Brave doesn't show ads by default. It hides all ads by default. It lets people opt into seeing ads while they browse (in the browser UI but not inside actual sites) in order to get currency to...
Brave doesn't show ads by default. It hides all ads by default. It lets people opt into seeing ads while they browse (in the browser UI but not inside actual sites) in order to get currency to donate to sites they frequent.
I feel like the article is misleading about that (the author explains the above near the end, but many of the criticisms made early on are presented without this information and don't make much sense with this information), and advocates punishing users for something that they've opted into. I find this repulsive and I'm pretty baffled by the author's position after reading the article.
For users, Brave is still going to collect data about you. In their words, e.g.—“When you join Brave Rewards, your browser will automatically start tallying … the attention you spend on sites you visit.” Brave will then leverage this data to target you with ads. [...] By the way, Brave says its “ads ... do not collect information about you”. But obviously, Brave itself still does—it’s essential to their “ad matching” algorithm. Advertisers, in turn, buy access to this algorithmic targeting. Thus, advertisers may not have the data, but they get the benefits of the data.
I don't care what personal information open source software on my own device collects about me if it's not uploading that information and is clear about how it uses the information. I think Brave's approach of storing the personalization data client-side is a great improvement over the current ad ecosystem, and I don't understand why the author insists that Brave is dishonest by being up-front about this and calling it a privacy improvement.
For instance, suppose a Brave user spends 99 hours on Terrific.com and 1 hour on Shady.com. As I understand it, the Brave gilt generated during those sessions is distributed pro rata, but only if a) the user has opted into Brave ads (thereby generating crypto coins), b) both Terrific.com and Shady.com have registered with Brave as “content creators”, and c) the user has not chosen a different distribution scheme.
Like what? The user can instead decide for themselves who gets the money from those sessions. For instance, they could pledge 100% of it to Shady.com, where they spend almost no time, and none to Terrific.com, the site that morally earned it.
How is this worse than the case where the user uses an ad-blocker and neither of those sites get paid anything for views? Why on earth is it bad if a user is allowed to donate more to a site they visit less?
What’s the alternative? Brave could’ve chosen to retain some percentage of the crypto-coin wealth generated by their users—like a tax—and redistributed it to publishers. But they didn’t. They could’ve chosen to issue cash distributions to publishers who didn’t want to participate as registered creators. But they didn’t do that either. Brave’s loyalty lies with users. Fair enough. But the lopsided asymmetry of the system is revealing.
I don't understand what is being said here. The way Brave's opt-in ads work are that publishers pay Brave to show some ads, and then Brave shows those ads to users that have opted in, and then Brave gives them some of the money the ad publisher paid to Brave. What would the benefit be of Brave giving back some of the ad money to the publisher that just paid it to them?
But even today, you can’t pay creators through Brave unless you’re generating Basic Attention Tokens by watching ads. (In principle, one can exchange cash for these crypto coins, but to do so, you need a digital wallet through Uphold, which costs you privacy [because you have to supply identification documents].)
Every single service for making payments online that interacts with USD somehow involves sharing your identification documents. It seems unfair to hold Brave to a standard higher than conventional payment services. The only payment systems online that don't need this are pure cryptocurrency systems. Brave currently requires you to go through an Uphold account if you want to manually fund your Brave wallet, but it's plausible that this could change in the future since they do use cryptocurrency. (I feel like everyone has been burned out by the number of scams in the cryptocurrency space and has long since forgotten they can have some benefits.)
I don't think everything about Brave is great, but 1) I think its goal of trying to find a better monetization strategy for the internet than the current ad ecosystem is extremely important, and 2) I generally think the design choices made by Brave don't compromise the goal and may be necessary to realistically attempt the goal. I'm open to disagreements, but arguing about #2 is useless if there isn't agreement on #1. Obviously everything about Brave is going to seem silly if you think the current ad ecosystem is fine.
But that money is not donated to sites they frequent unless they partner with brave so essentially, Brave is saying : "You get the money we want on our terms if you partner with us or you don't...
Brave doesn't show ads by default. It hides all ads by default. It lets people opt into seeing ads while they browse (in the browser UI but not inside actual sites) in order to get currency to donate to sites they frequent.
But that money is not donated to sites they frequent unless they partner with brave so essentially, Brave is saying : "You get the money we want on our terms if you partner with us or you don't get money because we'll block your ads either way"
How is this worse than the case where the user uses an ad-blocker and neither of those sites get paid anything for views? Why on earth is it bad if a user is allowed to donate more to a site they visit less?
This is forcing websites to comply with Brave's terms, that's the difference. The "content creator" doesn't get a choice, you either get nothing or you play by Brave's terms.
And personally, I don't get why Brave's ad economy couldn't simply be a webextension other than simply wanting to lock users in their browser.
You’re spot on about the coercive incentive structure between Brave and “content creators”, which they spin as an unalloyed good (and which can/will change at any time). It’s disingenuous at best,...
You’re spot on about the coercive incentive structure between Brave and “content creators”, which they spin as an unalloyed good (and which can/will change at any time). It’s disingenuous at best, borderline nefarious. And it doesn’t lend confidence to their other explanations.
For instance, as to
why Brave's ad economy couldn't simply be a webextension
in theory, they are making significant changes to how your browsing data is stored and distributed (ie. not sending it to any third parties). They couldn’t do this without full control of the browser. The telemetry is baked in deep, and extensions are pretty neutered.
Though given their propensity to play fast and loose, I’m skeptical they’re being forthright about this (and even if they are, this can/will change at any time)
It would be interesting to see an in-depth analysis about what data is being sent where.
What the actual fuck? People are OK with this? Users download a web browser, see that it insert ads onto ad-free pages, and don't immediately switch back to something sane? Is their target...
Mr. Eich wants to ruin my work—and that of every other creator who’s still propping up what’s left of the ad-free internet—so that he (and his venture investors) may profit. How? By layering ads over my ad-free website.
What the actual fuck? People are OK with this? Users download a web browser, see that it insert ads onto ad-free pages, and don't immediately switch back to something sane? Is their target demographic people who used to accidentally install toolbars and just not notice or care? I'm completely dumbfounded right now. Why would anyone use this when there are plenty of free browsers, including the one Brave is based on, that do not shove ads in your face.
If people really are falling for this then humanity is rightly fucked.
Brave defaults to blocking all ads. Brave happens to also have a feature to let you set up donations to sites you visit. In order to donate money, you can either put your own money into your Brave...
Brave defaults to blocking all ads. Brave happens to also have a feature to let you set up donations to sites you visit. In order to donate money, you can either put your own money into your Brave wallet, or you can turn on a feature where Brave's UI occasionally shows you ads (not inside of the web page frame; the ads do not appear associated with or as part of the page you're viewing) and then pays a little bit of money into your Brave wallet.
I think this article is being misleading about this to invite hyperbolic responses toward Brave like this.
Considering Gab made the Dissenter based on Brave rather than Chromium might be worth something. But considering Eich's position on Free speech and his political views, it's not that unimaginable...
Considering Gab made the Dissenter based on Brave rather than Chromium might be worth something.
But considering Eich's position on Free speech and his political views, it's not that unimaginable to guess that their demographics collide.
That's Gab's decision though, not Brave's? And personally I have no trouble believing there's at least some overlap just because Eich's seen as someone "opposite" the SJW menace and that tends to...
That's Gab's decision though, not Brave's?
And personally I have no trouble believing there's at least some overlap just because Eich's seen as someone "opposite" the SJW menace and that tends to attract the alt right like nothing else. But Brave actively targeting those people is a whole other can of worms, isn't it?
Well, I assume the Gab developers took that decision because they thought Brave aligned with their ideas (which contrasts well with the hate that the right seems to have for Google). But I guess...
Well, I assume the Gab developers took that decision because they thought Brave aligned with their ideas (which contrasts well with the hate that the right seems to have for Google).
But I guess that they don't seem to market themselves strictly to that demographic. It does seem to be popular with the right on platforms like Minds.com or on ComputingForever and the like. I'm not sure exactly what does it, perhaps it's also with the hate that the right seems to have for Google and Mozilla not really doing much better with them like when they removed Dissenter from their add-on store.
Now, I'm curious, what link is there between cryptocurrency and Stormfront, Infowars and 8ch? I know Gab likes Bitcoin but other than that, I don't quite see the picture you're trying to draw.
Now, I'm curious, what link is there between cryptocurrency and Stormfront, Infowars and 8ch? I know Gab likes Bitcoin but other than that, I don't quite see the picture you're trying to draw.
If Brave blocks the Ads by default and then allows the users to show the Ads in order to get Brave currency which they can donate to support content, then I would be pretty neutral about this. I...
If Brave blocks the Ads by default and then allows the users to show the Ads in order to get Brave currency which they can donate to support content, then I would be pretty neutral about this. I would rather have a big company, with decent web security, and a good filtering process choosing my ads than random sites on the internet that I may just happen to click on to get some good information. Mainly because I'm worried about Ads having embedded Javascript that could exploit the content creator site (and my info with it).
It would seem like browser policies like these would stop click bait sites. That's something to think about.
It also seems like the biggest problem here is Brave forcing content creators to sign up to receive donations. Everyone seems to be scared that Brave is gonna wield this power tyrannically. Does it state Brave's rules for content creators anywhere in the article? I must have missed it if it did.
If the donation mechanism is just making your site Brave-able (something like a Facebook/Google provider login or Paypal ready) where it just provides the pipe to stream the donations to the content creator then that would seem OK to me.
People seem to think that publishers are making the rules for Ad revenue right now but when it comes to big companies like Amazon they don't. Didn't Amazon make a rule that said podcasters couldn't mention that their site was supported by Amazon Ad revenue? I think I remember Sam Harris talking about having some Amazon blow back because of that.
Brave doesn't show ads by default. It hides all ads by default. It lets people opt into seeing ads while they browse (in the browser UI but not inside actual sites) in order to get currency to donate to sites they frequent.
I feel like the article is misleading about that (the author explains the above near the end, but many of the criticisms made early on are presented without this information and don't make much sense with this information), and advocates punishing users for something that they've opted into. I find this repulsive and I'm pretty baffled by the author's position after reading the article.
I don't care what personal information open source software on my own device collects about me if it's not uploading that information and is clear about how it uses the information. I think Brave's approach of storing the personalization data client-side is a great improvement over the current ad ecosystem, and I don't understand why the author insists that Brave is dishonest by being up-front about this and calling it a privacy improvement.
How is this worse than the case where the user uses an ad-blocker and neither of those sites get paid anything for views? Why on earth is it bad if a user is allowed to donate more to a site they visit less?
I don't understand what is being said here. The way Brave's opt-in ads work are that publishers pay Brave to show some ads, and then Brave shows those ads to users that have opted in, and then Brave gives them some of the money the ad publisher paid to Brave. What would the benefit be of Brave giving back some of the ad money to the publisher that just paid it to them?
Every single service for making payments online that interacts with USD somehow involves sharing your identification documents. It seems unfair to hold Brave to a standard higher than conventional payment services. The only payment systems online that don't need this are pure cryptocurrency systems. Brave currently requires you to go through an Uphold account if you want to manually fund your Brave wallet, but it's plausible that this could change in the future since they do use cryptocurrency. (I feel like everyone has been burned out by the number of scams in the cryptocurrency space and has long since forgotten they can have some benefits.)
I don't think everything about Brave is great, but 1) I think its goal of trying to find a better monetization strategy for the internet than the current ad ecosystem is extremely important, and 2) I generally think the design choices made by Brave don't compromise the goal and may be necessary to realistically attempt the goal. I'm open to disagreements, but arguing about #2 is useless if there isn't agreement on #1. Obviously everything about Brave is going to seem silly if you think the current ad ecosystem is fine.
But that money is not donated to sites they frequent unless they partner with brave so essentially, Brave is saying : "You get the money we want on our terms if you partner with us or you don't get money because we'll block your ads either way"
This is forcing websites to comply with Brave's terms, that's the difference. The "content creator" doesn't get a choice, you either get nothing or you play by Brave's terms.
And personally, I don't get why Brave's ad economy couldn't simply be a webextension other than simply wanting to lock users in their browser.
You’re spot on about the coercive incentive structure between Brave and “content creators”, which they spin as an unalloyed good (and which can/will change at any time). It’s disingenuous at best, borderline nefarious. And it doesn’t lend confidence to their other explanations.
For instance, as to
in theory, they are making significant changes to how your browsing data is stored and distributed (ie. not sending it to any third parties). They couldn’t do this without full control of the browser. The telemetry is baked in deep, and extensions are pretty neutered.
Though given their propensity to play fast and loose, I’m skeptical they’re being forthright about this (and even if they are, this can/will change at any time)
It would be interesting to see an in-depth analysis about what data is being sent where.
Shady, shady, shady
There's also the fact that the most popular browser on the most popular platform (Chrome on Android) doesn't support extensions.
What the actual fuck? People are OK with this? Users download a web browser, see that it insert ads onto ad-free pages, and don't immediately switch back to something sane? Is their target demographic people who used to accidentally install toolbars and just not notice or care? I'm completely dumbfounded right now. Why would anyone use this when there are plenty of free browsers, including the one Brave is based on, that do not shove ads in your face.
If people really are falling for this then humanity is rightly fucked.
Brave defaults to blocking all ads. Brave happens to also have a feature to let you set up donations to sites you visit. In order to donate money, you can either put your own money into your Brave wallet, or you can turn on a feature where Brave's UI occasionally shows you ads (not inside of the web page frame; the ads do not appear associated with or as part of the page you're viewing) and then pays a little bit of money into your Brave wallet.
I think this article is being misleading about this to invite hyperbolic responses toward Brave like this.
Brave's target demo shares huge areas of commonality with the users of Gab, Stormfront, Infowars, and 8ch.
Take that for what it's worth.
How do you know that's the demographic Brave is specifically targeting?
Considering Gab made the Dissenter based on Brave rather than Chromium might be worth something.
But considering Eich's position on Free speech and his political views, it's not that unimaginable to guess that their demographics collide.
That's Gab's decision though, not Brave's?
And personally I have no trouble believing there's at least some overlap just because Eich's seen as someone "opposite" the SJW menace and that tends to attract the alt right like nothing else. But Brave actively targeting those people is a whole other can of worms, isn't it?
Well, I assume the Gab developers took that decision because they thought Brave aligned with their ideas (which contrasts well with the hate that the right seems to have for Google).
But I guess that they don't seem to market themselves strictly to that demographic. It does seem to be popular with the right on platforms like Minds.com or on ComputingForever and the like. I'm not sure exactly what does it, perhaps it's also with the hate that the right seems to have for Google and Mozilla not really doing much better with them like when they removed Dissenter from their add-on store.
Well, the BAT coin thing is a dead giveaway
Now, I'm curious, what link is there between cryptocurrency and Stormfront, Infowars and 8ch? I know Gab likes Bitcoin but other than that, I don't quite see the picture you're trying to draw.
If Brave blocks the Ads by default and then allows the users to show the Ads in order to get Brave currency which they can donate to support content, then I would be pretty neutral about this. I would rather have a big company, with decent web security, and a good filtering process choosing my ads than random sites on the internet that I may just happen to click on to get some good information. Mainly because I'm worried about Ads having embedded Javascript that could exploit the content creator site (and my info with it).
It would seem like browser policies like these would stop click bait sites. That's something to think about.
It also seems like the biggest problem here is Brave forcing content creators to sign up to receive donations. Everyone seems to be scared that Brave is gonna wield this power tyrannically. Does it state Brave's rules for content creators anywhere in the article? I must have missed it if it did.
If the donation mechanism is just making your site Brave-able (something like a Facebook/Google provider login or Paypal ready) where it just provides the pipe to stream the donations to the content creator then that would seem OK to me.
People seem to think that publishers are making the rules for Ad revenue right now but when it comes to big companies like Amazon they don't. Didn't Amazon make a rule that said podcasters couldn't mention that their site was supported by Amazon Ad revenue? I think I remember Sam Harris talking about having some Amazon blow back because of that.