[Adrig]

Was the affiliation links inserted in the browser opt-in? Was the unethical business model to show custom ads in place of existing ones an accident? Or the crappy marketing campaign to lure content creators into their ecosystem by playing on ambiguous terms?

I own cryptos, I like cryptos, but the team behind Brave has proven to be scammy and unethical.

[hunterb123]

> Was the affiliation links inserted in the browser opt-in

I believe it was a mistake that it wasn't, and it was quickly made opt-in.

I think it's more scummy that Mozilla makes money from having Google as the default search engine, a still active campaign.

> Was the unethical business model to show custom ads in place of existing ones an accident?

As far as I know that's a lie, did they ever replace ads with blocked ads? Brave ads are text notifications, not banner ads.

> Or the crappy marketing campaign to lure content creators into their ecosystem by playing on ambiguous terms?

Nice word salad, doesn't mean much. Which marketing campaign, how are they luring, how are terms ambiguous, please expand.

> but the team behind Brave has proven to be scammy and unethical.

Yeah that's the punchline of the propaganda, but you should provide better reasoning if you want to convince anyone.

Your scale of ethics comparing browser companies is extremely inconsistent.

[Adrig]

>I believe it was a mistake that it wasn't, and it was quickly made opt-in.

Sure it wasn't. And if you think having Mozilla getting paid for their default search worse than trying to profit off affiliate marketing, we really have different views on the world.

>As far as I know that's a lie, did they ever replace ads with blocked ads? Brave ads are text notifications, not banner ads.

That's still hypocrite. You block off every ads on the internet, but still display your own. Your business model is still based on the "watchtime" but you forbid actual content creators to benefit from it. It was the same thing with adblock plus. Having a stance against ads is one thing, relying on them while blocking the whole internet of their revenue is a dick move.

>Which marketing campaign, how are they luring, how are terms ambiguous, please expand.

They accept donations for creators without their consent. It is now clear on the module when a creator has no account yet to receive the tips but at launch it wasn't the case. They lured users into donating and used this money to contact creators and try to leverage the generosity of their community to bring them on board. That's quite a low growth hacking tactic.

Don't worry about my consistency, I think I'm alright.

[hunterb123]

> Sure it wasn't. And if you think having Mozilla getting paid for their default search worse than trying to profit off affiliate marketing, we really have different views on the world.

Google paying Mozilla for search engine referrals is the definition of affiliate marketing. And you can choose to believe it was some plot to sneak through after they reversed it, it's unfounded. Mozilla still doesn't inform the user of their affiliate deal.

(edit: also listen to yourself, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28783639)

> That's still hypocrite. You block off every ads on the internet, but still display your own. Your business model is still based on the "watchtime" but you forbid actual content creators to benefit from it. It was the same thing with adblock plus. Having a stance against ads is one thing, relying on them while blocking the whole internet of their revenue is a dick move.

That's a different accusation after you tried to state your lie. Brave has an opt-in text notification rewards program.

It's common to run ad blockers in other browsers because ads have become so intrusive. Yes you should subscribe, donate, etc. if you frequent a website, but you shouldn't have to view ads against your will.

Brave has that adblocking built in for the user foremost. The rewards network is to allow those who need to block ads to donate to the website owner instead. When you use FireFox and uBlock, you don't have the option if that site owner doesn't have a PayPal etc.

> They accept donations for creators without their consent. It is now clear on the module when a creator has no account yet to receive the tips but at launch it wasn't the case. They lured users into donating and used this money to contact creators and try to leverage the generosity of their community to bring them on board. That's quite a low growth hacking tactic.

> They accept donations for creators without their consent.

If they don't create a wallet and accept the funds are returned to the donor, Brave doesn't keep it.

[Adrig]

That's not referrals and not affiliate marketing, get your definition straight.

When you hear hoofs, think horse, not Zebra. Where have you been the last decades on the internet to rather think it was a "mistake" that could have given them millions of $ instead of a shady move?

I didn't lie once, but I guess you're too worked up on the subject for some reason to see it clearly. By the way, who's using a word salad now? No matter in which order you put it, the system is there. They profit off ads by preventing everyone else do to it, even if they also are unintrusive. You can't seriously pretend to care about an ad-free internet when it's your business model...

The controversy with donations came when they shipped the feature. There was no mention at all that the creator or the website was not affiliated with Brave. Again, shady AF. The system is now way more transparent, but the facts are there. And I personally don't appreciate an op-out system where creators have to willingly deactivate the feature to not be associated with a third-party private entity collecting money in their name.

[hunterb123]

Mozilla is being paid to refer viewers to Google's ad network, what do you call it?

You aren't being genuine. Brave's rewards program is opt-in. The ad blocking is a common thing for a user to do. Brave is not replacing ads.

> The controversy with donations came when they shipped the feature. The system is now way more transparent, but the facts are there.

Yes that seems to be a pattern, momentary overblown outrage about "lack of information" so they have to clarify the facts against the propaganda.

How is a donation system controversial when the funds are returned to the donor if the recipient doesn't collect them?

The "controversy" is clearly artificial. It's this big emotional outrage that doesn't match the facts, followed by short talking points referencing the outrage.

edit: funny enough you defended Mozilla for this exact same affiliates program.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28783639