May be naive question. How does Brave earn money to sustain its operations?
I get the crypto stuff is not everyone's cup of tea (certainly isn't mine) but get the basics straight, at least?
> Rather than displaying Ads on web pages, Brave Ads appear as push notifications on your device that you can choose to engage with or dismiss.
I did not say it is a default behavior, but in the end you are blocking ads and bringing new ads, hence replacing. Just an another way to provide ads. Just a different way of seeing the concept as a whole.
I know it's a bit of a tangent from the topic at hand, but I'm really curious what Privacy Badger has broken for you? I (and all the staff at my office) have been using it basically since release, and not once has the root cause of a website not working properly been Privacy Badger.
If you still want to support creators but do not want to receive any kind of ads, just buy some BAT at any exchange, load your wallet and schedule monthly contributions.
If you want to support a publisher who is not on the creators program - send them a message and let them know they have another income alternative.
Can you give an example of publisher/creator that you support directly, and that is not interested in joining Brave Creators?
If I am a popular creator who relies on, e.g, Patreon or Ko-Fi for some sustained income, and I learn about a platform that gives people money and it makes it easy for them to pass along that money to me... why wouldn't I be interested?
The ad ecosystem is multisided, not two-sided. We put the user in first place and cut out the ad-tech intermediaries who raid privacy, enable fraud, and take north of 50%, 70% in one case (the Guardian bought out its ad space and got 30p on the GBP).
Please check your facts before attacking us. It's one thing to operate on misinformation, but another to throw "escheated" around like a lawyer. It sounds impressive, but it's based on falsehoods all the way down. Again, tips from rewards users to unverified sites and channels sit in the browser, time out back to the user, and can be canceled. Look for "Pending tips" in rewards settings.
It's up to the browser user to notify the creator about the tip or contribution they're sending. We don't and can't know who the creator is and we wouldn't spam them. Fans can and do get creators to sign up. This is the clean way to do it, and fits our user-first principle.
If you want a publisher-first play, Scroll (Twitter bought it) was doing a portable paywall with publishers. Not user-first, no rev share to users, users pay. Not us. Have to serve one master or the other.
But I claim our user-first way is best because users can then get sites and channels they've tipped to come and sign up. Going the other way means getting users to subscribe, always a conversion funnel and usually low rate.
* Wikipedia.org
* SmithsonianMag.com
* ArsTechnica.com
* TheRegister.com
* Archive.org
* TheGuardian.com
* LaTimes.com
* DuckDuckGo.com
* NPR.org
I think it's slimy to do what you just did. Why'd you do it? We didn't do the first thing you said, and we shipped and then fixed the bug on the second. I don't see how you can excuse your action.
I'm now familiar with how you aggressively and dishonestly attack people who call out Brave's actions. I know I'm not special - that's just how you do business - but you aren't going to intimidate me.
I will make one concession to your attack though, I will declare that I'm not affiliated with any party in this and am simply doing my best to objectively judge the facts.
> If you don't believe me, then there's no point in talking.
Ok, something we can agree upon!
? I think you're misunderstanding my comment- maybe you are going to fast. (I must admit that you've got energy.)
Be careful what misinformation you parrot. It doesn't help anyone looking for better privacy products or trustworthy commenters.
I'm fully aware that you don't show them within the content (but in notification) and that it's an opt-in thing, but that doesn't make the statement inaccurate. You absolutely are removing them and showing others. In other words, you're replacing them.
verb: replace; 3rd person present: replaces; past tense: replaced; past participle: replaced; gerund or present participle: replacing
1. take the place of. "Ian's smile was replaced by a frown"
2. put (something) back in a previous place or position. "he drained his glass and replaced it on the bar"
Using "replace" implies in situ (which is false as you admit), or else you seem to think the page owns all your display and OS-mediated window-system attention "surface area". It does not, no page even needs to show for an opt-in Brave User Ad to be posted.
So as you've kindly admitted the "in a previous place or position" sense is false, you must mean any page owns your eyeballs if it's anywhere near a user ad. I demur and so do our users. Publishers don't own your eyes, desktop, toolbars, tab strip, new tab pages, or notification channels.
In general, I'm all for the concept of micropayments to websites. But your implementation, weasly language (like here), and of course your homophobic donations makes Brave pretty unappealing to me. I'd rather choose freaking Chrome with a stripped down ad-blocker than it.
...I mean, using Brave is still using Chrome(ium) with a different skin on top, leaky Tor integration, and your own coin that you own... how much of?
My only gripe is that the crypto integration with Uphold to pay creators is/was hard to use. I love the idea that I can pay $20/month to use the web and that money is disbursed to the sites I visit most!
Update: This motivated me to login to Uphold again and relink Brave Rewards so I can use the auto-contribute feature. Uphold didn't have recurring transactions for debit/credit cards originally so it was too much friction to use, but it is all working now.