[carlosjobim]

The browser has a built in ad blocker, effectively removing the ads that pay for a website. To then put your own ads _anywhere_ after that and pretend that you're helping website owners is a scam. Imagine if YouTube started blocking sponsored content and put their own ads there.

[svieira]

Brave removes unsolicited advertisements and trackers. That is a feature of the browser and is effectively the same as shipping older versions of Chrome with a bundled version of µblockOrigin.

Separately (probably not in "planning how to make Brave a profitable company", but definitely so in feature scope) IFF the user opts-in to seeing Brave's ads then they get paid (in a crypto-token that represents a unit of "Attention"). They then can choose to offer those tokens to web sites (either as one-time "tips" or by giving the site a certain percentage of the tokens the user earns over the course of a month, possibly based on the total percentage of time the user spent with the site over the course of the same month.)

This latter feature is attempting to create a parallel economy to the ad-supported industry, not a scam (unless they don't believe they can create such an economy and are just trying to fleece-the-suckers, but I don't think that's the case).

[Analemma_]

The problem is that each of these steps seems fine in isolation but the net result is that websites get (and feel) ripped off. If I sat directly outside the printing press of a newspaper, intercepted each printed copy, ripped out all the ads and put in my own instead and took a cut of the resulting revenue, everyone would understand that's a problem.

I've seen Brave apologists say for years going "no, really, it's not ripping you off!" to people who feel ripped off, to basically zero effect at changing hearts and minds. At some point you have to accept the reality that people aren't going to be won over by "logical" explanations of why someone who seems like they're obviously ripping them off actually isn't.

[carlosjobim]

If a browser blocks the website owner's ads and put their own ads instead, then they are leeching on the work of other people and also profitting from it.

There is a saying "You can't fool an honest man", and it holds true for this situation as well. If the browser would just block legitimate ads and put their own ads and take all the money themselves, then hackers would riot. But since they say they are sharing the profits with users, many people will turn a blind eye to such unethical behaviour. Because people are base.

[PretzelPirate]

You're now making a different argument: it's unethical for an ad blocker to have their own ads?

Why is that? I don't like ads on websites because they track me, slow down loading times, use my data, etc... So I'd like to block them because they're forced on me in the modern web. This ad blocker gives me control of whether I want to see any ads, how often I want to see them, and takes measures to prevent tracking. That seems like freedom and user-friendly behavior.

The fact that the ad blocker doesn't keep all ad revenue is another bonus and I can choose whether I alone earn money from seeing ads that run on my machine, or if I share some of that with creators I appreciate seems like another level of freedom.

I'm not seeing a downside. I can opt out of the ads altogether if I choose. I can even choose to not block ads that aren't trying to exploit me.

[carlosjobim]

You are not seeing any downside because you are only thinking about yourself. Somebody made the website that you are visiting and enjoying. They spent time, effort, and maybe some money to make it. And they get paid by ads to keep access free. Now, I know hackers will come screaming about how their human rights are violated by seeing an ad on a webpage. Okay, block the ads then. But for a business to block the ads of other companies and then put their own ads. If you don't see how that is wrong, then I don't know.

[EGreg]

Just out of curiosity, why are so many people on HN who are against crypto-based payment systems and decentralized networks (always using shibboleths like “scam” and “ponzi”) at the same time so totally for the equally “ponzi” model of advertisers supporting free sites via giant centralized brokers? Most advertisers quickly find out that the ad money is wasted and only the slickest and most misleading campaigns win, same as the meme tokens. Clicks and visits can be astroturfed same as fake volume of crypto.

But what makes the ad supported model far worse than crypto is the dystopian centralized control, system of incentives and Surveillance Capitalism that always grows up around it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance_capitalism

[carlosjobim]

You're letting your imagination run. I'm not the slightest against crypto. I'm not against people using adblockers and I'm strongly against advertisement online and in other media. But the website owner also needs a chance to be reimbursed for his labour and put food on the table. If he choses to do so with ads, that is his right.

Because people do not donate, even to stuff they love and use a lot. For a company to block those legitimate ads and then put their own, while pretending they are helping website owners - that's a scam. And nobody would swallow it unless it came with the promise of sharing some scam money with the users.

I'm for a free speech internet where users pay a cheap and fair price to creators for content, that's a much better model than ads – and it is probably the future for any quality content.

[kerkeslager]

A lot of HN works in industries which benefit from advertising. It's motivated reasoning.

In general, HN users can be trusted to take the side of corporations over humans in the vast majority of situations.

EDIT: Downvoting without giving reasoning just lends further credence to my point that their views are based in selfishness rather than reasoning. ;)

[carlosjobim]

No need to sugar coat it. If that's what you really think, then write it clearly: "Hey guys! Hey my fellow hackers! That poster is a... is a... CORPORATE SHILL!"

[kerkeslager]

That's not what I really think.

Most of my audience aren't hackers, at least not in the sense I think you mean.

And the poster is likely not a corporate shill. "Shill" has connotations of undisclosed association and intentional deception, neither of which are things I'm accusing anyone of. I don't think there's any reasonable expectation of disclosing associations on a pseudonymous forum. And I don't think most posters here are being intentionally being deceptive--they probably believe what they're saying, as most people will go through great mental calisthenics to believe what they're doing isn't harmful.

The late-stage capitalist ideologies held by much of this forum are extremely harmful, but I don't need to accuse people of malicious intent to say that. People can intend the best and do great harm.

[yreg]

Yes, to me this combination is pretty unethical. Similarly, I don't mind piracy, but I find it distasteful to pay for pirated content.

[kerkeslager]

> You're now making a different argument: it's unethical for an ad blocker to have their own ads?

This is a straw man. It's not unethical, it's nonsensical. If you serve ads you aren't an ad blocker, you're an advertiser.

> This ad blocker gives me control of whether I want to see any ads, how often I want to see them, and takes measures to prevent tracking.

Pretty much every ad blocker gives you control of whether you want to see any ads, and how often. Whitelists exist that allow some ads, they just don't get much use because outside of the out-of-touch HN bubble, very few people actually want to see any ads.

The difference is that other ad blockers are obviously more trustworthy because they aren't also in bed with advertisers.

> I can even choose to not block ads that aren't trying to exploit me.

More nonsense. "Trying to exploit you" is literally the purpose of advertising.