I don't really want to set any kind of precent that browsers should somehow be forced to display web pages exactly as sent.
If Bob sends me a letter, I expect Postal Service to deliver it to me exactly as sent.
If Bob sends me an email I expect email service to deliver it to me as sent.
If Bob sends me a webpage I expect it to be delivered as sent.
We can discuss changes & preferences on presentation layer, but invisible, uncontrollable substitution of content, I have no idea how they're either justifiable or desirable.
I am likely not interpreting your comment correctly. Perhaps if you elaborate it may become clearer.
That's... exactly what I want.
I would like browsers to reinterpret what is sent for me (and noone else, definitely not for the browser maker) and display something more readable and useful (lightweight, queryable, cross-referenced, hyperlinke, actionable, etc.).
I'd love to never see the site owner's design or interact with their UX 95% of the time (if you're an artist or musician I probably want to see what you designed, that's about it). Reader mode probably makes it 50% but is not designed for any kind of interactivity so I still have to use horrible booking pages, shopping sites, etc. I'd love my bropwser to extract the ueful and completely standardise the UI every time.
I want my browser to display the page exactly as sent until I tell it not to. It should be serving pages to me as-is, and things such as ad/content blockers, and reader mode, should be my choices. I don't want the browser making those decisions for me ahead of time and without my input.
To that extent, I think if Brave is open and honest and says "we're a browser that reformats pages in this way" that is ok. It's sneaky shit, dark patterns, bundling things you want with things you might not, etc. that make me distrusting of them.
Brave does offer an optional feature called Brave Ads, which enables users to view privacy-respecting ads (as notifications, and high-quality New Tab Page wallpapers) for 70% of the associated revenue. This revenue (in the form of BAT rewards) can then flow out to verified publishers as a form of support. No user data is collected; ad-matching happens on-device, and in accordance with user-specified constraints.
Dream big, they say :)
Taken literally this would mean that browsers would be allowed to re-write, either actively or by deleting sections, the actual content of articles. Surely there has to be some expectation that what a person publishes on the internet will be faithfully represented? And if faithful representation of the original is respected for the writing, why shouldn't it be respected for the writer's business/advertising arrangements?
Do you all not not feel that the browser is ya know the user's agent?
No, but the point is that it's a bit more nuanced than your original post suggests. Users should have the control over how a page is displayed to them. I want to tell my browser to block ads, and which ads to block. I don't fully trust it to make the same exact decisions in that area that I might want, or to not selectively block ads based on an agreement it may or may not have with advertisers.
>Do you all not not feel that the browser is ya know the user's agent?
It is the user's agent, and as the user, I want the control. I want to make the decisions.
This is a very reasonable desire, but Brave also seems clear that their service does something different. Where other tools focus on blocking ads, Brave is more about their hybrid blocking of 'bad' ads (whatever that means) and replacing those ads with theirs.
Are you saying that you feel like Brave is deceptive in describing how their service works or that the entire idea of a tool that blocks some subset of ads that the user cannot configure and replaces them is fundamentally unethical?
I genuinely don't have an opinion regarding whether or not I think Brave is being deceptive. Rather, I've always been generally untrusting of bodies such as Brave making "it's cool, trust us" claims. It could be that they're being 100% honest and that's great, but I just can't get my own pessimism to get on board, particularly when there's money/profit involved.
Ultimately, yeah, I would say that the idea of a tool that doesn't allow me to eliminate ads entirely as it substitutes ads it says are "OK" is unethical (for/to me - if others are fine with it, cool, use Brave!). Going back to my lack of trust, I can't trust that they won't make a user-hostile decision around ads in the interest of their own bottom line down the road.
My personal issue is that Brave is an advertising company which is blocking competitor ads where content-creators are getting paid (the company which the content-creators chose to partner with), and replacing them with ads of their own (regardless of the format of them).
It's a great business model - but IMO it's just stealing or subverting ad revenue from the people who actually generate the content you are reading and maintain the infrastructure.
Hate ads? Get Firefox and block them.
Don't mind ads and are happy for the revenue to go to the content creator? Get Firefox, it blocks most tracking anyway.
Don't mind ads but hate the idea that the revenue will go to the content creator, and you would rather give it to some random shady company that might give you a cut of their subverted/stolen revenue in crypto? Get Brave!
What kind of decisions do you want to be able to make? Unless you're writing all your own filters (in which case, kudos to you!), you're still ultimately delegating these decisions primarily to a handful of filter list maintainers you've probably never met. Brave's source code and filter lists are all developed in the open and are heavily customizable, as well.
As are so, so many of the filter lists developed by "maintainers [I've] probably never met." Every list I've added to my pihole is fully readable and customizable.
Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't, depends on what the browser developers want.
That said, there is something dubious with how ad blockers take an author's written content, "liberate" it from the ads that pay the author's bills, and make it available for free.
I sense Brave is trying to solve that problem, but everything I've read about it seems weird.
(Separately I see nothing dubious about tracking protection. I wish tracking were less inseparable from the advertising; I'm perfectly willing to see ads as long as I'm not being shadow profiled).