Expecting those people to pay up is a pipe dream.
If Brave was fair it would enable publishers to block visitors who don't pay.
Why is it fair to block ads, but unfair to block visitors?
Because the original idea behind the web was "Use your client to view content", meaning that you as a publisher publishes the content, users chose how to digest/view it. Hence browsers are "user-agents".
Users should be able to decide how they want to view the content, that's why we have user css files that override website styling. Blocking visitors depending on how they chose to view the content, is unfair as you have published it on the internet, signalling you're fine with people using their user-agents to digest it.
Edit: Just to be clear, I'm actually not against ad blocking. In fact, I use an ad blocker myself. I just think it's hypocritical to expect it to be okay to block ads without also accepting that sites can choose not to serve you (sometimes at their own business peril).
Ad blocking is not like paywall circumvention. Ad and (what Brave does, don't misdirect or let others who get paid to whitelist ads while not blocking trackers, notably Eyeo who owns AdBlock Plus) tracker blocking is allowed by design of the Web standards, and entails no effective access control mechanism to circumvent.
Script blocking in general is a good idea. Signed, creator of JS.
Signed, an average developer.
I get what you mean: either side of the protocol can do what it wants. Also that the publisher has to cover costs via ads or some kind of payment for content, if they aren’t compensated otherwise (separate business on the side; donations).
But your wording was too broad, as it equates (“no different”) blocking content in browsers, which is allowed by design of web standards for accessibility and any reason the user wishes, and blocking via a server side subscription paywall.
But that wasn’t my point. My point was that Adblock existed before brave because publishers+advertises got stupid greedy and made the UX of their users terrible.
Brave wouldn’t exist without the idiocy of those two first.
If you scanned, tracked, and dealt information about visitors to your home, visitors would cease to visit or would defend themselves. If you did this scanning and tracking as a naive proxy, it would be worse.
If I visit your home, you have an interest in receiving me and/or I have an interest in visiting you. The WWW was designed for visiting and sharing.
The advertising surveillance system has become an evil economic anti-pattern that the publishers (in most cases) do not understand and do not control. It is not like printed publicity in its effect. I can choose to read a page or skip it without further risk to me, and my purchase of the publication supported its workers.
If we visit a Web site explicitly (not through re-direct), it is a sign that we are interested in the content. If the site inflicts an unwanted data collection on visitors, people will choose to defend themselves.
In the end, you will discourage people from visiting. This may not be what you want. It certainly is not what T Berners-Lee envisaged.
That's my point. Expecting these users to pay a fee is a pipe dream. It's their sport to get everything they can for free. They have no empathy for content creators.
If a site wants to block people who block ads, and take the resulting hit to their traffic/rank/"SEO", that's fair enough too.
Go ahead and do it. You will quickly find out how much your quality content is really worth.