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

Brave files adtech complaint against Google

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 271 posts

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#91

Post by jeremy7600 »

Fiahil wrote: post #74
jonathansampson wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to respond, as a developer on the Brave project. We don't simply replace ads with other ads. The entire ad landscape has been co-opted by those who aim to collect as much data about you as is possible. Over 600 million devices were running some form of ad-blocking software in 2017, and that was an increase of 30% from the year prior. This number keeps growing, year over year. Something has to be done. Users…

Maybe we, the people, don't want you to rescue this industry. Maybe the "digital ad fraud" they're screaming is the sign they belong rightfully in the void we're trying to bury them. We've seen enough shit from the ad industry, and it's time to leave them behind as humanity progress and improve.

Clearly, they haven't gotten the message.

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#92

Post by downandout »

jonathansampson wrote: post #54
martindale wrote: post #14

Brave's strategy of replacing ads with other ads isn't going to do anyone any good. They could've used payment channels to build a content distribution network, but alas...

I'd like to respond, as a developer on the Brave project. We don't simply replace ads with other ads. The entire ad landscape has been co-opted by those who aim to collect as much data about you as is possible. Over 600 million devices were running some form of ad-blocking software in 2017, and that was an increase of 30% from the year prior. This number keeps growing, year over year. Something has to be done. Users…

We do this by using local machine-learning to understand the user better, and making local decisions as to which ads should or should not be shown

I pitched almost this same idea to Netscape in 1997. I managed to get a physical meeting with a fairly high level person, but was essentially laughed out the door. It’s interesting that you have a pool of users that have embraced this idea. Netscape - at the time the world’s dominant browser company - thought users would see this as too invasive. The quote I remember was “we just went through a shit storm over the rising use of cookies...this would be that x10”.

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#93

Post by jonathansampson »

s73v3r_ wrote: post #70
jonathansampson wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to respond, as a developer on the Brave project. We don't simply replace ads with other ads. The entire ad landscape has been co-opted by those who aim to collect as much data about you as is possible. Over 600 million devices were running some form of ad-blocking software in 2017, and that was an increase of 30% from the year prior. This number keeps growing, year over year. Something has to be done. Users…

In all that, I noticed you weren't giving the publishers any kind of choice in the matter.

Not sure what you mean, publishers are already suffering as a result of bad-actors parasitically attaching themselves to the incumbent digital advertising network.

Brave is offering publishers a solution to their dying revenue streams. First, by way of monthly grants (we give $500k/mo to publishers right now), and secondly through a better advertising model. Note, publisher ads is not presently an option; we're testing user-private ads, which are ads shown in a private tab, not owned by any website.

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#94

Post by dest »

faag36 wrote: post #85
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I install ad blockers because I don't want to get auto redirected to a porn site which some unscrupulous ad vendors make possible. I tried going blocker free at work for 6 months. uBO got installed the day I was sent to a porn site by malicious JavaScript after clicking on an innocuous link. Google won't address the JavaScript problem with their ad network so I cut them off.

The Internet for people who don't know about ad blockers must be a horrible place, it's no wonder everybody started using apps for everything.

Aren't apps also crippled by ads?

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#95

Post by bduerst »

msla wrote: post #67
martindale wrote: post #14

Brave's strategy of replacing ads with other ads isn't going to do anyone any good. They could've used payment channels to build a content distribution network, but alas...

Just to get people on the same page, Doc Searls has a good post on the difference between advertising and adtech, and why replacing adtech with advertising is something one might want to do: http://blogs.harvard.edu/doc/2018/05/12/gdpr/ > Advertising isn’t personal, and doesn’t have to be. In fact, knowing it’s not personal is an advantage for advertisers. Consumers don’t wonder what the hell an ad is doing where it…

This write up doesn't seem to address efficient market theory, which is one of the chief demands driving adtech. The write up is more a list of complaints and harkens back to the good old days of out of home advertising, which is still relevant today, but moving towards obsolescence.

For example, their first point about Advertising not needing to be personal is disingenuous. Advertising needs to be relevant, and personalization is one facet of relevancy. A perfect ad is 100% relevant to every buyer it is consumed by, meaning the ad is personalized for each consumer. Is personalization necessary? Not if your goal is inefficient advertising.

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#98

Post by jonathansampson »

lasmellslikepee wrote: post #83
jonathansampson wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to respond, as a developer on the Brave project. We don't simply replace ads with other ads. The entire ad landscape has been co-opted by those who aim to collect as much data about you as is possible. Over 600 million devices were running some form of ad-blocking software in 2017, and that was an increase of 30% from the year prior. This number keeps growing, year over year. Something has to be done. Users…

TL;DR: Brave lied about blocking 3rd party JS and I no longer trust them. The main reason I don't use Brave anymore is because I don't trust the Brave team to be transparent about what they're doing. I remember switching to Brave a year or two ago really rooting for them and the model they were positing. I though that blocking third-party JavaScript by default was a great idea - no more Firefox plugins! Well, I soon…

Brave doesn't promise to block all third-party scripting; that isn't necessarily a bad thing. If we were to block all third-party scripts, the web as a whole would largely crumble. Instead, we are judicious about which scripts we block, and which ones are harmless.

As for transparency, we couldn't be more open. Take it from me, an ex-Microsoft engineer, Brave is an open book. We talk about features before they're shipped, our source is open to all (github.com/brave/browser-laptop, github.com/brave/brave-browser, github.com/brave/browser-core, etc.), and we regularly host AMAs. The openness of this company still, to this day, gives me wonderful culture shock.

With regards to your conversation with one of the Brave team members, do you have a link? I'd love to gather context and establish a frame of reference. The only white lists we have in brave are for ua-strings and siteHacks.

For some websites, we'll identify ourselves as "Brave". To all others, we identify as Chrome. This is for many reasons (which I'm happen to discuss if you're interested), but this is the first white list. The second "white list" would be our siteHacks.js file. This file contains special logic to repair sites which are broken as a result of ad/tracker blocking. But again, this isn't letting flagged scripting through to the user, this is laying our own custom logic on top of an otherwise broken experience.

I hope this explanation helps shed some light on the matter. If you have any questions, comments, or feedback, please do not hesitate to reach out. Again, we're open and eager to share.

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#99

Post by amelius »

Filligree wrote: post #34
Sephr wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're so admirable that they take a 5% cut of your donations to sites you visit and replace ads with their own. Call me crazy, but in no future can I imagine anyone willingly paying their browser vendor for anything. Brave isn't the future, it's yet another cash grab. The real future is fully-decentralized websites, and it doesn't require new browsers. Edit: Fixed inaccuracy pointed out by Brave developer

> The real future is fully-decentralized websites, and it doesn't require new browsers. Let's say I want to run a forum. Something equivalent to, hmm, https://forums.sufficientvelocity.com/ How do I do that as a decentralized website?

The question is more how to monetize it without annoying the users with ads and/or paywall.

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#100

Post by bduerst »

dest wrote: post #94
faag36 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Internet for people who don't know about ad blockers must be a horrible place, it's no wonder everybody started using apps for everything.

Aren't apps also crippled by ads?

Yes. Apps are a step backwards because they are in a much less user-controlled space. App adoption is more correlated with mobile platform adoption as opposed to demand for ad blocking.
Post reply on HN