Hacker News Reader

Comment by ouid | Hacker News Reader

yeah, I'm really looking forward the browser where I can pay to do the things I do now for free.

There are those of us who look forward to exactly that: the ability to own our participation in the content we consume. When you pay for content, you are the customer. When someone else pays for the content, you are the inventory.

Yes, ad blockers work. But they are susceptible to the tragedy of the commons: it's always advantageous to install an ad blocker. Then, as they proliferate, companies must insert more and more intrusive ads. This encourages more people to get ad blockers.

Allowing a tiered economy for content will enable those who wish to pay to do so, and those who don't to see ads. The ads can become less intrusive because the companies are no longer playing a cat-and-mouse game with their inventory. That should decrease the incentive to use an ad blocker, allowing that revenue stream to stabilize.

"When you pay for content, you are the customer. When someone else pays for the content, you are the inventory."

Subscribers to the NYT: are they the customer or the inventory (or product)?

Subscribers to Netflix: are they the customer or the inventory (or product)?

I really don't see why companies wouldn't treat them as both. So many businesses are operating on a subscription model, and still treat their "customers" as databanks ripe for mining and selling to their "real customers": advertisers and other purchasers of user data.

The 21st Century has really become the century of spyware, and I don't see paying for content as a reliable way for consumers to avoid being a target.

Based off a quick glance through Netflix's financial reporting, I'm not thinking they sell your data (https://ir.netflix.com/financials.cfm?CategoryID=282) Although of course they use it internally.

I prefer to think of it as "I'm really looking forward to an Internet that can survive without constantly nagging me for a subscription or running third-party ad code on my computer"

I am hoping there is a market for such a browser. I, for one, would much rather pay for a browser that looks out for my (privacy) interests than use a free browser that does not. But I fall in the boat of people who would also rather pay for a television set that only worked as a television set, and not a behavior tracker. Heck, I would happily pay more to keep that functionality as far away from me as possible.

I, for one, would much rather pay for a browser that looks out for my (privacy) interests than use a free browser that does not.

Doesn't Firefox do all of that already for free? It's FOSS and has a wide range of privacy features baked in including pixel blocking. Adding on ghostery and ublock covers the rest. Seems like the only difference is configuring options on installation.

To add to your comment, Firefox people are working to support anti-fingerprinting protection in the browser.[1]

[1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1329996

It does, as I understand it. I personally use Safari on my Mac, as I prefer the interface (with ghostery, and whatever uBlock is on that platform these days) but... I honestly LIKE paying for things I use. I feel more comfortable with paying for a product as opposed to keeping my fingers crossed that something free will 1) continue to exist/remain free and 2) retain the features I like. I pay for email, I pay for a VPN, I pay for everything I can pay for.

An ad-based model means that content creators have to adhere to what advertisers approve of.

A direct-pay model mean that content creators have to adhere to what their audience approves of.

I know which one I prefer.

I'm certainly willing to pay if it means producers don't have to bug me with patreon links and shitty ads at every opportunity!

But they still will. They'll still have to bug people who don't use brave. You think they're going to recode their sites to recognise brave and hide everything away? You'll get the same experience as you do right now with an ad blocker, except you'll be paying for it while the majority of people don't. And then in a few years brave will go belly up and you'll be out of pocket, and the internet will still be full of intrusive ads

Will this actually cause producers to remove ads? Isn't there just an alternative monetization now? In other words, is there no way for a content producer to 'double dip' and earn from both Brave's payments and ads that work around Brave's ad blockers?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com