Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Brave: Brendan Eich's clean-ads browser startup

brave.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

551–560 of 580 posts

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

#551

Post by stonogo »

imtringued wrote: post #528
stonogo wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not responsible for putting food on their tables. Perhaps if their content is worth money, they can charge for it. If they can't get people to pay for their content, maybe they should consider a line of work they can monetize without subjecting every single transaction to third-party skimming and engendering massive surveillance projects.

The problem with that approach is that you put everything behind a wall. Only the "rich" will have access to information. I wouldn't call that a free (as in freedom) and open web.

I disagree. Libraries existed before the internet, and if the internet were healthy, it would contain an analog.

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

#552

Post by jonahx »

lsc wrote: post #526
jonahx wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really appreciate this response. I think you're someone I'd like in person. I agree with most of the above, and have a similar attitude in many ways. A few points I have key differences on. You'll probably get where I'm coming from, even if you don't agree. > We have a process, a set of rules and laws for deciding what to do when you and I disagree on what is right for other people. This is what our political system…

>This really gets to the heart of the matter. Don't know about you, in particular, but I do think, in general, that the "I'm so tolerant I tolerate intolerance" position serves those with a bias against conflict and a blindness (often wrought of idealism) about just how steadfastly and unreasonably evil some people are I think replacing civil political discourse with intimidation is in and of itself an evil thing. I…

> I think replacing civil political discourse with intimidation is in and of itself an evil thing. I think that destroying civil political discourse in exchange for a political goal is a long term loss for society, even if the political goal is a good goal.

When civil political discourse is a valid option, then sure, I agree. The point is that people exist in this world who:

1. Want to do evil things. 2. Cannot be reasoned with. 3. Are smart enough to take advantage of the goodwill of people who think they can be reasoned with, and use it against them.

It's hard for me to take seriously any position that doesn't acknowledge these facts. You can't just close your eyes and pretend that everyone is basically good, does evil only because evil has been done to them, and can be brought around to see reason.

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

#553

Post by p4wnc6 »

dkarapetyan wrote: post #498
p4wnc6 wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm baffled that you feel this way. I actually worked on some of the science behind it when I was in grad school. Here was one of the well-known projects in the field at that time: http://ilab.usc.edu/publications/doc/Itti_Baldi06nips.pdf > There are also many other kinds of psychological manipulation research. For example, this article from Gamasutra talks about techniques for monetization in games, and this is obvi…

You can be as baffled as you want. My circle of friends is pretty evenly split between people that buy name brand things and those that couldn't care less about any branded products. So either advertisers have figured out how to target those that are susceptible to their kind of priming or they're shooting in the dark. Reading the abstracts in order: > The concept of surprise is central to sensory processing, adaptat…

I don't feel your reply addresses any of my points. For example, you simply list the Itti/Baldi paper's abstract and say that, basically, because the word 'priming' doesn't appear in the abstract means the research has nothing to do with it. That seems incredibly disingenuous to me. The research is directly about predicting where human eyeballs will involuntarily move when presented with certain visual stimuli. If you can't see the direct connection with drawing attention to priming artifacts in an ad, I think it's probably just not possible for us to even converse about the topic at all.

The rest of the reply is similar. Using ctrl-f to search for the word 'priming' in a source doesn't constitute an effort to see how it could be connected to priming.

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

#554

Post by Nitramp »

jensen123 wrote: post #111

It's great to see more people working to solve the problem of intrusive ads! I wonder what exactly they mean by intrusive ads, though? I hope it's more than just ads that don't respect your privacy. To me an ad is intrusive if it has any kind of movement or animation. Anything that moves automatically attracts my attention, so this is very annoying if I'm trying to read something. I don't mind ads in print magazines…

If other companies in the space are an indication (e.g. AdBlock Plus), "intrusive ads" are defined as ads that don't pay them, but somebody else.

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

#555

Post by flubert »

Karunamon wrote: post #512
flubert wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>...certainly is one way to neatly sidestep the modern manipulation of ads. Things may be more insidious than that though. You may not drink Coke or Pepsi, but maybe you have friends or family members that do? I've certainly known people who didn't like to go to certain restaurants because they didn't serve Coke. Maybe you've also gone along with this at sometime in the past. Or maybe you've had to buy gifts for frie…

..you realize that could be because Coke and Pepsi taste rather different and someone may like one to the exclusion of the other? What does that have to do with advertising?

Have you ever been to a restaurant where there served both Coke and Pepsi?

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

#557

Post by munificent »

dreamfactory2 wrote: post #385
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…

Which significant cultural works have been ad-funded?

I never said I like ad-funding, nor that I dislike it.

It's interesting that almost every reply to my comment assumes a binary viewpoint. I responded to a single sentence of the parent comment. I never claimed to be on the "opposing team" of the comment's author.

But, to answer your question, the reporting of the Watergate scandal comes to mind.

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

#558

Post by imtringued »

stonogo wrote: post #551
imtringued wrote: post #528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with that approach is that you put everything behind a wall. Only the "rich" will have access to information. I wouldn't call that a free (as in freedom) and open web.

I disagree. Libraries existed before the internet, and if the internet were healthy, it would contain an analog.

Do you really believe sites like stackoverflow should be locked behind a paywall? This will put poor people and especially children who don't have access to their parents credit at a massive disadvantage. I don't think you have realised it but I'm not talking about news sites that optimize their profits with click bait, this is about the entire internet.

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

#559

Post by Karunamon »

flubert wrote: post #555
Karunamon wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

..you realize that could be because Coke and Pepsi taste rather different and someone may like one to the exclusion of the other? What does that have to do with advertising?

Have you ever been to a restaurant where there served both Coke and Pepsi?

This comes down to franchise agreements, not advertising.

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

#560

Post by [deleted] »

flubert wrote: post #555
Karunamon wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

..you realize that could be because Coke and Pepsi taste rather different and someone may like one to the exclusion of the other? What does that have to do with advertising?

Have you ever been to a restaurant where there served both Coke and Pepsi?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN