
Basic Attention Token - petethomas
https://basicattentiontoken.org/
======
mdekkers
Any idea that starts with "and first, we get the user to switch their browser"
has immediately raised their own barrier to entry so ridiculously high, were
you to stand on top of it you'd be able to see the curvature of the Earth.
What a stupid thing to do.

They also list that 600 million devices are actively blocking ads, meaning
these people went _out of their way_ to not see ads. Now you want them to
_switch browser_ just so that they can _see ads_ \- are they on crack?

BAT? BATshit crazy...

~~~
news_to_me
I think the idea is that if advertising on the web respected users, they
wouldn't feel the need to block ads. This is their attempt to make advertising
work in a way that helps everyone.

What's the alternative? If every web user blocked all ads, content creators
couldn't get any revenue and would stop making content.

~~~
CodeMage
_I think the idea is that if advertising on the web respected users, they
wouldn 't feel the need to block ads._

The users have heard that too often. We're all out of trust to give.

 _If every web user blocked all ads, content creators couldn 't get any
revenue and would stop making content._

If every web user blocked all ads, content creators wouldn't be able to get
any revenue from ads. There are other ways of getting revenue.

 _What 's the alternative?_

There's what @libeclipse said in his comment: if you somehow make this tech
work in popular browsers, then there are people who might be willing to try it
and maybe it becomes the accepted solution.

Other than that? Paid content. Yes, that makes it harder for content creators
to get money and harder for content consumers to get free content. So what?

Are we really so convinced that everyone who creates anything deserves to be
paid for it? Do we really need so much free content? More specifically, are we
all so convinced of these two things that we're okay with giving up our rights
on how to render web content on our own computers? 'Cause that's what it boils
down to in the end.

~~~
news_to_me
I just think it's silly to completely throw out the idea of ad-based revenue
because currently the ad culture sucks. More paid content? Ok, sure. But what
if we could also have ads that didn't suck? I think it's a worthy goal.

~~~
throwaway2048
The nature of ads is to be hostile and misleading to the people viewing them.
Their purpose is to drive demand where none previously existed, they are at
odds with the user.

~~~
news_to_me
That's a simplistic viewpoint. If ads weren't useful at all, no one would
click on them, or, if they did, they wouldn't buy whatever was at the other
end.

There is such a thing as artificially inflated demand, which can be a problem,
but I don't think it's likely that _all_ advertising falls in that bucket.

~~~
kwhitefoot
It would be interesting to have some examples of ads that you regard as not
falling in that bucket.

------
etjossem
User: why don't I just run an open source adblocker that doesn't serve me ads?

Publisher: you are extorting me into using your platform by blocking my
partners' ads.

Advertiser: you are extorting me into using your platform by blocking my ads.

~~~
news_to_me
> User: yes, but why don't I just run an ad-blocker and wait for the tragedy
> of the commons to befall content publishers?

The problem with this is that it doesn't influence incentives in the right
way. If your goal is to replace advertising entirely, there needs to be
something to replace it. If your goal is to make advertising better, you need
to reward the "good ads" (whatever that means) by selectively showing them.

If you just don't care and don't want to see ads, I guess you're in the
majority but you're not really helping anything.

~~~
Analemma_
> If you just don't care and don't want to see ads, I guess you're in the
> majority but you're not really helping anything.

It's not my job to help anything. Other people's revenue models are not my
problem.

------
alexggordon
Something a lot of these comments are currently missing is the fact that the
video specifically described that:

1\. The brave browser by default blocks ads and tracking software.

2\. That advertisements are opt-in only in the brave browser.

So while this is a subtle advertisement for the Brave Browser[0], I think this
is also a clean separation from the browser in attempt to create a new form of
advertising. While obviously those defaults can change, I'd imagine the reason
for the clean separation between the BAT and the Brave Browser is because
users would be significantly more hesitant to join if the "goal" of the
browser was an alternative for of advertising. On that merit I would evaluate
the browser separately from this idea.

Ignoring the integration with the Brave browser though, one issue for this is
that this doesn't solve the fundamental problem of a company that might have a
boring product, that wants to advertise and is willing to pay for it. Google
will take your money, and show your ads to the relevant market. People click
on those ads, and drive engagement to the company. Most companies don't have
exciting enough products to be able to drive engagement with simply the
"product".

Another issue is that if the BAT tokens are generated from users attention and
the quality of the ads, and NO user information is stored like is claimed
here, then there would engagement would most likely be significantly less than
with other advertisers, as the advertising market is then expanded to all
people, rather than the demographic the company is trying to hit. This would
mean that whatever monetization form Brave comes up with is going to have to
be a lot cheaper than what Google is charging, because I can almost guarantee
engagement suffer drastically.

Finally, as a quick test, I don't even see the browser succeeding on the basis
of blocking "all" ad content, as it doesn't even block Facebook ads with the
"block all ads" setting checked[1]. I'd imagine because Facebook sends their
ads along with the actual page content, which I'd also imagine most other ad
companies would figure out a way to do if Brave becomes more successful.

[0] [https://brave.com/](https://brave.com/)

[1] [http://imgur.com/kN8l8Ph](http://imgur.com/kN8l8Ph)

~~~
mdekkers
_Facebook sends their ads along with the actual page content_

I use Swipe Pro on my android, and it blocks those just fine

------
jypepin
So users need to use their "Brave" browser? What do they gain from this, apart
from earning "BAT"s that seems to only allow access to premium features on
that browser?

Also, what happens to actual real ads? Are they blocked and replaces by their
own ads by the browser?

~~~
sushisource
Yeah. This seems a bit nonsense. The browser "blocks trackers"... while also
tracking you. Smells like bullshit to me. As far as I can tell the main
selling point is it's using the current buzzword that makes everyone get all
hot and bothered: "blockchain"

~~~
news_to_me
Tracking is important for delivering "relevant" ads, which many people would
prefer. The real issue is that the different ad networks spew their trackers
across the web, without respect for users' privacy or user experience.

I don't really think Brave's solution here is fully-baked, but the idea of
replacing all those third-party trackers with one that's on-device and
(presumably) I can have some degree of control over sounds like a step in the
right direction.

~~~
vkou
> Tracking is important for delivering "relevant" ads, which many people would
> prefer.

I know that advertisers prefer this, but I'm not quite convinced that most
users do.

The most polarizing example of this is, of course, remarketing.

~~~
news_to_me
I think it seems plausible. If any users get value out of advertising (and I
think they do), then more relevant ones would have more value for them.

That said, if advertisers simply respected "do not track", we could see for
ourselves how true that is.

~~~
vkou
What value do users get out of brand advertising (The staple of much-loathed
display ads)?

What difference does it make to me, that I see a bunch of ads for Coke, versus
Pepsi? Surely, I'm well aware that sugary drinks exist. The ad isn't notifying
me of a particular sale, or a discount. All it does, is remind me that sugar
water exists, and that I should buy their brand of sugar water.

This is hardly a gain for me, or society. It's certainly a gain for Coke...

~~~
news_to_me
Well ok, brand advertising is one kind of ad, which is probably less useful
for people. I still think there's a marginal benefit though, to having highly
recognizable brands around.

I don't really like ads either, all I'm saying is that it's simplistic to say
ads have zero value to people. If that were true there would be no reason to
advertise anyway.

~~~
vkou
Brand advertising tends to be among the most obnoxious kind of advertising.
(And I'm not even mentioning the 'Your computer has a virus/One Weird Trick To
Shrink Your Belly' scams.)

There is a benefit to _certain_ highly recognized brands. Dyson makes great
vacuums (Or, it used to - now people only think it does.) Toyota makes
reliable vehicles. Coke vs Pepsi, though? It's sugar water. It's a commodity,
with no differentiation in quality. It is quite literally, up to personal
preference.

> I'm saying is that it's simplistic to say ads have zero value to people.

There are plenty of reasons to engage in zero-sum, or even negative-sum
activities. Even if advertising as a whole adds value (Which I think is too
close to call), a very large part of it does not.

------
liamcardenas
This really doesn't make sense. With Bitcoin, I know there are lots of people
who will accept them in exchange for real goods and services. With "BAT"
Tokens, I don't know why anyone would want them.

He mentions that tracking and adblocking are wasteful, but I view them as a
beautiful example of how the market implicitly equilibrates itself to provide
the "right amount" of advertising.

I like Brave, but it seems to me that they are over-engineering a non-problem.

~~~
ErikHuisman
The idea might be: you can sell your bat for bitcoin to advertisers

------
duncancarroll
Why should I switch browsers? Don't tell me it's just to help out advertisers.

~~~
jamespitts
Perhaps you might consider switching if that is the only way that you can get
control over the information about you that leaks out on many pages that you
visit, words on pages that your mouse hovers over, words that you type in,
friends you make, and so on.

Do you think that it might be impossible to get control over all of that
information?

It is possible, and it is happening.

~~~
freeone3000
Or you could run firefox with ublock and privacybadger. Ads and tracking are
blocked as well or better than with Brave, and as a bonus, I don't see
advertisements.

------
rdl
I see no value added by using "blockchain" buzzword for a centralized system
like this. It isn't even privacy protecting.

This is an obvious use case for 1) some kind of database/book entry system,
centralized, if you don't care about anonymity or 2) blinded Chaumian tokens,
if you want anonymity (which has security/risk model costs)

------
whalesalad
I feel like this is a promo website for season 4 of Silicon Valley.

~~~
wonderwonder
sponsored by Hooli

------
kolemcrae
An interesting idea but I find it hard to see this taking off and becomming
the norm. They need to sell it to Google or something so they don't have to
rely on the browser.

Also, rewarding users with "premium content" or let them "donate it to
publsihers" doesn't seem too realistic.

I like the idea but I see some major hurdles before this takes off.

~~~
mdekkers
_I see some major hurdles before this takes off._

The understatement of the century...

------
srgseg
Can there ever be a mechanism that prevents people from reverse engineering
the protocol to announce to the network that they're viewing ads, so that they
can earn BATs for doing nothing? Their incentive would be to use these BATs to
pay for premium content. This would undermine the value of BATs and damage the
ecosystem.

~~~
jamespitts
The protocol would likely not allow BATs to be earned in browsers not properly
implementing the protocol (measuring attention on a web page while protecting
privacy, etc). And then instances of Brave and any other browser implementing
this protocol could easily be cryptographically confirmed to the ad network.

~~~
teraflop
Ha!

In related news, I've figured out a way to totally eliminate automated email
spam. It involves replacing SMTP with a new protocol that doesn't allow
messages to be delivered unless the sending server cryptographically confirms
that a real human pushed the "send" button.

------
Splendor
> Brave is a fast, open source, privacy-focused browser

> The Brave browser knows where users spend their time

Well, which one is it?

~~~
AgentME
The browser is software running on your own computer. It can know that without
sharing that information.

------
jypepin
So publishers will receive BATs instead of $$? Can BATs be sold for money? The
website only says "BATs can be used for premium content or services on the
Brave platform.".

~~~
Spivak
It seems that the under this system advertisers have to buy BATs in order to
show ads. Sorta makes sense. Sites get BATs for getting views, users get BATs
for viewing ads, and advertisers need BATs connect to users.

------
thr0waway1239
This looks like too much effort. Here is a far simpler idea: just hypnotize
people via ads so they willingly disable ad blockers, click on every ad they
see and ultimately buy so much stuff they go broke.

------
clock_tower
I wonder which white-box browser this is built on.

~~~
davidgerard
Brave, which is based on Blink.

------
davidgerard
Wasn't Brave going to use Bitcoin?

~~~
al_chemist
Well, it's Bitcoin (tm) Blockchain (tm) Etherum (tm) BAT (tm) alt-currency. It
makes as much sense as the rest of the idea.

