431–440 of 649 posts
[0] https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/1052#issuecomm... [1] https://github.com/lobsters/lobsters/issues/761 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18734999
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should anyone volunteer their time to enrich Eich and his cohorts who hold the plurality of BAT?
https://etherscan.io/token/tokenholderchart/0x0d8775f6484306... Public ledger nicely allows anyone to see what's going on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality sounds fancy but you are using it wrong, on top of what it would mean if we were talking about votes being false counting tokens as votes.
It shows exactly what I said was going on.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality sounds fancy but you are using it wrong
The meaning of plurality of tokens as an analogue to a plurality of votes is clear, but if not, pretend that I've spelled it out for you. Do you have any objections to the substance of my argument, or did you just come to provide evidence in support?
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Man that's rough. You're right, my content is way not worth that. It's odd to me though. I could pay for content I care about at an amount far smaller than $200/m, and the content creators would make more from me I imagine. Why the extreme overhead? There's no way some blogger is making $200/m off of a handful of clicks from me. I'd be shocked if they made $5/m directly from me. So where is the disconnect? (sidenote,…
Everybody at every step takes a bit of money. It funds a billion-dollar industry of parasites.
So my comment was talking about paying content creators. I can't imagine they come anywhere close to $200/m from me, as you put it it's all the middlemen. So why would I be concerned about $200/m?
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)
[1] https://mondaynote.com/the-arpus-of-the-big-four-dwarf-every...
[2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/325645/usa-number-of-int...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Man that's rough. You're right, my content is way not worth that. It's odd to me though. I could pay for content I care about at an amount far smaller than $200/m, and the content creators would make more from me I imagine. Why the extreme overhead? There's no way some blogger is making $200/m off of a handful of clicks from me. I'd be shocked if they made $5/m directly from me. So where is the disconnect? (sidenote,…
Google has a market cap of 894.52B at this point in time. For instance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> there's a "Know Your Customer" process that the government makes sure is enforced Which government, the US one? Who is the customer here, the person being paid?
According to Wikipedia: Australia, Canada, India, Italy, South Korea, Namibia, New Zealand, South Africa, United Kingdom, United States, Luxembourg, Singapore, and Japan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_your_customer#Laws_by_cou...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 ser…
Google makes money by collecting behavioral data generated by its users, which it then uses in the form of raw materials to create products for its actual paying customers: advertisers.
Whether you're using an ad-blocker or not, you're still contributing to the advertising machine by using its products, you can't stop Google from crunching your personal behavioral data on their platform.
I have no interest in Brave and I still use Google products (for now), I just wanted to point out that what's really happening is a bit more sophisticated than you may think.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 $200) would have to be directly driven by advertising. Is advertising really that effect…
When you grab a bottle of dish soap off the shelf, do you select the same one each time because you prefer it for reasons you can't quite articulate or do you grab whatever's cheapest because they're basically all the same?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The creators end up getting a crapto token at the end of it and then have to wait a long time to accumulate enough to justify the time, hassle and transaction fees to turn it back into actual money they can spend on beer/rent/etc. All for some tiny fraction of the browser market. The same would be true for actual dollars... you would have to wait for it to get high enough to justify the transaction fees but also th…
I'm reasonably sure USD (or EUR) will still exist, have some reasonably similar value, and be usable in five years. There are quite a lot of crypto tokens I do not have anywhere near that level of confidence in.
Nothing stop you from exchanging it as soon as you can.
If the website would be offering USD instead of BAT, you would still not be able to retrieve it until it reach a amount big enough to take out (Google Ads is at 100$, 25$ for international user on Patreon). Until it's actual USD in your bank account, it's not better than BAT and depends on the existence of the service. The difference is that BAT, you can still use it if you decide to, right now.