Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by X6S1x6Okd1st | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

X6S1x6Okd1st

There are a couple companies that are working in that space:

https://datacoup.com/

https://datawallet.com/#protect

A more detailed reddit thread about them:

https://www.reddit.com/r/beermoney/comments/8btjah/16_passiv...

View on HN

I am quite interested in the BAT (Basic Attention Token) project. Using the Brave browser you can either block ads normally or choose to view Brave ads, and the difference with Brave ads is that the viewer gets paid--- in tokens, that is. They can then use the accumulated BAT tokens to send micropayments to platforms and content that they like or peruse frequently. Pretty cool incentive system. And Brave is a really nice browser, at least for mobile.

I use the brave browser in mobile but have everything blocked. Where can I learn more depth about this?

Yeah, but it begs the question, why would anyone want BAT tokens?

AFAIK, you can't even withdraw the tokens currently. The idea being, you use the BAT tokens to send micropayments to your favorite sites, and then they can do plenty of things--- re-use that BAT to advertise, cash it out via fiat gateway, etc.

So maybe in the future we accept payment upfront for our privacy or through incideously free services.

I believe you meant insidiously? Not sure why you make it sound so sinister.

Right word. A world where you may have no privacy and must choose how it is sold (directly, indirectly) is insidious.

Your phrasing is rather off then. Your original statement was that we might perhaps, in the future, accept payment upfront for our privacy (whatever that might mean--are we getting paid for our data or for our privacy?) or that we'd be paid through insidiously free services. So ... how are these insidiously free services paying us? In features? More specifically, because of your phrasing, how are they paying us in this potential future for our privacy?

Your clarification here makes your intention far clearer than your original comment did. It doesn't look like you're concerned with how we might be paid; instead, you're attempting to shine a light on the problem of being paid for our personal data / intruding on our privacy at all. Am I parsing you correctly now?

The new meta is no one has privacy. The default state of the internet invades your privacy. Period. So maybe down the road we’ll still have no privacy. But we can opt to sell it wholesale, all at once, instead of being lured into divulging it.

You’d be selling personally authentic data as opposed to noisy metrics. I don’t know what good the marketers would provide you. Possibly free services (email) sans trackers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com