Hacker News Reader

I've heard that as well, but haven't heard Brave's side of it.

Not defending it in anyway. but strategically I feel like Brave should take the money, and just email the creator every 3 months saying you have X amount of money you can claim. Of course, if Brave is just profiting this money that's pretty shitty.

View on HN

Even if they do that, it isn't right. They are removing ads and thus revenue from content creators. They have no right to do that and then skim some profit before paying out. And even if they did, they have no way of knowing if what they are paying is more or less than what the creator would have gotten had their content not been modified.

They have the same right a website has to show me ads.

I don't click on links to be advertised to.

Wait, why should brave get to throw its own ads on example.com? If the little fish and big fish were swapped, would you say the same if Chrome had an [opt-in] box for replacing all non-google ads with doubleclick ones?

I wasn't clear. Both are unethical in my view, even if one is widely practiced.

No, but you can always ignore those ads or not click on the sites that serve them.

But in the case of Brave, they are essentially modifying the producers content without their consent.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com