Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by ForHackernews 2549 days ago
How is that any different from Google? They're both monetizing the content others placed on the internet.
2 comments

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.
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.

> 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.

Google pays for the YouTube servers that content creators upload their content to. What does Brave pay for?
Does Google pay for all the servers on all the websites that Google's search engine indexes and makes money selling ads against?