631–640 of 649 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, but we aren't. What's your point?
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality sounds fancy but you are using it wrong You said OP used the word wrong but he didn't. He was wrong about his statement but not about his word use. If you're going to correct people you should probably be correct yourself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, this must be very basic but I've never been able to make sense of one thing about Brave's model. You say that users can get paid in BAT to watch ads. But Brave is open-source. So is there anything preventing me to fork the browser to pretend to display the ads and reap the rewards without actually displaying them? Doesn't this break the whole system?
> So is there anything preventing me to fork the browser to pretend to display the ads and reap the rewards without actually displaying them? Doesn't this break the whole system? Even if it were closed-source, technically there's nothing stopping you from binary patching your browser to do the same thing. But then again, there's nothing stopping you from putting an ad-blocker in your normal browser; and faking clicks…
Note that, with the current ad system, there is some fraud detection in place for fake clicks. But if users receive tokens when the browser "shows" an ad, which kind of abuse detection could there be if the browser or OS or whatever just filters out the ad?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"I blocked your source of revenue, now I'm holding some money which you can either sign up to receive a fraction of, or don't and you won't get any" doesn't sound like "consent" to me.
Setting aside the rewards program, people can and will use ad-blockers. Even if those were illegal for some reason, there are lists available (such as hosts, https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts ) where you can make known tracking/advertising/etc hostnames non-routable Are you saying that site owners should feel violated by folks installing ad-blockers (or using host files)?
Brave, however, positions itself as being good for creators with its rewards program. A user may be forgiven for thinking that this is actually better for creators: "Earn rewards and give back to your favorite Creators. Support your favorite sites with micropayments."
If Brave takes away revenue from the creators, and offers them a fraction of that revenue back, that's one thing. BUT you can't turn around and say that a creator accepting that fraction is "consent" to the whole program.
That's what I was saying.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the only value of media is to make you look in its direction for long enough to show you something else that you might actually spend money on, it actually has no value at all.
And I suppose adding, "...while keeping you informed about what's happening in the world" or "...while entertaining you" wouldn't matter to you, would it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
So, can you only "mine" bat by watching ads?
When I updated to the latest iOS version, I got 20 BAT, for supporting content creators.
If you’re a content creator and you register your site or YouTube channel, you can be tipped in BAT.
Brave also allows you to tip folks on Twitter and GitHub.
And of course, you can buy BAT on various exchanges like Coinbase, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>My understanding is that these services are paid for by ads but I've had an ad blocker most of that time. 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'…
Either way, indirectly or not, Google makes money from people looking at ads. What would happen to "advertisers" if everyone blocked ads? Would the whole industry collapse? It's hard for me to see how that wouldn't affect Google.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What would you have the Brave team do? Create a new html rendering engine from scratch? That is an incredibly challenging engineering project that would probably require years and many tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars to do well, and what would be the benefit to Brave's users and investors? It would just lead to loads of performance and compatibility issues, and it is fundamentally irrelevant to the core v…
No, of course not. I would have had them base on Gecko.
Your desire for us or anyone to die on the Gecko hill would, had we acted on it, simply have helped Google cement the Chrome (not chromium) hegemony. The crucial battle right now is a layer up, at ads/donations/subscriptions/privacy -- where Firefox has been slow and weak vs. Brave and Safari.
There will be time for better engines later, once Google loses share due to innovations that attack its deep conflicts of interest with its users, along with likely prosecution of the open antitrust case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't quote me on that, but Gecko must not be the easiest engine to build upon. How many browsers out there are based on Gecko, apart from Firefox? AFAIK the only choice nowadays is between Chromium and WebKit. I honestly would like to see more WebKit based browsers instead.
I wonder if Webkit still have any resources behind using it on Windows since the documentation for building it[0] still says "Windows 8.1" (and I can't find links to the documentation or website SVN repo). 0: https://webkit.org/webkit-on-windows/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Brave is holding the publisher's monetization hostage. Again, my issue is not with the user but with Brave.
But... they're not though. Ad-blocking in Brave (as it already exists in every other browser via plugins) is optional. Brave ads (a paradigm which doesn't exist in any other browser) are optional. You can disable both, enable both, or disable one and not the other. The choice is absolutely on the user and Brave isn't holding anything hostage.
You're still confusing who is at fault here.