[jay_kyburz]

> I'm having a tough time seeing what's wrong with it

I block ads so that I will not be manipulated into buying things I don't want or need. I'm defending myself from an assault on my ego and self worth. I'm not making money, I'm just consuming content that people have chosen to make public.

When Brave replaces the ads of a website they are just stealing the content and selling it.

[eredengrin]

Blocking ads and serving up new ads are entirely different procedures. It would be entirely technically possible for brave to show brave ads in addition to the existing ads on a page. It is also possible for users to turn off ads entirely (including the brave ads). You can't just lump these two separate steps together, they are independent, and the only part of it that might directly harm the original site/page creators is blocking the original ads. Serving up new ads is no different than what the site creators themselves are already doing for their own work.

[jay_kyburz]

>Serving up new ads is no different than what the site creators themselves are already doing for their own work.

It is different because you are collecting money that would otherwise have gone to the sites creator?

(assuming a non ad blocking reader)

Update: I think I see where you are coming from, that as a _reader_, blocking ads in Firefox is the same as choosing to use Brave and willing watching Brave ads so that the Brave company can make money that would otherwise not have gone anywhere. The _reader_ generates no money for the content producer.

But as a _publisher_, an ad blocker reader in Firefox is just somebody who chooses to ignore the ads, but the Brave company is directly monetizing your content without your consent.

I my mind, the difference is that in scenario A. the use wants to be free of ads, in scenario B. the user doesn't mind ads, just not the ads you have chosen to show. And Brave is making money from that.

[eredengrin]

> I my mind, the difference is that in scenario A. the use wants to be free of ads, in scenario B. the user doesn't mind ads, just not the ads you have chosen to show. And Brave is making money from that.

Or it could be that in scenario B the user does not mind ads if they are done in a privacy respecting manner.

Alternatively, the way I see it is that brave ads are entirely separate from the content you have requested. I'm honestly not sure exactly how the ads are displayed in brave but as far as I'm concerned, brave could show ads on a blank new tab page with no content whatsoever and still make money from it. It makes no difference what (if any) content is loaded at any given time.

And back to my original message - even if Brave the company was "only" blocking ads - it might not be directly monetizing someone else's content, but by blocking the ads they are still benefiting as a company by gaining the good will of their customers by blocking those ads (or we could create a hypothetical scenario where eg brave blocks ads that happen to be for google chrome or mozilla firefox, in which case they have not directly benefited in a monetary way but have suppressed their competition).

Don't get me wrong - I see how it looks grimy given a certain framing. I guess you could say I just don't particularly care given the overall situation.