[user-the-name]

Because Brave has a long history of very questionable business decisions, and is not really trustworthy. They have collected donations on behalf of people without the consent of those people, they have secretely added affiliate links, and they are deeply involved the incredibly shade business of cryptocurrencies.

[celsoazevedo]

> They have collected donations on behalf of people without the consent of those people

Wasn't this related to YouTube channels? I remember Tom Scott complaining about it on Twitter.

While the browser probably shouldn't ask users if they want to donate to people that haven't joined Brave Rewards, the money is returned to the sender (up to 3 months later, I believe) if the creator doesn't join Brave Rewards. It's not like they stole donations.

> they have secretely added affiliate links

They did that with some crypto sites when typing the keyword/URL in the search bar. I can't defend the decision, but the code is on Github[0] and they admitted doing it as soon people pointed it out. And then reverted the change.

I'm not sure what to think about this monetisation strategy. What's the downside for users? Is it worse than generating revenue by selling the default search engine to the highest bidder? And why is it wrong for browsers to do it but it's fine when some search engines do it?

---

0. https://github.com/brave/brave-core/blob/1cac2377c9a2d5e3587...

[jonathansampson]

Regarding the tips and affiliate links, please see my response here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25410189.

[kilroy_jones]

How are cryptocurrencies any worse or more shady than banks, investment firms or any other business involved in finance?

[user-the-name]

By being something like 90% scams?

[celsoazevedo]

It's a mistake to assume that a project is shady just because it's involved with crypto.

I use Brave Rewards (as a website owner) and never had any issues. I receive BAT, convert it to my local currency, and then transfer it to my bank account. That's money I would never receive because it comes from users that block ads.

[jlkuester7]

> Because Brave has a long history of very questionable business decisions, and is not really trustworthy.

Okay boomer... Seriously people, ease up on the hyperbole and approach this with a little perspective. Sure, Brendan Eich != Mother Theresa, but its not like he is claiming to be! He is just another bloke with some good ideas and some not so good ideas, trying to be successful (and honestly doing a pretty good job of it).

Sure, Brave has made some mistakes along the way and it is right to call them out on it. Stuff like secret affiliate links is not great from a transparency perspective, but it is also not really hostile or harmful to Brave users. Plus, let the record show that corrective action was taking when Brave was called out.

I am not saying we should all "trust" Brave any more that other companies (do your research and come to your own conclusions), but lets not pretend that the folks at Google or anywhere else are really any more trustworthy.

(Lastly, I am sorry if cryptocurrency makes you uncomfortable, but that does not change the fact that it is a really effective way to provide a low-friction method of exchanging value (e.g. micro-transactions). IDK if the BAT is the future of ad-tech, but I applaud them for trying to find new methods of monetization that don't involve directly harming users and their privacy...)

[tommit]

I agree with your comment. I'm continuously surprised at how much hate Brave gets from HN. It's a decent browser with a unique and novel way to try to deal with the current adpocalypse. If anything, they should be celebrated for actually trying out a new business model. Come to think of it though, the comment sums up HN perfectly, ending with `deeply involved the incredibly shade business of cryptocurrencies`.

I've been using Brave for about a year now and am really happy with it. I love paying creators directly and just wish more creators would sign up for the rewards.

[thefreeman]

I think it's really the idea of blocking a websites ads AND replacing them with your own that turns so many people against it. It just feels..... wrong. Way more like stealing from content creators than just blocking ads in the first place. That combined with what feels like a cash grab with their cryptocurrency likely immediately turns a lot of people off.

ps. I know, I know. Brave's ads are unobtrusive, they don't track you, they donate crypto to the sites, etc. etc. It doesn't change the underlying emotional response a lot of people seem to have to their business model.

[jonathansampson]

Replacing ads with our own would indeed be pretty bad; but we don't do that. I think the underlying emotional response you're seeing (which does exist with some) is based on what others say Brave is doing, rather than what Brave is actually doing. Help us correct the misinformation

The blocking of ads and trackers has been taking place for years; long before Brave came along (in it was happening when Netscape released the NPAPI back in the mid-90s).

Content Creators and Publishers, who make the Web enjoyable for us, rely on third-party advertising models which engage in data-harvesting and attention-auctioning without explicit user consent.

Brave helps protect users from harmful ads and trackers (which not only harvest data, but deliver malicious bits in return), while offering a model whereby users can anonymously support publishers by way of privacy-respecting ads.

Brave Ads are matched on-device, using local access to data. When you view an ad, 70% of the associated revenue is sent to your cryptographically-secured wallet. As you browse the Web, verified content creators can receive support (either actively or passively) from those rewards.

Users are safe. Creators are supported. That's Brave.

[mthoms]

They don't replace ads. Brave allows you to block ads (just like any ad-blocker). Separately, you can opt-in to see Brave ads via system notifications.

Accusations of stealing are pretty foul. Please can we keep the discussion focused on the facts?

[ketamine__]

> I think it's really the idea of blocking a websites ads AND replacing them with your own that turns so many people against it. It just feels..... wrong.

Brave doesn't do this so that's a plus.

[jonathansampson]

Note, the affiliate links weren't "secret" either. They were quite visibly displayed in the suggestion list of the browser. The user could see them before navigating. Brave's mistake was showing them on fully-qualified domain names (that wasn't our intention, and was fixed within 48 hours).

Affiliate links aren't uncommon; definitely not worth trying to keep a secret. Open Firefox (or Opera, Vivaldi, etc.) and do a search for "hacker news" from the address bar. Every one of these browsers adds its identifier to the resulting query. By contrast, Brave offered a search suggestion with a [visible] affiliate code attached.

[DonHopkins]

> Brendan Eich != Mother Theresa

That's a pretty low bar. Mother Teresa's no Mother Teresa.

Are people with dark personality traits more likely to succeed? (psyche.co)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25353734

[ketamine__]

They made some mistakes and took responsibility. Consider that Brave is taking on Google with the GDPR. That's pretty cool.

[user-the-name]

They absolutely did not take responsibility properly. They dragged their feet, they argued and argued that they were doing nothing wrong, and them finally reluctantly changed things when they could find no other way to weasel out of it.

[mthoms]

>They absolutely did not take responsibility properly. They dragged their feet, they argued and argued that they were doing nothing wrong, and them finally reluctantly changed things when they could find no other way to weasel out of it.

This is not only a lie, it's a particularly egregious one. And very easy to verify.

Original tweet (2:36 AM Pacific, June 6 2020) https://twitter.com/cryptonator1337/status/12692014801055784...

Response from Brave (10:00 AM Pacific, same day) https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/1269313200127795201

It took them all of one whole business hour to respond. One hour. That's absolutely unheard of.

The above just goes to show how eager some people are to spread FUD in a blatantly dishonest and malicious way about certain things they oppose. It blows my mind.

[jonathansampson]

And by June 9th, less than 3 whole days later, user's had an updated build of Brave with the issue resolved: https://brave.com/referral-codes-in-suggested-sites/.