Last time I looked at Brave, it was replacing some served ads with its own ads. I do not think that's ok.
Now for Brave, their incentive is to maximize profits just like any other ad broker. This is not necessarily aligned with my interests as a user. I get their theory, I just worry about how this works out in practice. To trust Brave, I have to believe they will never get greedy and never relax their privacy or security standards, even if these interfere with profit-making. That's a big ask. I would be tempted, too.
I also have concerns about 'malvertising', which has affected many high-profile sites who employ world-class security teams. They haven't been able to stop malware infecting their users via ads.
Admittedly this whole comment is pure FUD but that's just it - I am not certain Brave is the answer, and the easiest thing for me to do is keep using an open-source browser with an ad-blocker. Bonus, I'm using NoScript and have a gigabit FTTH connection and let me tell you, the web is lightning fast!
Good luck Brave team, but I don't think I am your target demographic.
Not according to copyright law. Just because you have a computer (with a browser) doesn't give you the right to do what you want with someone else's content.
Once you send information out into the world. you DONT own it. Real ownership is the ability to exert control over something. Divulged information cannot be controlled by the original source.
"Once you send information out into the world. you DONT own it."
This sounds like someone who believes that if something comes up in a Google image search, it's free game for anyone to use.
Your variation of the old "if you don't like it why don't you just move" argument is the more childish response.
Besides, enforcing this intellectual property racket is paid for by my tax dollars. Lets call those "contributions" to the cause my dues.
"This sounds like someone who believes that if something comes up in a Google image search, it's free game for anyone to use."
Exactly. You imply that it is written in stone that ip is a sacred thing. Not everyone agrees.
Copyright itself isn't a contractual agreement, even though a SaaS TOS may lay out copyright agreements. Websites typically list their copyright publicly, and claiming negligence (typically) isn't considered a valid defense to infringement.
Am I allowed to scribble in a book that I bought? Rip out the pages?
Your response speaks to the insanity people have become accustomed to in IP law.
Unless it's for fair use, you can't photocopy your textbook, for example. I think you may just be learning about the nuances of intellectual property for the first time.
According to US law, I am also allowed to make copies for personal use, and several other "fair use" cases, absolutely regardless of licenses.
Precisely. Simply owning a book doesn't mean "I can do anything I want to it".
The same applies to copyright material online - just because you own a computer doesn't mean you own the intellectual property on it. You're free to scribble on your computer case though.
You can do anything you want to the physical book. You can scribble in it, tear pages out, burn it. There is no question that this is the case.
What you cannot do is copy, redistribute, etc. the book.
The same ought to be true of web pages.
Imagine a scenario where a replaced ad actually degraded the website's performance more so than the website's own ads, which is not all that far-fetched, and users end up blaming the website for having crappy ads.
Additionally, what if Google and Mozilla started doing that with their browsers, would you still be okay with it?
Aside from that, I don't think the "my device, my choice" adblock arguments go here. I think it's pretty obviously immoral.
YOU have NO right to determine what I do with it after you send it to me. It is pointless to think that rules regarding that can be enforced anyways. To me that is the reality of the situation, its like we are debating if gravity should pull us down or not.
Edit: for civility (with lack of sleep as the excuse).
What if the site's TOS made you explicitly agree not to block ads (not in a hidden legalese way but with clear UX)? Would that change your calculus?
What if the site owner was a friend of yours, and asked you personally not to block ads? Would that?
I've gone off topic, but the point is, if the ad-supported business model is failing, that's a problem for business to solve, not pleas to my "morality".
> Well, if they made me register an account and agree to a ToS, I think it changes things. [...] But if it's publicly available, like a blog post, I don't see how you can place any restrictions on me.
What if there was no authentication mechanism, but just a heartfelt request in the text of the content which asked you kindly to whitelist that site in your ad blocker?
What if they didn't explicitly request it, but you simply know that that's what they would want?
What I'm trying to get at with these questions is this idea that web users are freed from the obligations of fairness and honest dealings due to the technical mechanisms of the internet.
I think what many adtech companies have done is immoral. Excessive data use, tracking, distraction, and so on. But that's my opinion. Whose really in the "right" here? Does it matter? A new model will have to emerge, or at least a tweaked one. The adtech industry destroyed trust and angered people, thus motivating people to find a solution. Now businesses are springing up, like Brave, to solve the issue.
Can you outlaw ad blocking? No. Can you force me to use a certain web browser? No. So what are you going to do about it? Whine on HN about unethical assholes like me? I think innovation and creativity will have to crack the nut.
The technology to implement a paywall is well established, and while it may be annoying to have wasted time making the request, I'd simply learn to ignore certain domains. If that becomes unmanageable, I'd look for, or write, something to filter the blacklisted domains.
I already do this for forbes.com and Wired, among a few others, and my life is not measurably poorer as a result. It's a slight annoyance that Google, for example, returns these sites in my search results. Perhaps I should campaign the major search engines to implement custom filters for me.
Really, I don't care much if the current ad-fueled ecosystem of adutorial content and click-bait thrives on the Internet, as long as I don't have to see it.
Imagine going to a car lot and having a salesman walk up and say "our TOS say by walking onto a lot you have to buy something, you owe us. Didn't you read them? they are behind that dumpster over there duh. Its on page 53 paragraph 10"
Its really shady to link to some other resource on your domain in small print that is full of legal mumbo jumbo and pretend that constitutes any real agreement between you and somebody else. And yes I understand that all those Judges and lawyers who make a living off of making this crap up disagree with me.
For what ifs - What if you sending me a document without charge or explicitly asking for payment first did not imply that I "have" to download some other document that will annoy me and possible infect my computer.
So, is "if you're going to use my website, don't block ads" absurd? I don't think so, and if it's not then your comment is irrelevant to this discussion.
I'm not trying to create a law, I'm trying to discuss whether the individual ad block user bears any moral or ethical responsibility to the content provider. The argument offered here implies their interaction with the content host exists in a completely neutral moral plane because it's mediated by technology. I'm not convinced.