Well that's not my twitter (nice dox attempt) but since that poster didn't know the history and is here on HN, I've got some links wrt ad replacement [1] and the shadow accounts + tipping where you don't know you aren't even notified you received money until you break a certain threshold and if you don't claim it within a certain amount of time it gets "recycled" back into the growth pool [2] conversation.
I did mention that Brave "fixes" these issues when the public inevitably freaks out, but it's still worth noting the pattern of intent.
However, the days when we could install some plugins and tweak a few settings to restore our privacy are, unfortunately, pretty much over. There’s only so much a plugin can do when it doesn’t have access to the core APIs of the rendering engine or the network stack.
As long as Google and Firefox are incentivized to make money by ads, user tracking and all of the rest, they won’t stop.
Long story short: the business model of the web has to change from one where the default state is to monetize the invasion of our privacy to one where we can control who gets to advertise to us and that our attention is valuable; we should be paid for it.
In short, that’s what the Brave browser is all about: https://brave.com/com465. By default, it blocks ads, tracking scripts, fingerprinting and 3rd party cookies in such a way that most pages don’t break. It even blocks those cryptocurrency mining scripts that some sites like Salon are using: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/14/salon-disable-ad-blocker-or-....
Brave allows you to pay content creators with a cryptocurrency called Basic Attention Token (BAT) based on the amount of time spent on their sites or as a percentage of a monthly contribution. BAT is based on the Ethereum token standard.
Later this year, Brave users will be able to opt-in to getting paid to watch high quality, relevant ads if they wish. How? By using zero knowledge proofs, Brave can show you these ads without leaking your personal information, based on your browsing history, that never leaves your machine.
Be aware: Brave is in beta; it’s not done yet. It’s based on Chromium but the rest of the tech is under heavy development. It has come a long way in the 3-4 months I’ve been using it regularly. And there are lots of good things in store, including Tor on a per-tab basis, which I’m looking forward to: https://github.com/brave/browser-laptop/wiki/Brave-Tor-Suppo...
Brave runs on macOS, Windows, Linux, iOS and Android; even if Brendan Eich of Javascript and Mozilla fame weren’t involved, I’d feel this is the spiritual successor to Firefox: https://brave.com/com465.
Come on. This is just another One of these articles that have something in the title and then seem to somehow randomly get to Brave (affiliates?). Firefox has excellent tracking and privacy control features both on desktop and mobile, before you even install ad blockers. Brave is a privacy risk, not a solution, as shown recently and was perceived from the start.
I'd like to point out that Brave never has replaced ads on websites, only blocked them, and in the future will only replace ads on websites whose owner explicitly signed up to let Brave replace their ads. This comment from the Community Manager lays out reasonably well why they're using this model https://www.reddit.com/r/BATProject/comments/8j4uiy/fud_from...
Brave is just crypto adware, they even went so far as to automatically append crypto exchange referral codes to urls [0]
Funded by Palantir Technologies by the way [1]
Their ad rewards system analyses and modifies the original webcontent, replacing existing ads with their own (and who knows what other code they inject) [2]
Then there's their hidden tracker URL whitelist [3]
But the witchunt and purge of Brendan Eich. For love of diversity and civility, can't use Firefox.
Try http://brave.com instead. They're actually developing a way to democratize ad revenue so that it is directed back straight to creators themselves. Innovative, hopeful solution for a salient long-term problem that everyone else seems to be throwing their hands in the air and shrugging over.
Brave's "Basic Attention Token" was described as replacing ads on websites with ads from Brave's own ad network[0], which I recall is a common practice among adware to go unnoticed on an infected user's machine. The homepage of the Basic Attention Token completely fails to mention that it blocks publisher's "genuine" ads and replaces it with their own ads[1].
On top of that Brave has seemingly no interest in asking for consent for this practice, while also going as far as to use people's names and photos to solicit donations to them, without those people even being aware that Brave is accepting money for them[2].
Now I believe the ad-replacement feature is opt-in, but I'm not willing to install Brave and go through the opt-in flow to determine if it goes through the proper steps in explaining that the Brave Ad money may never reach its intended recipient.
AdNauseum is one of the most harmful things you can do against ads.
Perhaps, but someone is still getting paid; it doesn’t matter if a human actually sees the ad or not. As long as someone gets paid, it incentives more ads and the violation of users’ privacy.
I think a better approach is to disrupt the whole online ad market as it currently exists, which is what Brendan Eich with the Basic Attention Token and the Brave browser intend to do.
I'd like to respond, as a developer on the Brave project. We don't simply replace ads with other ads. The entire ad landscape has been co-opted by those who aim to collect as much data about you as is possible.
Over 600 million devices were running some form of ad-blocking software in 2017, and that was an increase of 30% from the year prior. This number keeps growing, year over year. Something has to be done.
Users who come to Brave are already blocking ads. They understand the risk involved in letting third-party software collect information about them, their person, their browsing habits, and more. Further, the risk of drive-by downloads is on the rise (or the growing popularity of crypto-jacking).
Brave blocks ads and trackers for safety and privacy reasons. But we are not so naive to miss the impact this has on well-meaning publishers. This is why we created the User Growth Pool, and the Brave Payments system. Every month we pour hundreds of thousands of dollars back into the pockets of content creators by way of BAT (Basic Attention Token) grants, distributed freely to users of the Brave browser.
But grants won't last forever, something sustainable has be erected in place of the incumbent digital advertising system. This is where Brave Ads comings into play.
For users who opt in, Brave can deliver better quality ads, without the risk of personal data leakage. We do this by using local machine-learning to understand the user better, and making local decisions as to which ads should or should not be shown, and when (the user controls all of this). Furthermore, the user gets 70% of the ad revenue for browser-private ads.
When you consider the amount of money lost to digital ad fraud each year (over $20,000,000,000 I believe), you can see how the Brave system would lead to a much better, and more sustainable future for the web.
We're not simply replacing ads. We're rescuing an industry.
See my later edits to those comments, wherein I shared an example from another user in this thread accusing Brave of in-situ ad-replacement. That is usually the claim being made (first seen in 2016, and refusing to die since).
Brave is definitely working hard to replace that which doesn't work on the Web, advertising being one such thing. We're pushing for a model that is based on consent, equity, and an a priori commitment to privacy (don't touch the user's data). If we can successfully replace (however you wish to interpret that) Google with such a model, then I'm content
> Brave will replace blocked ads with its own ads, taking a 15% cut of revenues.
> In practice, Brave just sounds like a cash-grab. Brave isn't just a glorified adblocker: after removing ads from a webpage, Brave then inserts its own programmatic ads. It sounds like these ads will be filled by ad networks that work with Brave directly, and Brave will somehow police these ads to make sure they're less invasive/malevolent than the original ads that were stripped out. In exchange, Brave will take a 15 percent cut of the ad revenue. Instead of using tracking cookies that follow you around the Internet, Brave will use your local browsing history to target ads.
I don't use brave myself, but I appreciate that it's actually taking serious efforts trying to fix the problem of ads. I'm kind of a little surprise hn seems to be so blind to this issue, considering the number of people here who are employed by companies that literally live off of ads. If ads are bad and annoying (which most here would agree they are) but I still want to support certain websites (because some websites produce good content that I value), there's no convenient way to do that right now outside of allowing ads on that website, which is not particularly desirable. Brave seems to be the only one seriously trying to address that.
Do you know of any other major effort being put into alternative (convenient) mechanisms for monetization? I'd be interested in looking into it if you do, since I don't use brave (Firefox has too many useful features to me).
> Or invent a system by which 10% of the ad revenue gets cut out to the end user.
Brendan Eich is trying to do exactly this with the Brave browser [0]. Although it is a ways away, he wants to cut out the adware middlemen and give users a portion of the revenue for ads which they view, perhaps with some sort of opt-in "watch this video and earn $x" model in which the video content is tailored to you through (local, private) browsing history analysis.
If you are interested, Software Engineering Daily recently did an interview with him about the topic:
Brave is, at the end of the day, in the same boat as Google: they make money on ads. They also happen to be an ad blocker, so, of course, they won't implement WEI... but, as they also themselves present ads and need to make sure people don't block their ads while claiming to have seen them--which is trivial to do currently, btw--their product managers and even Brendan Eich himself had often laid out a roadmap that involves trusted computing technology with the same ad fraud justification Google is using, whether for their SDK or the browser itself.
> 1/ native C++/Rust code, no JS tags on page that have zero integrity. That means ability to use SGX/TrustZone to check integrity and develop private user score from all sensor inputs in the enclave; ...
> We already have to deal w/ fraud. That is inherent in any system with users and revenue shares or grants. We do it better via C++ and (under way) SGX or TrustZone integrity checking + OS sensor APIs, vs today’s antifraud scripts that are routinely fooled.
> What Brave offers that's far better than today's joke of an antifraud system for ads is as follows: 1/ integrity-checked open source native code, which cannot be fooled by other JS on page; ... (1) requires SGX or ARM equivalent, widespread on mobile.
> Part of the roadmap (details in update) is a BAT SDK. Obviously it would be open source, but more: we would require Secure Remote Attestation (Intel SGX broken but ARM TrustZone as used by Trustonic may be ok) to prove integrity of the SDK code in app.
I did mention that Brave "fixes" these issues when the public inevitably freaks out, but it's still worth noting the pattern of intent.
[1] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/01/mozil...
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18734999
reply