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

391–400 of 649 posts

Re: Brave launches 1.0

#391

Post by Drakim »

PKop wrote: post #302
Drakim wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BAT is a cryptocurrency like Bitcoin, so yeah, you spend dollars to buy BAT, and put it your brave browser wallet, and decide your monthly donation budget. This is so that you can choose to support web and content creators online without the needs of ads. Think of it as automatic micro-donations based on your browsing. The ads are a completely separate feature, you enable voluntary ads to be shown to you, and in exch…

Why would either end users want to put $ into BAT, or content creators accept BAT in lieu of dollar given the massive volatility of BAT relative to $? If I had stocked up my wallet with $ over the summer, those $'s I exchanged could be up to about 35% less now. We're discussing saving pennies on transaction costs while we lost massive amounts on exchange rate slippage and volatility. This is ridiculously silly, why w…

These are common criticisms against cryptocurrency in general, and the answer is pretty much this:

Normally, to accept digital donations, I'd need to have something like a Paypal account, and follow their terms of service (or that of another company like Patreon). If I do anything that company doesn't like, like produce and sell fireworks or draw porn, they will forbid me from using their service and users will be unable to donate to me. Or if I'm in Venezuela and the US embargo the country, the company might block donations to me because they have to by US law.

Cryptocurrencies try to solve this problem by being "neutral" in a way, nobody central truly owns it, and nobody can based on preference, policy or political reasons forbid users from using the system.

Re: Brave launches 1.0

#392

Post by jamiequint »

buboard wrote: post #375
jamiequint wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

That's a demand problem not a monopoly problem. You can't get advertiser attention because advertisers have limited interest in advertising on small scale properties because it's not a scalable way to do business.

If anything Google provides more opportunity because the alternative to AdSense existing would probably be no revenue at all for small web properties.

Re: Brave launches 1.0

#393

Post by kxrm »

jaywalk wrote: post #318
TurkishPoptart wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand, why would I spend money on something I don't want or care about?

The comment I replied to said: > Eg, I pay $5/m or $15/m, whatever, and that gets split up by the number of pages I view and content I consume. That's 100% possible to do with Brave's system.

My only issue with this, if I understand correctly, is that I must use BAT currency.

Re: Brave launches 1.0

#394

Post by ubercow13 »

harikb wrote: post #312
asdkhadsj wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea, I'd be happier if there was some notion of an inherent value in my eyeballs - and then I could just put that money into the system. Eg, I pay $5/m or $15/m, whatever, and that gets split up by the number of pages I view and content I consume. I'm a firm believer that FOSS and (Internet) Content needs funding. Yet, I loathe ads. They promote (but are not solely to blame for) behavior that is a brain drain on soci…

The reality is that your eyeballs are something like $200/month. You are just not likely to pay that money. When you factor in money thrown away at bot/fraud, advertisers spend a shit load of money just to reach you (and indirectly pays for a whole lot of entertainment tv-shows/web-content)

That sounds crazy if true. The idea that companies are managing to change my behaviour enough with advertising to drive enough revenue and extra profit, for purchases that I wouldn’t otherwise have made, to justify $200 in advertising spend seems absurd. That would mean a significant portion of my monthly spending (much more than $200) would have to be directly driven by advertising. Is advertising really that effective?

Re: Brave launches 1.0

#395

Post by lazzlazzlazz »

asdkhadsj wrote: post #292
cyborgx7 wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I already decided my Ad participation. I block ads, and want the advertising industry to die. This does not seem like a value add to me.

Yea, I'd be happier if there was some notion of an inherent value in my eyeballs - and then I could just put that money into the system. Eg, I pay $5/m or $15/m, whatever, and that gets split up by the number of pages I view and content I consume. I'm a firm believer that FOSS and (Internet) Content needs funding. Yet, I loathe ads. They promote (but are not solely to blame for) behavior that is a brain drain on soci…

Quantifying your attention across specific sites and then rewarding them proportionately is precisely what Brave does.

The reward distributed to them is paid by you. Your balance accumulates either through opting into ads (advertisers pay you to intrude), or you can buy Basic Attention Token yourself (like via Coinbase) and top up your wallet.

Brave is doing exactly what it sounds like you want.

Re: Brave launches 1.0

#396

Post by deanCommie »

wpietri wrote: post #352
leftyted wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

That really isn't an argument worth taking seriously. Much of the web would be fine. Another chunk of it would have to shift more toward existing revenue sources. And some would have to develop new revenue sources. The only thing that would be particularly at risk is stuff funded exclusively with display ads, but where users don't care enough about it to support it. Or, put differently, we'd lose sites that people do…

> TV is doing better than ever as a medium. Why? Because a lot of us are now paying directly for the things we like. I think the same thing would happen with the web.

What are you on about, TV is essentially dead as an over-the-air/cable-bundle medium.

The only reason "TV" survived, is because it was reimagined by streaming services who charge a monthly fee. That model has certainly been going through a golden age, but the story is far from finished there and things are about to get very very bad with dozens of streaming services on the horizon, all wanting 5-10$/month.

We have yet to see what's going to happen when consumers rebel against their content needing 100s of $/month to access. The Tivo of the 2020s will involve VPN, or Piracy with a new face, or some form of account sharing, and will be resisted just the same.

Re: Brave launches 1.0

#397

Post by jdorfman »

prepend wrote: post #231
Ajedi32 wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems like a great alternative funding model for the web. Modern online advertising has a lot of issues (privacy, intrusiveness) but most users don't want to directly pay for the sites they browse either (i.e. the subscription model). By displaying ads controlled by the browser rather than the website, the user gets a lot more control over the ads they see (solving the privacy and intrusiveness problem), while s…

> They can just as easily block ads and not replace that revenue with anything, which is actually the default behavior. This is important. I’m already blocking ads. Brave at least let’s me give something back. There is no world where I don’t run the strictest ad blocker available.

Just curious, what is your opinion on Ethical Ads (no tracking, cookies, selling data)?

Re: Brave launches 1.0

#398

Post by leftyted »

wpietri wrote: post #352
leftyted wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

That really isn't an argument worth taking seriously. Much of the web would be fine. Another chunk of it would have to shift more toward existing revenue sources. And some would have to develop new revenue sources. The only thing that would be particularly at risk is stuff funded exclusively with display ads, but where users don't care enough about it to support it. Or, put differently, we'd lose sites that people do…

> That really isn't an argument worth taking seriously.

I think it is. I've used Google search, gmail, youtube, and Google docs since they've existed. I've paid $0 for them. My understanding is that these services are paid for by ads but I've had an ad blocker most of that time. If everyone started using an ad blocker, what would happen to Google/those services? I don't know, but I feel uneasy about the fact that services that I use depend on people not doing certain things that A. seem rational and B. I have been doing for years.

> When the Tivo was new, it was argued that it would destroy television, because people could now skip ads. 20 years later, TV is doing better than ever as a medium. Why? Because a lot of us are now paying directly for the things we like. I think the same thing would happen with the web.

It seems to me that Brave is attempting to make it so that people "pay directly for things they like" and they're attempting to solve that problem generically, in the browser. Maybe it would be better if this problem wasn't solved in the browser. Maybe all the companies providing free services funded by ads should solve this problem individually, by charging a monthly fee. But that solution:

1. Leaves out individuals who make a living providing "free" entertainment who are funded by ads (so-called content creators)

2. Requires people to juggle many monthly subscriptions

3. Will cut out people who cannot afford subscriptions

4. Will never happen unless something forces these companies to change (maybe something like a browser with a built-in ad-blocker gaining market share...)

Brave's approach is interesting. I have no idea if it will pan out but I think they've identified a real problem.

Re: Brave launches 1.0

#399

Post by mthoms »

pergadad wrote: post #294
judah wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brave ads don't track you around the web and sell your data to other advertisers. Brave ads don't slow down the pages your browsing, or get in the way of the content you're trying to view. And, Brave ads are optional; you only view them if you want to support the pages/news sites/YouTube channels you're viewing.

Total propaganda war here. No they are not opt in for a site, you opt in and then they always show, you only share tokens if you choose to do so. And who tells me brave is not tracking me? If anything they have even better data than eg Google.

>No they are not opt in for a site

The parent never claimed that. And since the ads aren't tied to specific sites I'm not even sure how that would make sense.

>And who tells me brave is not tracking me? If anything they have even better data than eg Google.

Feel free to examine their privacy policy and their source code. If you find they are doing something contrary to what they claim please be kind enough to share your findings. Just as you would for Firefox, Linux, or any other open-source software.

Until then, it's fine to be sceptical but can you please dial back the inflammatory "propaganda war" rhetoric. It's unnecessary.

Post reply on HN