[vrc]

uBlock origin is the only ad blocker worth trusting. Privacy Badger is fine but breaks things too often. PiHole is good but requires too much know-how for most. ABP and Brave both do the same garbage ransom-taking with their ad replacement schema. So few publishers have an account with them that the monies supposedly going to support content sits (at best) in an escrow account that is escheated at some point.

[rglullis]

Brave rewards is opt-in. If you don't want to receive ads, just don't turn it on.

If you still want to support creators but do not want to receive any kind of ads, just buy some BAT at any exchange, load your wallet and schedule monthly contributions.

If you want to support a publisher who is not on the creators program - send them a message and let them know they have another income alternative.

[vrc]

Right. You’re missing my point. From the consumer side that makes sense. Very few publishers (ie those that are high quality and you’d happily spend on) are hooked up to receive funds from Brave, or will ever choose to receive funds from Brave. So lots of these transactions leave your wallet, Brave takes a cut, and then the remainder sits in limbo or is escheated to the state. The ads ecosystem is a 2-sided marketplace, and Brave really only supports/is supported by 1 side.

[BrendanEich]

You're wrong, nothing leaves the user's browser for us to take a cut in the case of an unverified creator. Those tips or donations sit in the browser, and cancel after 90 days. The user gets the tokens back and can cancel the pending tips or contributions at any time.

The ad ecosystem is multisided, not two-sided. We put the user in first place and cut out the ad-tech intermediaries who raid privacy, enable fraud, and take north of 50%, 70% in one case (the Guardian bought out its ad space and got 30p on the GBP).

Please check your facts before attacking us. It's one thing to operate on misinformation, but another to throw "escheated" around like a lawyer. It sounds impressive, but it's based on falsehoods all the way down. Again, tips from rewards users to unverified sites and channels sit in the browser, time out back to the user, and can be canceled. Look for "Pending tips" in rewards settings.

[vrc]

Because you’re you and I was basing it on working in the space 3 years ago, I admit I was wrong. But I really do want to solve this problem. Despite my mistake, the spirit of the question is unresolved — you claim that you allow publishers/creators to be paid for their work. In the case a pub isn’t on your platform, you don’t pay them — you return payment to the user. So content continues to go unfunded. How do you intend to get publishers to hook in to your system and get paid, instead of just making users feel like they’re supporting the open internet and instead not actually funding the sites they care about?

[BrendanEich]

Please be careful with "you". The tokens tipped or otherwise contributed to unverified creators never leave the browser. We do not track them or intermediate them. They stay pending as noted.

It's up to the browser user to notify the creator about the tip or contribution they're sending. We don't and can't know who the creator is and we wouldn't spam them. Fans can and do get creators to sign up. This is the clean way to do it, and fits our user-first principle.

If you want a publisher-first play, Scroll (Twitter bought it) was doing a portable paywall with publishers. Not user-first, no rev share to users, users pay. Not us. Have to serve one master or the other.

But I claim our user-first way is best because users can then get sites and channels they've tipped to come and sign up. Going the other way means getting users to subscribe, always a conversion funnel and usually low rate.

[rglullis]

> high quality and you’d happily spend on

Can you give an example of publisher/creator that you support directly, and that is not interested in joining Brave Creators?

If I am a popular creator who relies on, e.g, Patreon or Ko-Fi for some sustained income, and I learn about a platform that gives people money and it makes it easy for them to pass along that money to me... why wouldn't I be interested?

[ElijahLynn]

FWIW, these sites are all setup on Brave Rewards to receive funds via Brave Rewards contributions. I got this list from my history by going to brave://rewards/ in Brave:

* Wikipedia.org

* SmithsonianMag.com

* ArsTechnica.com

* TheRegister.com

* Archive.org

* TheGuardian.com

* LaTimes.com

* DuckDuckGo.com

* NPR.org

[BrendanEich]

See https://bravebat.info/ for the full list of sites and channels.

[ElijahLynn]

Thanks, I found what I was wanting to post in my list but couldn't verify it. And that is that WashingtonPost.com is listed as a Brave Creator.

https://bravebat.info/creators/website/31382

[ziddoap]

>Privacy Badger is fine but breaks things too often.

I know it's a bit of a tangent from the topic at hand, but I'm really curious what Privacy Badger has broken for you? I (and all the staff at my office) have been using it basically since release, and not once has the root cause of a website not working properly been Privacy Badger.

[vrc]

So I couldn’t tell you all of them because I don’t keep track of when I need to disable it and refresh to make a page work (and that’s not that big an inconvenience for me). But I used to have to travel a lot for work with strict travel caps. Working within those, I had perfected a few strategies to really get the lowest fares available. On one specific planning adventure, I found a way to book a business class flight through Air Canada’s website that took me through Europe and back across the US for the price of the standard economy fare for the same trip. Privacy Badger killed the payment flow, and I could never get that rate back. I ended up on over 30 hours of flights in economy, and I’ll never forget the refreshed faces of the business class travelers… But more seriously, that and similar situations were the only really bad ones. Many times it’s just disabling and reloading a page. But for a casual Internet user, identifying that fix might be too much.

[lamontcg]

I have 17 exceptions in PB that I've setup, including my ISP, my broker, and my local utilities. Those would all be since I switched to firefox (2-3 years ago now?). It used to be worse, I'm pretty sure I had many dozens of exceptions on my old chrome settings.