Only by the strictest definition of swap. They block ads and show ads from their own ad network, which they collect revenue on. That the Brave ads don't appear in the same place as the blocked ads doesn't impact the ethics of it.
This line about 'swapping ads with their own' has been an attempt to imply in the reader's mind that Brave was / is nefariously replacing actual ads with their own, which is not true.
The truth is Brave blocks all ads by default, and nothing more.
Do you believe it's ethical for a user agent to block ads, or that it's unethical and a form of theft?
I'm with gorhill of uBlock on this [1]:
That said, it's important to note that using a blocker is NOT theft.
Don't fall for this creepy idea.
The ultimate logical consequence of blocking = theft is the criminalisation of the inalienable right to privacy.
The ethics around this are clear:
* if a user wishes to opt-out of an insecure, fraudulent and privacy-harming ad-tech ecosystem for content on the open web that is their right
* if that same user wants to opt-in to a privacy-respecting alternative ad model which operates in a very different way, that's also their right
Attempting to claim the combination of these optional user choices is 'ad swapping' in a nefarious, unethical sense is simply dishonest.
A more accurate phrase considering the individual user choices involved might be 'model swapping'.
As a user I deliberately choose to swap the current ad-tech model with a new, innovative model. That model may have to evolve, but from a technical and human perspective appears to be much better than the current status quo.
> Attempting to claim the combination of these optional user choices is 'ad swapping' in a nefarious, unethical sense is simply dishonest.
...
(For the benefit of anyone else on mobile who finds HN's quotation style unpleasant, here is the gorhill quote:
"That said, it's important to note that using a blocker is NOT theft.
Don't fall for this creepy idea.
The ultimate logical consequence of blocking = theft is the criminalisation of the inalienable right to privacy. ")
Code blocks are definitely not HN's quotation style and not recommended for quotes. They are often used for that purpose by mistake. It is an understandable mistake considering the lack of formatting options here.
A common quotation style that works on all devices is what I used above, a leading '>' followed by the quoted text enclosed in asterisks, like this (with code formatting here to show the special characters):
> *For the benefit...*
> *Blank line between paragraphs*Can somebody expand a bit on how the ads are shown in privacy-respecting way? Are they not personalized? That seems unlikely.
If the matching is done locally, is Brave downloading hundreds of ads on the device, and then showing only the one that were picked by local ML algorithm?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20831014
For convenience, I'll also quote it here:
> The user opts-in to Brave Rewards/Ads. This kicks off a machine-learning model that begins to study the user's habits and interests.
> On a daily basis, the user downloads a regional ad catalog (as to other Brave users in their region). This catalog contains numerous ad options, which your device studies for relevance.
> If/when your device identifies an ad within the catalog that might be of interest to you, it displays the ad as an OS notification. At this time, 70% of the ad revenue is deposited into your in-situ wallet.
> At this point, the user has made absolutely no contact with an advertiser. If the user chooses to click on the ad, it is opened in its own tab in the Brave Browser. This tab, like all others, is subject to Brave's default security/privacy settings. No third party trackers, etc.
> The advertiser will know that you are interested in their product/service, because you clicked the ad. But no other information about you is given to them; only what can be inferred from standard first-party browsing online.
It's ethical if the user chooses to do so due to privacy concerns or other related reasons.
It is NOT ethical if the maker of the user-agent is profiting from it, being essentially copyright infringement.
Projects like uBlock Origin are very different from Brave, because the company behind Brave directly profits from blocking ads. Without ads and ads blocking, Brave doesn't have a business.
Thus it is ethically justifiable to block ads on the grounds that we should come up with a monetisation model for content that is not ads. Blocking ads and then offering your own ads is not ethically justifiable in the above context (and in fact is a bit tacky). Personally opting to replace ads with different ads is also not ethically justifiable in the above context (and is a bit defeatist). It's nice that the replacement ads pay you money, but this is unrelated to the ethical argument (and obviously the advertiser comes out ahead even in this scenario, because otherwise they wouldn't run the ads).
If you agree, how would you disrupt the existing ad models in an effective way?
And in what way is it unethical for that same company to provide the service, which I desire, of blocking ads that I've already decided I don't want to see, because the people serving me those ads are violating my privacy?
Many people seem fixated on trying to frame this in the most disparaging way possible, which distracts from the reality of what is actually happening here.