|
|
|
|
|
|
by saurik
1050 days ago
|
|
|
You don't care... but Brave cares. The point here is that Brave has been talking up the same user-hostile tech for the same user-hostile reason: to prevent "ad fraud", as they are an ad company, like it or not. ...and, frankly, Brave isn't going to have any choice in implementing Google's plot: the web simply isn't going to work in Brave anymore if they don't, as web pages will just start refusing to give Brave any content. The real issues are the very existence of remote attestation technology and advertisements as a business model / corporate incentive structure; imagine living in a world where we made both of these illegal. |
|
|
We want our SDK (if we manage to build it) by which revenue share is distributed to be tamperproof and used by humans. You don't like this, turn off the BAT support in the SDK-using app, or use a different app.
Contrast this with Google WEI, which proposes that web pages (esp. the big ones, including Google's) can do this to all browser users, who get zero revshare, just battery draining ad-tech requests and malvertising risk.
See the difference? I have said openly that I'm a fan of Secure Remote Attestation but it has to be opt-in and user-first. WEI as a tool for Chrome supremacy on the browser side and Google on the ad-tech side is pretty much the opposite.