[carlosjobim]

I don't hate Brave, but blocking legitimate ads and then putting in their own ads is a racket.

> Creators also don’t get “a” cut. Brave gives 70% of earnings on ads to users, and those can then decide how much they reward to the creators of whatever content they consume.

Ie, creators are offered a cut - in a roundabout way.

[jorvi]

It is not a racket when the website owners are mass-injecting trackers and security risks into my browser. Some egregious pages have 700+ (!!) ad partners.

Hell, it is the opposite of a racket because other adblockers / adblocking people pay zilch. That is the racket. Any BAT user is a +70% gain.

I’ll pay you. I won’t compromise my devices for you.

[carlosjobim]

OK, even if we say that the ads from the website creator are not legitimate, it doesn't make the ads from brave legitimate.

Try to think about this from the perspective of another person instead of yourself.

Or think about this comparison: I own a bar where I sell drinks to the general public. Then some businessman comes in, throws out my bar staff and starts selling his own drinks to the guests, and offers 10% of revenue to me. Is that fair and honest? Who was the legitimate drink seller and who wasn't? Now you can say that alcohol is bad for your health and shouldn't be sold at all, and that you as a customer don't care. But it is very clear who is legit and who isn't.

[jorvi]

> Or think about this comparison: I own a bar where I sell drinks to the general public. Then some businessman comes in, throws out my bar staff and starts selling his own drinks to the guests, and offers 10% of revenue to me.

Which is a completely wrong comparison.

- You own a bar (website) and serve drinks (ads) to the general public.

- A large subset of your visitors decides they like the atmosphere of the bar, but whenever you try to sell them a drink, they refuse to order one. Alcohol is bad, they claim, and since you aren't offering non-alcoholic drinks, they've decided its moral to not order anything and enjoy your bar for free.

- An enterprising individual (Brave) recognizes the plight of both the bar owner and the customers. They surreptitiously serve non-alcoholic drinks (clean ads) to the bothersome customers.

- They sell the drinks at 70% discount, and strongly suggest to the customers to generously tip with the net gain of money, to ensure the continued existence of the bar they enjoy so much.

Brave isn't turning non-adblocking visitors into adblocking visitors. Its converting adblocking visitors into revenue-generating visitors.

[carlosjobim]

Like I suspected, you unfortunately don't have the capacity to see things from another persons perspective. That's normal, that's how most people are. The only way you could understand would be if you yourself had to make a living from ad-supported creativity. Until then, you will not be capable of understanding. Or you've effectively used sophistry enough in life to make it a habit. But everybody sees through it.

This is the reason why corruption is so rampant in the world. People skip the line to get healthcare by bribing an official. They think it's right, because they only look for their own interests. The bribe-taking official is an "enterprising individual".

The creators of Brave skillfully use this egotism of users to make them accept and even defend their illicit practices. "Oh, I get free money, then I like it". If they were honest about their business they would distribute their ad money to creators without going through the user, but which user would then enable their illicit ads?

Blocking ads as a user is completely different. Nobody makes money by blocking ads for themselves.

[jorvi]

> Like I suspected, you unfortunately don't have the capacity to see things from another persons perspective.

No, you're just an arrogant piece of work without an ounce of self-reflection in him. Bye.

[rglullis]

There is nothing "legitimate" about ads that track me and that I would block anyway.