[dymk]

They replace other ad network ads with their own ~ads~ crypto currency. They monetize the content of others and don't tell them. If you have a youtube channel, they will swap out ads and collect the ad revenue without telling the channel that they're doing so.

I'm not particularly impressed with their business. In fact I'm pretty disgusted with it.

[mintplant]

This is untrue, as far as I'm aware. Brave blocks ads and trackers by default, and you can opt into a separate "Brave Rewards" program which pays you in crypto-currency tokens in exchange for receiving ads via push notifications and the New Tab page (not inline with web content).

https://brave.com/brave-ads-launch/

Users can then choose to contribute some or all of those funds back to the publishers/creators they visit that have signed up to Brave's platform. They try to do this all in as privacy-preserving a manner as possible.

https://brave.com/creators/

[reilly3000]

I’ve been around the ad ecosystem for a decade, and for the better part of it I’ve been convinced that the audience needs a full seat at the table and a piece of the ad transaction if advertising is going to have a future at all on the web.

Brave and BAT is the most credible solution to this problem I’ve ever seen.

[dymk]

No, the Brave browser does not try to verify that the page that it's replacing ads on has opted into Brave's "rewards" thing. They'll s/page_ads/brave_ads/ and collect a check regardless of if that revenue is going to the page owner or not.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18734999

[mintplant]

> replacing ads

> They'll s/page_ads/brave_ads/

My point was that this literally does not happen. Brave does not insert ads into pages, ever, it only removes them. I'll admit I'm skeptical of the whole cryto-currency model, too, but I try to keep my points factually accurate.

[sp332]

They got a ton of attention when they first launched for their idea of replacing ads. See point two on this archive from early 2017: https://web.archive.org/web/20170129165028/https://www.brave... Now they have a disclaimer at the top https://www.brave.com/about_ad_replacement.html but honestly, until today I thought they were still doing it.

[__MatrixMan__]

They aren't. The brave ads appear as a system notification at fixed intervals whether or not you're browsing. They're as disconnected from your browsing activity as they could possibly be.

The only connection is that your browsing activity determines how much each content provider is owed.

[prophesi]

Could you please stop spreading misinformation? As the surrounding commentors have mentioned, Brave Rewards is completely opt-in for users _and_ they do verify whether the page is a part of the program _and_ they don't replace ads with their own.

[muckrakerz]

Why would they have to? The user has opted in. From your link: "Starting today, users of Brave’s latest release of the desktop browser for macOS, Windows, and Linux can choose to view privacy-preserving Brave Ads by opting into Brave Rewards" [emphasis mine]

Stop spreading FUD.

[briandear]

Does the content creator get a cut from Brave?

[rjf72]

Like everything on Brave it's all up to the user. First the user has to opt-in to this ad program. By default Brave simply blocks everything. If they opt-in then they will be able to see a number of ads per hour that they specify. Of these ads, 70% of the revenue will go straight to the user and 30% will go to brave. The user then decides how their coins will be spent. There are straight forward ways for users to support their favorite sites or content creators. So imagine you want to support site.com, you could choose to automatically donate some chunk of your tokens to it per month. From then on everything would be automatic, the user would just browse as normal, accumulate tokens, and the site would be compensated.

In my opinion this is also the ideal system since it removes the fundamental problem of advertising. And that is that when a company relies on advertising, their customer is no longer the people visiting their site - but the advertisers they make money from. This can lead to advertiser influence slowly creeping into every aspect of the site, including the content that is created. By directing the ad revenue to the user who then directs it to sites (at their discretion) it keeps the benefits of "free" sites, while removing all the nastiness that generally comes with ad-based revenue systems by untangling the relationship between advertiser and content creator.

[user17843]

That has long been resolved, and you probably know that. Your own link contains evidence that it has been resolved, so this is kind of absurd.

[colordrops]

There is always tons of venom of this exact sort thrown at Brave on HN, yet I've used Brave and have not seen any ads that have been spoken of. Even if they did replace, to be frank, the advertising industry already is disgusting and I'd have no problem with it (well at least no more problem than I already do)

In any case it's a great browser, at least better than Chrome when it comes to privacy, and I personally won't fall for the propaganda. Just like Tesla, there is a lot of "old" money that is threatened by the upstart so there is also a lot of negative sentiment.

[BrendanEich]

Brave Ads are opt-in, you have to click on the triangle in the right end of the url bar and enable Brave Rewards, which includes Ads. You can turn off Ads but keep Rewards on and send tokens you buy, or direct tokens we have in a granting pool, toward your favorite creators. Ads pay 70% of the gross revenue to the user who opts in, and by default these tokens flow back to your creators, anonymously. Neither Brave nor any partners see linkable automated contributions thanks to a ZKP protocol (anonize.org based). No user browsing data in the clear goes to our servers or partners’ servers (or of course on a blockchain) for any part of Brave Rewards. Which is off by default, to return to my first point. I hope you give it a try. Thanks for your support.

[sprafa]

What’s wrong with Firefox?

[Meekro]

Just last week, we found out that they sat on a severe vulnerability for 2 months, only bothering to patch it after someone used it to try to pwn Coinbase[1].

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20233952

[ComodoHacker]

They had reason for that, as mentioned in the thread you linked.

[briandear]

And what’s wrong with Safari?

[sgift]

I don't want to pay 2k for my browser.

[_emacsomancer_]

I don't want to pay 2k to run a proprietary browser.

[colordrops]

I do a lot of web development and need the tools.

[Jach]

Which tools specifically that aren't available in Firefox?

[colordrops]

It's more about the clunky UX than the tool itself. Eclipse support everything other IDEs support but who wants to use that?

[feanaro]

You can use Firefox for browsing and Chrome for development. No need to settle on a single egg.

[oldwinebottles]

Too freaking slow.

[beatgammit]

Have you tried it recently? It has gotten a lot faster, so much so that some people say it's faster than Chrome in many cases.

Personally, I find it more than adequate, and I agree with their mission a lot more than the other browser vendors.

[iamnotacrook]

I use Firefox everywhere. I tried Chrome recently and it feels a lot faster, but in the end the ability to block ads and trackers (everywhere, including mobile which is where I do most of my browsing) is more important than a bit of speed. If Firefox is fast enough, then faster is pointless. But as can be seen in this thread, some people believe it's their duty to look at ads so for them the extra speed is probably a nice bonus (and perhaps partially compensates for the extra work their browser is doing).

[9HZZRfNlpR]

It's been years people suggest the same "have you tried recently", but it doesn't come even close to the snappiness of any chromium based browser when I use it.

[pault]

Have you tried using it recently? The quantum rewrite they released last year is incomparable to the previous releases. I use FF at home and Chrome at work and I can tell you that there is no noticeable difference in performance. The only time you'll notice the difference is when you use google apps that are written specifically for Chrome, but I personally prefer to avoid trusting the biggest adtech company in the world with my personal data. Plus, FF supports vertical tabs, Chrome doesn't.

[feanaro]

I use both and in my case, new Firefox is snappier than Chrome.

[hirundo]

See https://brave.com/faq/#unclaimed-funds for a description of their current and past policy. Currently:

"If a publisher has not verified ownership, then a user’s contributions will be held in reserve inside the browser for 90 days. The browser routinely updates an internal list of all verified publishers to determine whether a property can receive contributions. At the end of the 90 day period, any contributions marked for unverified publishers will be released back to the wallet. No funds leave the browser except to go to verified creators."

Previously:

"Previous versions ... would then hold contributed funds for those publishers in escrow until they’d verified. [And] Funds that were contributed from user-funded wallets will be held indefinitely, until the publisher verifies and transfers them to their own wallet."

That sounds like they had a suboptimal policy, realized it, and fixed it. If they _keep_ their 5% cut, or the interest on it, from contributions to unverified creators, I'll share your criticism.

[dymk]

That's still terrible. If I'm a Youtube content creator who doesn't want anything to do with Brave, they're still going to remove the ads that I want on my videos to monetize my content, and hold any of the BAT that Brave users contribute to me hostage.

[michaelmrose]

The user owns their computer. You own yours or at least the party you have entrusted your content does.

If people don't want to look at your ads they wont. Don't like it charge money.

[rjf72]

When file sharing first came along it was pretty clear that the status quo of dropping $20 on a CD for some music was not going to last. Regardless the music industry refused to accept this and fought tooth and nail to try to keep CDs as the norm instead of adopting to changing times. Unsurprisingly that's a battle they eventually lost.

A decade or so ago ad-blocking was extremely esoteric. Today it's reaching a majority on all devices excluding mobile. Though mobile will also likely follow a similar esoteric->majority trajectory. In any case it should be clear that the status quo of advertisements isn't going to last. Google trying to break ad-blocking in Chrome feels very much analogous to the old dinosaurs in the music industry trying to cling onto CDs. Users hate unsolicited ads and, in the end, it's a losing battle to try to force everybody to keep watching them.

The point of this is that that money you're being offered is money that would not exist otherwise. These people are not going to watch your ads, period. You're free to take it, and you're free to not take it - it'll eventually be returned to the people that wanted to give it to you. But complaining about it's very existence is peculiar. It's like if you only accept PayPal and I said I don't use PayPal but I'd be happy to send you money through e.g. Stripe. If you don't want to setup a Stripe account to accept my money then that's completely your choice, but to complain about it just seems petulant.

[hirundo]

Is uBlock terrible?

[dymk]

Are you a content creator, with your income stream at least partly gained through advertisements?

[tapoxi]

Yes? Generating and serving content isn't free. If you don't want the ads, don't visit the page or pay for an ad-free version.

[staticassertion]

This ignores the actual issue with ads, which is tracking. Advertising has this huge system around it where your information is the commodity.

This means that advertising inherently is not something you "opt into" when you visit a page. You are being tracked everywhere you go.

That's the problem brave solves, but it accepts that removing ads without another system to reward content creators is important - hence BAT.

[GordonS]

Agreed - the only reason ad-blocking is even a thing is because:

- Overuse of tracking, including nefarious attempts to de-anonymise users through excessive fingerprinting

- Crappy, distracting, in-your-face ads

- Ad networks serving malware (rare, obv)

If ad networks focussed on ridding the world of these issues, more people would be happy to let the ads through and help support content creators through ads.

[tapoxi]

Then block tracking, but don't remove the advertising content. Or propose a solution that doesn't involve paying them with a worthless cryptocurrency, unless you'd like your salary to be paid in BAT.

[michaelmrose]

It's not just that I choose option C to continue watching and not pay. I in fact opt out of the entire decision making process. I'm not going to figure out what sort of ads you have or whether I should or shouldn't block them because life is short and I have other better things to do. I'm just going to turn on ublock and just keep swimming.

If you don't put out videos tomorrow because of this I will watch someone else's content. If you produce something truly unique put it out there for money and I will make an informed choice on whether I want to pay for it.

[prophesi]

It's really weird to see ad-tech defenders on Hacker News in 2019. Create a Patreon. Take the few minutes to create a Brave Creator account. Use a non-invasive ad network on AdBlock's "Acceptable Ads" list. Read an Orwellian novel.

[pnw_hazor]

Not that weird, since there are many here who work for ad-tech companies and are actively building these systems.

[feanaro]

The presented solutions are honestly quite silly.

Anything available on the web, an open platform, is free to view by design. To make it not free, you as a publisher are required to take extra steps which do not presume control over the client computer. If you don't like this, perhaps the web platform is not the one you intended to use.

[the_duke]

You want to earn money with your content?

Charge for it instead of uploading it to a platform that shows ads, OR upload it to a platform that can't be used with adblockers!

[dwaltrip]

Is it unethical to avoid looking at billboards?

If not, what if I had a special pair of glasses that obscured such billboards or other physical advertising? It's not possible today, but not that hard to imagine in the near future.

How are these situations different from blocking ads on the web?

[kevinh]

To my knowledge, billboards don't fund roads. Unless they are the exclusive source of revenue for roads, the situations aren't really comparable.

[flukus]

You can turn that around, if you don't want me skipping the ads don't serve me content through a medium that allows me to do so.

Was it immoral to tape a show and fast forward through the ads?

[Meekro]

The majority of ad revenue goes to the site, not to Brave[1]. The user gets a cut for having to see the ad, and Brave gets a cut as well.

But even if you're right, why is it unethical for me to install software on my own computer to render websites differently than the creator intended? For example, by removing ads? Or replacing ads with different ads? Or rendering all ads upside down?

[1] https://brave.com/how-brave-works-for-you/

[jay_kyburz]

Because it's monetizing other peoples content. In my view, it's the same as cutting and pasting somebody else's content onto my own site with my own ads.

Even if I promise to give most of the money I make back to the original content creator, I really have no right to the small part I skim.

Update: Sorry didn't mean to suggest it was unethical for you to view a page any way you want, but I think the creators of the Brave browsers are scuzzy.

Update Two: I see now that Brave have updated the policy and will only collect funds for creators that have opted in.

[pault]

Also, as others have pointed out in this thread, they don't replace ads on websites with their own. It blocks ads, and if you want you can view Brave ads in exchange for their cryptocurrency and optionally donate them to participating publishers. I'd say this is no worse than a regular ad blocker, but you at least have the choice to attempt to remunerate the publisher for the lost revenue.

[BrendanEich]

That's right -- user first. Users will do right by their favorite publishers.

[hjek]

> But even if you're right, why is it unethical for me to install software on my own computer to render websites differently than the creator intended?

It's not unethical for you to run that program, but what is being argued is that Brave (the company) is acting unethically, for example by taking donations on behalf of other people without their consent[0].

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18734999

[muckrakerz]

Except they don't. See above.

[hjek]

Well, that's good! Might give Brave a spin then.

Just curious, what exact sentence(s) from the above links to the Brave website do you see contradicting this claim about "shadow wallets"? (if that's the correct wording)

When I read something like this, it almost sound like they're making wallets (without necessarily asking beforehand):

> If you own a website, or even just a blog or other sub-domain on a hosting site, we’ll create a site wallet for you.[0]

Am I reading that wrong?

[0]: https://brave.com/how-brave-works-for-you/

[dymk]

Yes, they created wallets without asking beforehand, replaced the ads you monetize your site with with their own BAT system, and held funds hostage unless you buy into their system.

[__MatrixMan__]

If I feel you're owed a token, but you don't have a wallet in they currency, what should I do:

- make you a wallet and let you claim it later?

- keep the token?

Neither of these constitute a hostage situation. There's no buying in except the time it takes to move that token to an exchange and turn it into dollars or kgs of cocaine or whatever.

[leereeves]

It's potentially even worse than that.

Exploiting this grey area in the law will lead to a response from the courts and lawmakers. That response might well require that browsers display pages exactly as the publisher intends.

In other words, the end of ad blockers and other tools, thanks to Brave.

(Not at all unlikely given that Google seems to want that too.)

[rocqua]

It feels to me like this could be legislated based on profiting on others' copyright.

The issue here is one party making money, without consent of any form, based on another party's published materials.

[javagram]

> The issue here is one party making money, without consent of any form, based on another party's published materials.

So, google’s search engine business?

[cameronbrown]

That's an unfair comparison. A three line snippet is hardly the same thing as taking an entire page. Not to mention that all search engines do this.

[rocqua]

There is at least an opt out to Google, there is some benefit to showing up on Google search, and there is a significant transformative action both in aggregating and summarizing, and in providing web-pages based on a keyword search.

That said, there is an argument to be made here. One that's included in the disputed EU copyright directive in the 'link tax'.

[beatgammit]

The web server freely provides that content, it's not like the browser is stealing it. If they really want to protect their content, they can put it behind a paywall.

It shouldn't be illegal to not request certain parts of a site, and it shouldn't be illegal to choose not to render parts of a page. What should be illegal is taking credit for copyrighted material, and that's not what going on.

[rocqua]

I think it should be illegal to profit from showing other people's work neigh verbatim. For example, taking their content, stripping out some stuff, and placing ads there.

The issue here, as opposed to just stripping ads, is that a totally unrelated party is making money with ads.

[jupp0r]

> That response might well require that browsers display pages exactly as the publisher intends.

IANAL, but I highly doubt that the government will mandate what browsers people run on their computers. Outside of North Korea, of course.

[_jal]

Wait for it; there will be mandated software on 1st-world machines in our lifetimes. Root on your machine is already a bit of a fiction because of government action (the cpu management engine); look for that to become more explicit after the first really big blackout/other catastrophe caused by a computer security failure.

Unrestricted mathematics are too dangerous to be allowed to normal people.

[fiblye]

They won’t mandate a specific browser, but they can regulate functionality.

Piracy is already considered theft. Viewing webpages without ads is basically “stealing” web content. I would not be surprised in the slightest if some big advertiser runs with this idea and lobbies for strict legislation. And they likely would succeed, quite honestly. Congress doesn’t understand adblocking or the internet, but they have a vague idea of digital piracy.

[muckrakerz]

Yes. I want a citation for this. As far as I'm aware this is completely untrue.

[muckrakerz]

That isn't what he is claiming though. He's claiming that they do this without the users consent. If I want a page re-skinned in purple to hell with what the content provider wants. It is also reasonable, as Eich pointed out, to act as a mediator for unrequested donations. Which is what Brave does.

Would it be nice to reject these donations? Sure. But we don't demand that with any other transmission service. If Eich and the user concede to the terms and if you accept the money, what is the problem moral or otherwise?

[ppeetteerr]

Found one

https://www.computerworld.com/article/3284076/brave-browser-...

And on their own site:

https://brave.com/brave-ads-launch/

[BrendanEich]

Your second link is to our blog post about user ads, which do not go in slots on publisher pages.

Your first link is to a tech journalist who misreports what we actually do, for reasons I cannot fathom and won't guess at.

Anyway, we do not replace publisher ads we block. Check it out for yourself.

[chance_state]

For at least one of those claims,

>They monetize the content of others and don't tell them.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18734999

[dymk]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18734999

[ajna91]

It depends. Are Brave's ads more similar to the banner ads of the old days? If they are not so intrusive and privacy violating like modern ad-networks, that would still be a net win in my opinion.

As for the hypothetical youtuber, they are always free to put product ads directly in their videos if they can/want to. However, if they can only make money via abusive 3rd party trackers, that's on them.

[rchaud]

I've had Brave as my mobile browser since early 2017 and the only ads I've ever seen on it are the random Google Adsense ad that slipped through. These instances are in the single digits, in 2.5 years. im in Canada, so that might have an effect.

[saltedshiv]

Are you saying that I should be required to execute all code on a web page? That's the eventual point this train of thought will lead you to.

[woodruffw]

This seems like an unreasonable interpretation; it’s much more likely that ‘dymk wants to execute the bare minimum amount of arbitrary code on a web page.

[brandnewlow]

Citation please.

[muckrakerz]

The link provided does not address your claims. Full stop.

[dymk]

https://www.altcoinbuzz.io/crypto-news/spotlight/famous-yout...

Tom Scott was not happy with Brave. They were collecting ad revenue for Youtubers who had never opted into their platform.

He had to go make a stink to their CEO, and finally after lots of pushing back, the CEO ceded that maybe this is not the best thing to do!

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18734999

[justsee]

Actually I followed that whole episode as it unfolded and your comments across this thread are all sorts of wrong.

Tom Scott ended up being happy with Brave resolving an early product misstep.

You should really be across an issue - and its resolution - before deciding to use it to cast shade on a software project.

For more reasonable-minded developer folk Eich addressed this again recently on Twitter: https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/1139384765700685824

[codehalo]

None of what you said is true. I'm puzzled by the constant lies and FUD spread here against Brave. What exactly is the agenda?

[Analemma_]

There's no agenda, just proper reasoning. Think about it in terms of Bayesian probability: it's a cryptocurrency product, and pretty much everything in the crypto space is a scam, so right off the bat when you hear about Brave, before you even know anything your prior probability that it's a scam is 95%. Then they got busted 'keeping the money' and not telling the creators, and the posterior jumps to 99.5%. I know they mostly fixed that, but at that point the trust was gone and it's not worth anyone's time to give a second chance.

It sucks, but at the same time, if you're going to be an honest actor in crypto, you better cross every t and dot every i, because bad actors are everywhere and so smart people just assume bad faith and are arguably correct to do so.

[potlato]

If your proper reasoning involves the premise: "it's a cryptocurrency product, and pretty much everything in the crypto space is a scam," you might want to adjust want you call "proper reasoning."

[Dylan16807]

Sure! But one product doesn't adjust it very far. So next time I hear something is a "cryptocurrency product", instead of 95% scam alert I'll be at 93-94% scam alert.

[Dylan16807]

What they had to fix was not "keeping the money", it was a bad UI that implied creators had accounts.

[snazz]

The reason that Brave doesn’t get a great rap around here is because it trips the sketchy detector. They make a marketing image of themselves as the protectors of privacy and whatnot and then the browser includes (or included) a lot of features that seem to go contrary to the stated mission.

[ForHackernews]

How is that any different from Google? They're both monetizing the content others placed on the internet.

[lern_too_spel]

The content producers who distributed their videos on YouTube agreed to Google's monetization terms. They did not agree to Brave's. I cannot unilaterally make copies of Harry Potter books, sell them for a dollar, and give a cut (even a 50% cut to make the Brave analogy complete — they like to say they give a larger cut to publishers without mentioning that it is a larger cut of a much smaller pie) to JK Rowling. Even Brave eventually understood why this was wrong.

[ForHackernews]

But Google should be allowed to unilaterally copy snippets of data from all the websites on the internet into their search results?

People bending themselves backwards to hate Brave for doing things that are really not that different from what the big boys do.

[lern_too_spel]

> But Google should be allowed to unilaterally copy snippets of data from all the websites on the internet into their search results?

No, and they don't. See meta nosnippet and robots.txt.

If the big boys did what Brave did, they would be sued to oblivion.

[dymk]

Google pays for the YouTube servers that content creators upload their content to. What does Brave pay for?

[ForHackernews]

Does Google pay for all the servers on all the websites that Google's search engine indexes and makes money selling ads against?