Brave launches 1.0 • Hacker News Board

Re: Brave launches 1.0

#571

Post by eredengrin » Thu, Nov 14, 2019, 6:22 AM UTC

hinkley wrote: post #561

alwillis wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, it’s a reduction because the ads are in categories you are interested in, which is done on your machine via machine learning. Right now, you don’t have to interact with ads to get paid, though that may change in the future. It’s way less intrusive than pop-ups and full screen interstitials, which I hate. Disclaimer: I’ve been a Brave user/tester for a while. Edit: if you decide to opt-in, you decide how man…

But I don’t need to buy more stuff. I’ve already got that handled.

Okay, so maybe don't opt in to them in the first place then?

Re: Brave launches 1.0

#572

Post by cyborgx7 » Thu, Nov 14, 2019, 6:34 AM UTC

Smokey28 wrote: post #510

cyborgx7 wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wrote down some of the many ways in which ads are a societal ill, here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21528465

I just flat out disagree with most of the premises you have shared here. Also I don't understand how something can be wrong or right in an 'academic sense' but fine: >They distort the product market as they favour those players with the highest marketing budget, rather than with the best product. Presumably the companies with the bigger budgets have that money to spend because they have a better product. When people…

>resumably the companies with the bigger budgets have that money to spend because they have a better product.

Laughably wrong. Like, parallel universe wrong. Don't even know where to start on that one.

With response number two, there is so much wrong, I don't even know which part to quote:

-Who said people turned in because of advertising? I have literally no idea where you got that from?

-Fake news is a cheap way to produce content that gets a lot of attention. You make something up that riles people up, and then people share it. Without advertising, there would be no direct financial advertising to do so.

-Who cares that advertising companies would prefer not appear next to fake news. Their actions still directly encourage fake news.

And so much more. A real Gish-Gallop you got there.

> Are reviews an attempt at manipulation?

This is the mark of the ultimate dishonest argument or lazy thinking. Do you honestly not see the inherent difference (of kind, not degree) between a review you seek out from a trusted independent source, and an ad that someone paid for to put in front of you against your will, and who's only incentive is to get you to buy the product it is about? If you don't, I genuinely can't help you.

>It disrespects people and treats them as weak minded simpletons who have no thoughts other than what they are told to think. At a certain point you have to respect people and their ability to make decisions for themselves.

I don't like having to constantly spend that energy. I don't like constantly having to be on alert and defend myself from the manipulation attempts.

And this is such a bad argument in general. You could use the same argument against anything designed to make people's life easier and less stressful. Why does advertising get a past.

In conclusion, your entire comment is a collection of the very worst, lazy and dishonest arguments and excuses for advertising.

Re: Brave launches 1.0

#573

Post by alwillis » Thu, Nov 14, 2019, 6:34 AM UTC

slenk wrote: post #502

jonathansampson wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brave Ads are opt-in, and user-configurable. You decide whether or not to participate, and to what degree (1 to 5 ads per hour). These ads are surfaced as OS notifications, which means they respect settings like Do Not Disturb, Focus Mode, etc. And, as always, you receive 70% of the ad revenue for your participation. Respectfully, that doesn't strike me as an "escalation of hostility" when you compare against the cur…

And they make money by you having to buy BAT to give it. Either with the information gathered from which ads you view or by having to buy it to begin in the first place.

Actually, they don't make money on sales of BAT. Like most cryptocurrencies, its price is determined by supply and demand.

Sure, they’ll benefit if BAT goes to the moon because part of the team’s compensation is in BAT, but that’s no different than a startup and their stock.

Re: Brave launches 1.0

#574

Post by alwillis » Thu, Nov 14, 2019, 6:36 AM UTC

PKop wrote: post #425

__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brave hasn't rounded this corner yet, but I have to imagine that a future feature addition will be trading access to content for payments in BAT. When that happens, whether I care about the volatility will depend on the implementation. If content prices are in dollars, then yes, I suppose I have to accept some of the uncertainty that goes with the fluctuating exchange rate. If it's BAT that I trade for my content, th…

>If it's BAT that I trade for my content.. This is just pushing the problem one step removed. Is it not only relevant what you trade for your groceries? If you can find someone to take BAT for that, in stable exchange rates, then your point stands. If you have to acquire $ then what the exchange rate is for $ to BAT comes back into relevance. Again, perpetually trading BAT back and forth for showing ads/watching ads…

Apparently you can use BAT for groceries: https://www.reddit.com/r/BATProject/comments/dvfpig/i_bought...

Re: Brave launches 1.0

#575

Post by moksly » Thu, Nov 14, 2019, 6:44 AM UTC

cortesoft wrote: post #504

nybble41 wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Total spending on digital ads in the United States, a reasonably proxy for the value of the ads to advertisers, has been cited at about $111B[1]. There are about 280 million Internet users in the U.S.[2] (averaging the 2018 measurement of 275M and the 2019 projection of 285M). That works out to about $33 per user per month—which is a decent chunk of change, but much less than $200/month. [1] https://mondaynote.com/th…

Yeah, but I bet the typical hackernews reader is in an age group and wealth level that is more valuable than the average internet user.

I wouldn’t be so sure. I mean it’s anecdotal, but I rarely buy things. I buy all my clothes from the same internet store, and I do mean all, I have five pairs of shaping new tomorrow pants and when they get worn I replace them with the same damn pants. I heard about them from a coworker who uses them. Almost all my purchasing habits are like that, and I suspect I may not be the only one on HN.

I do click on the occasional Kickstarter boardgame advertisements, but I never end up backing because we always end up playing bloodbowl anyway.

On the other hand I do subscribe to the internet part of a Danish news paper that along giving you access to articles also removes all adds for paying users. I guess that’s sort of what brave wants to do, but who wants the hassle of buying alt-coins and reporting the taxes on it?

Re: Brave launches 1.0

#576

Post by moksly » Thu, Nov 14, 2019, 6:47 AM UTC

aiyodev wrote: post #439

ubercow13 wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The point a lot of people miss is that advertising doesn't just convince you buy new things. Many advertisements are designed to make you feel good about the products you already buy so you won't consider trying the alternatives. 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 becaus…

I buy the allergy friendly one of the store brand that I’ve never seen an advertisement for. Since it’s the store brand the type variates since I don’t always shop at the same store.

But you’re right, I probably buy Coca Cola (and like it better) instead of Pepsi because of life long branding. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen an online advertisement for Coca Cola though.

Re: Brave launches 1.0

#577

Post by alwillis » Thu, Nov 14, 2019, 6:54 AM UTC

alwillis wrote: post #538

djsumdog wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I preferred the Flattr model, of just paying the content creators directly without the ad middle ground. I don't really see why I should use Brave over something like Firefox with uBlock Origin. I actually drop people on Patreon when they start adding ads or sponsors into their podcasts or videos. I would rather people be fully supported by their fans instead of double dipping into both fan support and adverts.

I don't really see why I should use Brave over something like Firefox with uBlock Origin. Because ad blockers are just add-ons, they can be circumvented. Also, many ad blockers allow advertisers to pay them to allow their ads to get through: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:G3lu90...

Also, built-in support for Tor, WebTorrent, MetaMask and IPFS.

Re: Brave launches 1.0

#578

Post by Smokey28 » Thu, Nov 14, 2019, 6:54 AM UTC

cyborgx7 wrote: post #572

Smokey28 wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just flat out disagree with most of the premises you have shared here. Also I don't understand how something can be wrong or right in an 'academic sense' but fine: >They distort the product market as they favour those players with the highest marketing budget, rather than with the best product. Presumably the companies with the bigger budgets have that money to spend because they have a better product. When people…

>resumably the companies with the bigger budgets have that money to spend because they have a better product. Laughably wrong. Like, parallel universe wrong. Don't even know where to start on that one. With response number two, there is so much wrong, I don't even know which part to quote: -Who said people turned in because of advertising? I have literally no idea where you got that from? -Fake news is a cheap way to…

>In conclusion, your entire comment is a collection of the very worst, lazy and dishonest arguments and excuses for advertising.

And yet you couldn't address any of them without dodging the material part of the argument in favor of faux outrage, generalities, and personal preference topped off with a belittling logically unsound conclusion.

Cool.

Re: Brave launches 1.0

#579

Post by cyborgx7 » Thu, Nov 14, 2019, 7:09 AM UTC

Smokey28 wrote: post #578

cyborgx7 wrote: post #572

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>resumably the companies with the bigger budgets have that money to spend because they have a better product. Laughably wrong. Like, parallel universe wrong. Don't even know where to start on that one. With response number two, there is so much wrong, I don't even know which part to quote: -Who said people turned in because of advertising? I have literally no idea where you got that from? -Fake news is a cheap way to…

>In conclusion, your entire comment is a collection of the very worst, lazy and dishonest arguments and excuses for advertising. And yet you couldn't address any of them without dodging the material part of the argument in favor of faux outrage, generalities, and personal preference topped off with a belittling logically unsound conclusion. Cool.

I made an effort to address the argumentative core of your argument. It's hard, because there is no core to the argument, just a kitchen sink of bad assumptions and weak arguments.

And let me assure you that there is nothing "faux" about my outrage.

Re: Brave launches 1.0

#580

Post by sliken » Thu, Nov 14, 2019, 7:15 AM UTC

TurkishPoptart wrote: post #314

jaywalk wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can buy BAT with a credit card and participate in Brave's system without ever seeing an ad.

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

Do you hate click bait?

Do you wish the "free" content was of higher quality?

Do you think a insightful blog post, youtube video, or similar content is worth rewarding the person who made said content?

Seems like the main evil of advertising is that it doesn't directly reward the maker of the content. Most of it is sucked up by the middle men who siphon off most of the money and force the content providers to work ever harder for their ever smaller fraction of the proceeds.

Using brave seems much like using Patreon to sponsor your favorite content providers. But instead of trying to manually set a $ per month per provider you can just use your eyeball time to control each content providers share.

Seems like the internet where brave (or similar) was popular would be a much nicer place than the current advertising.

Wouldn't you be willing to pay $20 or similar a month if that meant zero ads for you and your favorite sites got more money than they get through advertising today?