Brave is not so brave after all. It merely swaps other people’s ads for its own, like a thief in the night. A trick as old as AdBlock Plus.
2. They are not the same as other ads, because they preserve your privacy.
3. Brave is taking on Google, one of the most powerful companies in the world, so we get a better internet. I'm not sure about you. In my books that's pretty brave.
4. You're dumping on other people's hard work in a fly-by comment that takes seconds to write. How are you being brave? What is your contribution to a better internet?
5. Say you want to create an alternative browser to take power away from Google. It costs many millions of dollars per year to pay for the development. How will you pay for this, if not also with the help of ads?
Or you want to support a small upstart.
Or you don’t mind ads but you do mind the tracking. So brave is way better.
I just think that the concept of intruding into my frame, via embedded ads or notifications, is distraction I simply do not ever want.
And thats why in Brave ads are opt-in rather than opt-out.
Not that Brave is quite there yet, but it seems to be one of the few efforts that might actually have some small chance of getting there. The building blocks are slowly coming into place for it.
Criticizing things that claim to improve the internet but arguably do not
Yes, the content creators who aim to make a living through advertising lose out. But personally it's not a business model I want to support either, and if Brave goes some way to proving that it's an unsustainable business model with bad actors all the way down then I'm actually fine with that.
Let's be real here, content creators are far from pure and are playing the game of attention stealing just as much as everyone else here (with a few notable exceptions). The vast majority of them are trying to game the SEO system for their own ends, not love of producing content. All the SEO spam you get with you try to research something on Google, that's the reality of modern ad supported content creation.
Hosting: $20/month Rent: $800/month (single room studio, if lucky enough to find one) Food: $200/month (likely should be higher due to recent inflation) Utilities: $150/month Total: $1370/month
Typical PPM (Price Per Mille) for ads: $6/1000 ads = $0.006
$1370/$0.006 = ~228,333 ad impressions per month.
You could reduce the number of required visitors by shoving more ads into the page (3 or more), but even with 3 ad impressions per visit, you'd still need about 76,166 visits each month. That's over 7,600 visits every single day!
The criticism is well deserved imo. It’s a sleazy move from Brave.
This is very persistent misinformation. Brave used to modify search results pages to insert their referal code, which was scummy as hell and thankfully they went back on that decision and pretended it was an accident (I can't see how that could possibly be done by accident.) Referall codes are not exactly 'ads' though, and other than that, Brave hasn't inserted their own shit into webpages. The ads which Brave displays are in a separate window, not inserted into web pages.
Anyway, just stick to Firefox. The perceived "need" to use a Chromium browser is a Google psyop. Firefox works fine, and if it takes a few minutes off my laptop's battery life.. who fucking cares. Not me.
They've since changed that model 15378382 times, every time denying that there was a problem with the previous versions, so I stopped caring.
I mean I get it: it's a very hard problem to fund a browser that is user-centric, and all solutions found as of today suck in one way or another. Mozilla does it by leveraging Google's need for a fig leaf when talking to authorities about monopolistic behavior. Vivaldi does it by selling pageview counts or something like that. Etc etc. I just wish companies were more honest about it.
For values of "insert into the ad chain"* that did NOT mean inserting ads into webpages. They never did that, it is persistent misinformation. I'm beginning to think it is deliberate misinformation.