Wasn't this related to YouTube channels? I remember Tom Scott complaining about it on Twitter.
While the browser probably shouldn't ask users if they want to donate to people that haven't joined Brave Rewards, the money is returned to the sender (up to 3 months later, I believe) if the creator doesn't join Brave Rewards. It's not like they stole donations.
> they have secretely added affiliate links
They did that with some crypto sites when typing the keyword/URL in the search bar. I can't defend the decision, but the code is on Github[0] and they admitted doing it as soon people pointed it out. And then reverted the change.
I'm not sure what to think about this monetisation strategy. What's the downside for users? Is it worse than generating revenue by selling the default search engine to the highest bidder? And why is it wrong for browsers to do it but it's fine when some search engines do it?
---
0. https://github.com/brave/brave-core/blob/1cac2377c9a2d5e3587...
I use Brave Rewards (as a website owner) and never had any issues. I receive BAT, convert it to my local currency, and then transfer it to my bank account. That's money I would never receive because it comes from users that block ads.
Okay boomer... Seriously people, ease up on the hyperbole and approach this with a little perspective. Sure, Brendan Eich != Mother Theresa, but its not like he is claiming to be! He is just another bloke with some good ideas and some not so good ideas, trying to be successful (and honestly doing a pretty good job of it).
Sure, Brave has made some mistakes along the way and it is right to call them out on it. Stuff like secret affiliate links is not great from a transparency perspective, but it is also not really hostile or harmful to Brave users. Plus, let the record show that corrective action was taking when Brave was called out.
I am not saying we should all "trust" Brave any more that other companies (do your research and come to your own conclusions), but lets not pretend that the folks at Google or anywhere else are really any more trustworthy.
(Lastly, I am sorry if cryptocurrency makes you uncomfortable, but that does not change the fact that it is a really effective way to provide a low-friction method of exchanging value (e.g. micro-transactions). IDK if the BAT is the future of ad-tech, but I applaud them for trying to find new methods of monetization that don't involve directly harming users and their privacy...)
I've been using Brave for about a year now and am really happy with it. I love paying creators directly and just wish more creators would sign up for the rewards.
ps. I know, I know. Brave's ads are unobtrusive, they don't track you, they donate crypto to the sites, etc. etc. It doesn't change the underlying emotional response a lot of people seem to have to their business model.
Brave doesn't do this so that's a plus.
Accusations of stealing are pretty foul. Please can we keep the discussion focused on the facts?
The blocking of ads and trackers has been taking place for years; long before Brave came along (in it was happening when Netscape released the NPAPI back in the mid-90s).
Content Creators and Publishers, who make the Web enjoyable for us, rely on third-party advertising models which engage in data-harvesting and attention-auctioning without explicit user consent.
Brave helps protect users from harmful ads and trackers (which not only harvest data, but deliver malicious bits in return), while offering a model whereby users can anonymously support publishers by way of privacy-respecting ads.
Brave Ads are matched on-device, using local access to data. When you view an ad, 70% of the associated revenue is sent to your cryptographically-secured wallet. As you browse the Web, verified content creators can receive support (either actively or passively) from those rewards.
Users are safe. Creators are supported. That's Brave.
That's a pretty low bar. Mother Teresa's no Mother Teresa.
Are people with dark personality traits more likely to succeed? (psyche.co)
Affiliate links aren't uncommon; definitely not worth trying to keep a secret. Open Firefox (or Opera, Vivaldi, etc.) and do a search for "hacker news" from the address bar. Every one of these browsers adds its identifier to the resulting query. By contrast, Brave offered a search suggestion with a [visible] affiliate code attached.
This is not only a lie, it's a particularly egregious one. And very easy to verify.
Original tweet (2:36 AM Pacific, June 6 2020) https://twitter.com/cryptonator1337/status/12692014801055784...
Response from Brave (10:00 AM Pacific, same day) https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/1269313200127795201
It took them all of one whole business hour to respond. One hour. That's absolutely unheard of.
The above just goes to show how eager some people are to spread FUD in a blatantly dishonest and malicious way about certain things they oppose. It blows my mind.