you need. The economy relies strongly on people buying much more than they need. If you got rid of advertising, it would temporarily destroy the economy, until a new normal is reached, and long term it would save the environment due to heavily reduced consumption. Also, it could bring about the keynesian fantasy where people work only 12 hours a week, because th…

There have been some economies that ran on the idea that most people should only have what they need. At best they seem like dystopias.

There's a difference between saying people can't have what they don't need, and saying they should have the right to not constantly be told to want what they don't need.

Re: Brave: Brendan Eich's clean-ads browser startup

#383

Post by Nadya » Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 8:27 PM UTC

morgante wrote: post #356

stonogo wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This directive would be just if it were possible for me to know, in advance of clicking on a given link, if the destination I'm clicking on embraces advertising revenue. Instead, I'm just supposed to Figure It Out, wasting bandwith and processing power for ads I don't want to see? Your business model sucks. Sorry.

If there were an ad blocker which blocked the entire page if ads were present, would you use it? At the very least, you should know by now that most major websites depend on advertising revenue. So I assume you won't click on any of them. I also assume you never use Google or Facebook.

I add websites to my host file if they express desire for me to turn off my Adblocker. 99% of the time I can find a rehash of their content elsewhere. Since popular stories will get printed by 20 other publications with slight wording tweaks.

Google makes no such statement towards me. I don't use Facebook. Though that has nothing to do with my thoughts on ads more-so than my dislike of Facebook.

If nobody visits a site because nobody wants to see the ads and the site is in the red, they'll still be going out of business if they do not switch business models. Given I don't care if they go out of business sooner or later - they can enjoy their time of declining consumer base before eventually shuttering their doors because they refused to find a sustainable business model. I'll do them the courtesy of not bleeding them out more quickly. Much like how I do not abuse "no questions asked, money back guarantees".

Re: Brave: Brendan Eich's clean-ads browser startup

#384

Post by losteric » Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 8:30 PM UTC

munificent wrote: post #267

rorykoehler wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fall into the camp of blocking all ads because frankly I don't like them. They are visual pollution. I also doubt I would pay for written content (maybe on a very rare occasion I might) if given a micro-payments solution because it doesn't seem worth paying for. 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. Honestly I…

> 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…

> People who aren't as financially lucky as me don't have that opportunity. I'm not crazy about the idea of living in a world where those people don't get to participate in determining culture.

I can't see why those users couldn't publish through a network that charges for access but guarantees a high bar of quality (both content and browsing experience). Think of something like Medium, with opt-in micropayments... possibly even mix in a social element, so friends of the creator get free access.

Re: Brave: Brendan Eich's clean-ads browser startup

#385

Post by dreamfactory2 » Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 8:37 PM UTC

munificent wrote: post #267

rorykoehler wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fall into the camp of blocking all ads because frankly I don't like them. They are visual pollution. I also doubt I would pay for written content (maybe on a very rare occasion I might) if given a micro-payments solution because it doesn't seem worth paying for. 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. Honestly I…

> 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…

Which significant cultural works have been ad-funded?

Re: Brave: Brendan Eich's clean-ads browser startup

#386

Post by dreamfactory2 » Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 8:39 PM UTC

taurath wrote: post #304

rorykoehler wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fall into the camp of blocking all ads because frankly I don't like them. They are visual pollution. I also doubt I would pay for written content (maybe on a very rare occasion I might) if given a micro-payments solution because it doesn't seem worth paying for. 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. Honestly I…

Isn't it interesting the level of monetary value we put on most written content on the web (nothing) vs the time we spend reading said valueless content? Is it truly so valueless, or is it only valueless because similar content isn't worth anything? I click on the links I click on because I think they'll have more value to me than the rest of them, but I'm still not to the threshold of reaching any monetary value, on…

they've already got your time in an attention economy

Re: Brave: Brendan Eich's clean-ads browser startup

#387

Post by kafkaesq » Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 8:39 PM UTC

csense wrote: post #90

lsc wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Diversity, I think, is really important. Diversity of thought as well as all the other kinds of diversity. It's important to be able to work with people who come from different backgrounds, who have different beliefs. I see this on both sides (I see it more often on the left, but that's just because my filter bubble is a somewhat leftish one.. when I step out of that bubble, I see plenty examples of people on the rig…

Yeah. If the only way you can get people to (pretend to) believe an idea (such as "gay marriage is a good thing") is by threatening their livelihood if they don't, it reflects poorly on both you and the idea.

Well that's a non-sequitur, to start with.

As in, the position you're attacking (the idea of sanctioning him to get him to change his beliefs) wasn't what the anti-Eich crowd was advocating, by and large.

But at this stage, it's better to just give the topic a rest, please. Pretty much everything that could be said about it has been, by now. And baiting (or simply poorly reasoned) dialog (such as your statement above) simply adds to his lumps.

Re: Brave: Brendan Eich's clean-ads browser startup

#388

Post by vectorpush » Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 8:40 PM UTC

LordKano wrote: post #355

vectorpush wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> judicial activism That's disingenuous bullshit. The spirit of the constitution protects individual rights, and there is no constitutional reason why an arbitrary religious definition of marriage should be respected over the rights of individuals. It's not activism to say that discrimination based on sexual orientation is unconstitutional. Any feelings you have about the definition of marriage based on culture, trad…

The spirit of the constitution protects individual rights Do you support polygamous marriage? It's not activism to say that discrimination based on sexual orientation is unconstitutional. It's not bigotry to say that marriage is a societal institution and society can define it. Any feelings you have about the definition of marriage based on culture, tradition, or god's divine law are irreverent to the legal instituti…

> Do you support polygamous marriage?

Two different things. Polygamy is prohibited based on the total number of individuals, gay marriage prohibition is based on the identity of the individuals; it's a critical distinction as far as the protection of individual rights are concerned. When you prohibit gay marriage you're saying "these types of people cannot be married" you must evaluate their individual identity to enforce the prohibition, when you're prohibiting polygamy you're saying "a marriage cannot exceed two individuals" where specific qualities of the individuals have no bearing on the application of the prohibition.

>It's not bigotry to say that marriage is a societal institution and society can define it.

No it's not, so lets just dispense with that strawman. What is said of marriage is irrelevant; bigotry is denying people the legal right to be married because of their sexual orientation. Period.

> You're projecting. I have no feelings about what the definition of marriage should be... Furthermore, if you would like to take a few minutes to review my comment history to see if I have ever used "God" or religion as the basis for any argument, I'll wait. You're attempting to setup strawmen against which you can argue.

Wrong. I am not projecting or setting up a strawman, I am heading off common arguments in advance of their appearance in the discussion, that is why I said "culture", "tradition" OR "god's divine word".

> I have feelings about who should decide such definitions.... Like I pointed out earlier. In states where marriage was redefined legislatively, there was nothing like Proposition 8. Haven't you wondered why that is?

It is the prerogative of the courts to weigh in on the constitutionality of the law. It doesn't matter if society wants to prevent gay people from being married, the constitution is pretty clear about protecting the rights of individuals from the government as well as from the tyranny of the majority.

Re: Brave: Brendan Eich's clean-ads browser startup

#389

Post by duaneb » Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 8:41 PM UTC

BrendanEich wrote: post #141

jordigh wrote: post #70

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…

> We have a micro payments channel to publishers, frictionless and anonymous, under construction, for folks who want no ads and who will pay.

This is an amazing option.

Re: Brave: Brendan Eich's clean-ads browser startup

#390

Post by steveklabnik » Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 8:42 PM UTC

taurath wrote: post #357

amazon_not wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you are describing is called Flattr. It was launched in 2010 and never went anywhere, like every other micropayment service.

Interesting but not surprising that it existed. Reddit gold works because they have hundreds of millions of users and it probably barely pays the bills. Many smarter people have tried tackling the problem, but I don't think drastic online economic changes can grow organically without some sort of catalyst. Maybe if a browser like the one linked in the OP could get enough of a userbase that it becomes a force.

Flattr was a product of the Pirate Bay crew; they had an audience, it just didn't work out.