[spiderfarmer]

A large amount of people who use Brave installed it for the ad blocker. They have no problem depraving well-meaning publishers of quality content of the only viable way to monetise it.

Expecting those people to pay up is a pipe dream.

If Brave was fair it would enable publishers to block visitors who don't pay.

Why is it fair to block ads, but unfair to block visitors?

[capableweb]

> Why is it fair to block ads, but unfair to block visitors?

Because the original idea behind the web was "Use your client to view content", meaning that you as a publisher publishes the content, users chose how to digest/view it. Hence browsers are "user-agents".

Users should be able to decide how they want to view the content, that's why we have user css files that override website styling. Blocking visitors depending on how they chose to view the content, is unfair as you have published it on the internet, signalling you're fine with people using their user-agents to digest it.

[ShinTakuya]

Blocking users who block ads is no different to blocking users who don't have a premium account. Viewing ads is just a method of payment. In an ideal world all information would be free to everyone, but servers cost money. One way or another, servers need to be paid for. Donation models often allow for the most free distribution of info such as for Wikipedia. But it doesn't work for all cases. And in those cases, ads are often a good solution, since the information is still basically free. If you don't want to pay, that's fine. You can always visit another site that doesn't force payment.

Edit: Just to be clear, I'm actually not against ad blocking. In fact, I use an ad blocker myself. I just think it's hypocritical to expect it to be okay to block ads without also accepting that sites can choose not to serve you (sometimes at their own business peril).

[BrendanEich]

False, on facts and law too: DMCA defines "effective access control mechanism" (paywall) and browsers can't hack through those. Anyone who does by exploiting server-side vulns gets in big trouble.

Ad blocking is not like paywall circumvention. Ad and (what Brave does, don't misdirect or let others who get paid to whitelist ads while not blocking trackers, notably Eyeo who owns AdBlock Plus) tracker blocking is allowed by design of the Web standards, and entails no effective access control mechanism to circumvent.

Script blocking in general is a good idea. Signed, creator of JS.

[ShinTakuya]

Hello CEO of Brave, I didn't say that blocking ads is the same as circumventing paywalls. I said argued (in essence) that blocking users who block ads is a form of access control. I affirmed that people have the right to block ads, but I also asserted my argument that the owner of a server should have the right to block their access if a user tries to access their content without respecting the terms of access.

Signed, an average developer.

[BrendanEich]

“Blocking users who block ads is no different to blocking users who don't have a premium account.”

I get what you mean: either side of the protocol can do what it wants. Also that the publisher has to cover costs via ads or some kind of payment for content, if they aren’t compensated otherwise (separate business on the side; donations).

But your wording was too broad, as it equates (“no different”) blocking content in browsers, which is allowed by design of web standards for accessibility and any reason the user wishes, and blocking via a server side subscription paywall.

[ShinTakuya]

Yeah I can live with accepting that my wording was too broad. I think ultimately we agree to some extent, I can admit some fault for not being clear in my wording. All I was arguing is that we shouldn't be arguing in support of ad blockers only to cry foul when publishers want to block the freeloaders. Although wanting the browser to do it on their behalf is a bit much, I can agree.

[true_religion]

I'm not sure where its ever been said that every user agent must be served the same content. In fact, content negotiation is part of http.

[spiderfarmer]

Brave doesn't even have its own user agent.

[spiderfarmer]

I'm pretty sure the original idea behind the web was to have a distributed copy of classified information in case of nuclear warfare, so I'm not sure who wrote the manifesto you seem to have read.

[fastball]

We wouldn't have this mess if publishers had actually been reasonable about ads and tracking, but everyone got way too greedy and plastered everything with ads and track their users' every move.

[spiderfarmer]

So, do you use Brave and do you support the publishers that opted in to their alternative to ads?

[fastball]

Actually, I do.

But that wasn’t my point. My point was that Adblock existed before brave because publishers+advertises got stupid greedy and made the UX of their users terrible.

Brave wouldn’t exist without the idiocy of those two first.

[heresie-dabord]

> Why is it fair to block ads, but unfair to block visitors?

If you scanned, tracked, and dealt information about visitors to your home, visitors would cease to visit or would defend themselves. If you did this scanning and tracking as a naive proxy, it would be worse.

If I visit your home, you have an interest in receiving me and/or I have an interest in visiting you. The WWW was designed for visiting and sharing.

The advertising surveillance system has become an evil economic anti-pattern that the publishers (in most cases) do not understand and do not control. It is not like printed publicity in its effect. I can choose to read a page or skip it without further risk to me, and my purchase of the publication supported its workers.

If we visit a Web site explicitly (not through re-direct), it is a sign that we are interested in the content. If the site inflicts an unwanted data collection on visitors, people will choose to defend themselves.

In the end, you will discourage people from visiting. This may not be what you want. It certainly is not what T Berners-Lee envisaged.

[spiderfarmer]

Check Brave's forums and search for "block ads". A lot of Brave's users seem unreasonably focussed on blocking all ads, doesn't matter if it has third party tracking, first party tracking or no tracking at all.

That's my point. Expecting these users to pay a fee is a pipe dream. It's their sport to get everything they can for free. They have no empathy for content creators.

[Yizahi]

Sure you can block users for any reason. Internet is free for all and you can do anything on your own machine. But if you are smaller than a major newspaper from G7 country - you will just disappear if you do that. Almost nobody on the Internet produces irreplaceable content (!= unique content).

[spiderfarmer]

Brave hides its user agent so there's no way to block Brave users specifically.

[pmachinery]

A site blocking non-payers from accessing the content is a subscription/members only site. There's nothing unfair about that.

If a site wants to block people who block ads, and take the resulting hit to their traffic/rank/"SEO", that's fair enough too.

[throwaway33339]

>Why is it fair to block ads, but unfair to block visitors?

Go ahead and do it. You will quickly find out how much your quality content is really worth.

[spiderfarmer]

Brave hides its user agent to make it impossible to block their browser. So there's no way to block them specifically.