Which is funny considering that Brave is a for profit company and nearly all of their money comes from displaying ads. It's popular for blocking a thing that the company needs to survive, while not caring about all the websites they block ads on.
Brave blocks all ads and provides its own "ad platform" which basically means that they curate what ads you will see. I fail to see how their model could fix what is wrong with facebook or google.
Brave is unethical. The key problem is they insert themselves into the revenue stream without the consent of the web publishers. It's fine to block ads entirely, but substituting your own ads and collecting money from that is wrong.
You don't have a right to show ads to users. (The CFAA actually works in consumers' favor here: circumventing a user's adblocker is just as much of a crime as hacking into a server.) You do have a right to refuse service to users with adblockers, but to my knowledge Brave doesn't interfere with sites that do this - I still can't get past the paywalls on WSJ/NYTimes/Bloomberg.
I'm not sure I agree, I run Brave with the standard ad blocking (agressive on Youtube though) and it has been smooth sailing, no ads. What's wrong with Brave's ad blocker according to you?
reply