521–530 of 697 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Brave blocks webpage's existing ads then replace the ads with their own ad network that earns the website owner Brave-money that the website owner then has to redeem. That tactic is definitely a red flag.
No they didn't. This is misinformation. They didn't replace ads in a webpage. They displayed ads via desktop notifications or push-notifications. The end user opts in for this.
It's good for Google to have competition but they, or someone else, could just buy Brave and mangle or kill it. Turning web search into a protocol is what is needed. Maybe Brave could do this by sharing their index and creating a standard system for sharing indexes, spam blocklists, and whatever else is needed to operate an open web index that competes with Google.
The entire reason brave exists is so they can sell metrics data and push some garbage scamcoin.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Then your data is worthless to them This is precisely the point. It should be worse than worthless, it should cost them money. And they should charge that to me, plus some nominal fee. I guess that's what I'm asking for.
The issue is that you're not describing a sustainable business model. Sure, it would be a much better situation than we have now, but you can't cover hosting fees with data bills.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not how it works. Brave blocks third-party ads and trackers (which are known to be dangerous) on behalf of its users (the same users who were installing uBlock Origin in Chrome and Firefox before coming to Brave). This is a security and privacy necessity on the Web today. Users are then able to opt-in, if they like, to a novel advertising platform within the Brave ecosystem. These users can earn rewards for th…
Where can I buy these (banners?) and what's the min daily budget? I'm skeptical this will work long term as you're overlapping two of the worst sources of traffic: technically-inclined users and incentived attention. Would love to test it out for fun.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We don't care what it does with the previous ad data, what's disturbing is that there is even a setting to opt-in to more ads in the first place . Many people (myself included) will be completely turned away because of that option. That's just the cost of doing business.
Person 1: Brave replaces existing ads, that’s bad Someone from Brave: actually we don’t replace existing ads at all, here’s why Person 2: no one cares what you do or don’t do with existing ads! I don’t have any connection to Brave but I find it odd they’ve become some kind of hate figure here on HN. Their iOS client IMO is quite good. Their privacy is miles ahead of the other options. But merely by trying to be priva…
Me: Brave guy used a lot of words but what they said was they remove ads from one place and move them to another place, that's still replacing ads.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm responding to users. You happen to have numerous comments here which aren't entirely accurate or fair, so I have responded to you a few times. Don't take it personal; if you publish something I feel is inaccurate, I'll post a response. Regarding user experience, I'm not just a developer of Brave, but I'm a user also ;-) Not only that, but I spend a lot of time speaking with users all across the Web, so as to unde…
> I'm responding to users. I'm gonna have to agree with GP that you're responding too much. I don't even use Brave nor do I care but I still browse HN. Obviously different people will see things differently, but you seem very defensive and it makes you come across as difficult. Like I said, I have no skin in this game. You are welcome to ignore what I say if you don't find it helpful.
Why the fuck is everyone sharing opinions here about Brave if they DON’T want Brave to hear and respond?
It disturbs your little perfect echo chamber?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same excitement here. I'd love to see anyone(Brave or others) chip away at my Google dependencies, even if they charge me for them. I already love Brave as a browser, so here's hoping search pans out. I don't mind a company profiling me. A lot of Google's cross interacting products work great(Gmail to Calendar and Maps, for example). I just don't want them advertising to me, or selling my data. A guy can dream...
> I don't mind a company profiling me Not everyone has that luxury. > I just don't want them advertising to me, or selling my data Then your data is worthless to them. Nobody wants companies to abuse their personal data, that's why it's such a lucrative business. Companies like Apple and Brave get away with it by edging out competition and instating their own standards (see: Brave's Ad "replacement"). It's all so rid…
> Not everyone has that luxury.
Defend that statement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I mean, DDG worked fine for 95% of time, but the remaining 5% failure often led to some extreme frustration that I just couldn't stand. Is 95% really not acceptable?My experience is quite different though. When I don’t get the results I hoped I just use !g. Easy. But the result are rarely any better
> Is 95% really not acceptable? No: When you use web search for professional work, such as searching for error messages or description of bugs of some software, any miss of somebod having encountered and solved them before can cost you days of work. From my experience, Google is currently still the best at finding those.
Previous related discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26328758 If things go as planned, this may become a paid, ad-free, zero-tracking search engine. I can't express how exciting this is to me. Over the past few years, I have made several attempts to replace Google Search with DuckDuckGo. But they have all failed and I always ended up changing the default search engine back to Google. I mean, DDG worked f…
StartPage shows Google results through a proxy for improved privacy. I am quite happy with it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is naive. Web sites have various terms of service.
Violating a website's ToS is hardly illegal, though.
Can you be more specific as to your claim? Not illegal in what sense(s)? And what is your basis for the claim?
I'm not a lawyer, but saying "violating a website's ToS is hardly illegal" is fraught advice.
While individuals may get some leeway when it comes to ToS violations (see [1] and [2]), I would expect companies scraping and/or extracting content would be treated differently.
[1]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/07/court-violating-terms-...
[2]: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/03/court-violating-...
[3]: https://www.octoparse.com/blog/10-myths-about-web-scraping
[4]: https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/almID/1202610687621/?s...