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

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

#391

Post by dreamfactory2 » Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 8:44 PM UTC

untog wrote: post #347

hackuser wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would love to see micropayments replace ads. I don't know much about the technical reality of it, but I've thought that an effective micropayments system could be revolutionary, one of thhe most important innovations in tech: 1) It could be a way of financing an incredible amount of essential work that current funding models fail, because the payments are one-off and not worth the high trasaction costs (in fees a…

Micropayments already exists for journalism in the form of Blendle and others. It isn't as effective as you might hope: https://medium.com/@wfederman/micropayments-for-news-article... (key takeaway from that article: people are moving away from micropayments where they already exist (e.g. music) to subscription models. It doesn't work)

...though publishing subscription paywalls are now disappearing

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

#392

Post by jcrites » Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 8:51 PM UTC

vitd wrote: post #349

munificent wrote: post #267

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…

> Look at TV before Netflix/iTunes/etc. came along.

I think that undermines your point: Netflix and iTunes are paid content channels. TV used to be freely broadcast over the airwaves (still is, but used to be too) and needed to earn money exclusively from advertising.

Netflix and iTunes were not the beginning of that trend. It started when cable TV came along, and began selling subscription access to content like HBO, Showtime, etc. which have no ads. The differentiator with Netflix and iTunes was the ability to stream TV over the Internet, and consequently pay for it without bundling it into cable, and paying for individual shows/movies a la carte.

It's also taken a while for Netflix and Amazon to begin offering their own premium content. HBO has been in operation since the 1970s, though to be fair its critical mass really began in 1999 with The Sopranos. Netflix introduced streaming TV in 2007 and received its first real primetime Emmy nominations for its own content in 2013 (House of Cards)

In 2015, HBO received 126 Primetime Emmy nominations (Game of Thrones), the most of any network, a spot HBO has held for 15 years in a row according to NYT. That year, Netflix received 34 nominations and the nascent Amazon Studios garnered 12 (Transparent).

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

#393

Post by callalex » Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 8:52 PM UTC

wfo wrote: post #170

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 agree ads are bad but the current state of the web is disgusting, it's barely recognizable as a conduit for any real information. People hail the internet as a great way to find information -- if you type anything into the google search bar you're curious about, you either get wikipedia, which is clean and usually pretty great if incomplete, or clickbait ad-filled trash that gives you one sentence of content before…

> People hail the internet as a great way to find information -- if you type anything into the google search bar you're curious about, you either get wikipedia, which is clean and usually pretty great if incomplete, or clickbait ad-filled trash

A perfect example of this: I got a rash from poison oak exposure, and wanted to find out what the recommended treatment was. Seemingly a perfect use case for the internet. I was greeted with search results that are perfectly described by this sentence.

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

#394

Post by LordKano » Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 8:57 PM UTC

vectorpush wrote: post #388

LordKano wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 en…

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.

So then, it's not discrimination that you oppose. You just want to be the one to decide the target of the discrimination.

Love is love, right?

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".

None of which are among my justifications for my position.

It is the prerogative of the courts to weigh in on the constitutionality of the law.

That is true. It is also society's prerogative to overrule the courts via a constitutional amendment, if they so choose. However, this wouldn't be a concern if the underlying issue had been decided by the people in the first place.

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.

Don't delude yourself. Everything is subject to the tyranny of the majority, if two thirds of the elected officials can be persuaded.

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

#395

Post by bonoboTP » Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 8:57 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…

With ads every visitor/reader contributes regardless of their agreement with the content, while micropayments are more like "likes", and you'd mostly pay those who you agree with. This could lead to karma-whoring but this time for real money.

I mean, authors would have to kiss the asses of the readers and try to be as friendly to their preconceptions as possible and make them feel like they are buddies.

Most donations are done based on emotions. So now we'd have distorted content, catering to the online hivemind even more than today.

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

#396

Post by drumdance » Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 9:01 PM UTC

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 want to browse content provided by companies that won't go out of business. I don't mind ads as long as they don't slow down the browser.

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

#397

Post by drumdance » Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 9:03 PM UTC

ohthehugemanate wrote: post #296

munificent wrote: post #267

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…

Careful about letting "perfect" be the enemy of "good enough". Culture has always been determined by people who are well off enough to spend time on it. Even the people who are commissioned creators (Dickens was paid by the word, Mozart had aristocratic sponsors) spent thousands of hours working for free to get to the point where anyone would pay them. Further, it's not like ads have been some democratizing element f…

> spent thousands of hours working for free to get to the point where anyone would pay them.

That's still true. Writing for the web is generally a low-paying job. It would be even lower if the media properties went out of business.

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

#398

Post by agumonkey » Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 9:04 PM UTC

jbigelow76 wrote: post #363

agumonkey wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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) That seems dubious unless you spend all your time browsing sites you have no interest in. If I spent all day browsing ad-supported sites about antique Czechoslovakian sewing thimbles, then yeah, I'll buy your argument (no pun intended), but the sites I view show ads that fit expected areas of interest for my demographic. Just because you don't ever act on…

Then enjoy your doubting. Even on the geekiest websites I don't click on ads, I barely even see them; except when they slow down loading and rendering, Then I go mean in and pass it through printfriendly.com. And for other products well meh, I'm not a "consumer", and few ads will ever make me believe any product is really that valuable to me. I have soap and water thank you.

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

#399

Post by dreamfactory2 » Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 9:10 PM UTC

Joeri wrote: post #130

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…

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…

that money will be in the economy anyway unless everyone decides to take cash and stuff it in a mattress

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

#400

Post by CaptSpify » Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 9:11 PM UTC

Why a new browser, instead of plugins for existing browsers?

I dislike ads, but there are already solutions for blocking them. Although I do like the premise of this, I'm not eager to switch browsers just to start supporting advertisers.