When an advertiser wants to target a specific group of people, Google doesn’t say “here’s everyone’s private data, good luck”. GOOGLE does the filtering and targeting internally.
I’m sorry but that isn’t evil or bad. Unless we want to start paying for google searches and Facebook, this is how it’s going to be. And personally, I actually like getting ads relevant to my life. For example, I even got my current job based off a highly relevant Facebook ad.
My personal suspicion is that people are just jealous of how much success Google and Facebook have had.
Ah, yes, a classic: "All criticism of success and power stems from envy."
Impervious to pushback (since that would only prove you'd pushed the hot button of painful truth) and always plausible-sounding, this is truly a brilliant weapon for snuffing out legitimate complaints and healthy conversation.
> Unless we want to start paying for google searches
I, and many others, would jump at the chance to pay for an internet without advertising and dark advertising tactics. I happily pay $10/month for youtube red, just to avoid the ad videos, and that's cheap at the price.
That's your personal opinion, and that's ok. However, others may and do have a different opinion.
Now I use youtube-dl and avoid supporting google in every way I can. They seem to break every principle and promise made to a calculated degree so someone can always point at someone else doing it worse. The real result is they are eroding the status quo. Privacy, content rights, fair search, unburdened UX, have all taken big hits over the last decade and it’s all by choice. Google didn’t accidentally end up here.
I find Microsoft’s behavior annoying and desperate but it’s also not so different from Google. We just consider the contexts different since Google “owns” its website it can do what it wants even if it’s on in a browser on my machine vs the windows shell.
This used to exist: https://contributor.google.com/v/beta
Not many people were interested, so it got scaled back to an opt in model.
So it's not that many others willing to pay for this.
Edit: And about it being "evil" or "bad", let's just say that it is "unnecessary" (from a user viewpoint). You can still make money from ads without hovering up user data. But then you don't make money from users not clicking on the ad, and it is slower to build up an effective profile. Relevant ads are better than irrelevant ads, but nothing beats no ads at all. The best future ads will not look like ads at all (but will be hidden inside reviews and editorials).
If I followed you around with a paper advertisement, wrote down where you frequent and who you talk to in my notebook, and left a copy of the advertisement everywhere you went, you would call the police. Online advertising does just that and much more and they do it with impunity.
Besides, a lot of ad supported sites are hideous, and the sooner they can’t support themselves and stop cluttering the net, the better. HN will still be here, most of the sites with articles submitted here will be too. The best content out there is free, crowdfunded, or paywalled, while the worst of clickbait is ad supported. Besides, it’s so much more relaxing to avoid ads, I don’t have to waste thinking about how they’re trying to manipulate me into buying tat, make me feel inadequate unless I buy their products, etc. When you stop seeing ads online, on tv, and then you watch some cable or unfiltered internet... it’s horrible. Marketing is a grim, tiring, assault on the senses aimed at the absolute lowest common denominator, and I’m glad to be rid of it and hopefully eventually, the businesses which make it.
This industry that abused everyone it could until a technical means to fight back was developed, doesn’t deserve any more chances. This whole, “oh we’re the good parasites, we’ve figured out that it’s bad to kill the host, we just want a slice out of you,” shtick deserves to go over like a lead balloon.
In a sense this complaint and PR is such a form of obfuscated advertising. The money and technological skills is in the hands of the advertisers, not the users, so this will be an unfair fight (advertisers will be better at hiding ads, than users are able to detect them).
> I’m sorry but that isn’t evil or bad.
It isn't evil, but it can be bad, and very much so.
Google doing the filtering and targeting follows after Google has profiled and labeled you, an action you generally would have no recourse against. This is similar to the No Fly List: you might have no idea how you got on there, but once you're on it, that sticks.
With Google's reach being what it is, the consequences after having been automatically labeled can be a frightening thought. You don't even have to have a Google account to feel the effects, shadow profiling can lead to the same result.
One of the positive things of the GDPR is that it recognized this problem in Article 22, and provisioned that a data subject has a right to contest decisions based on automatic profiling.
...that said, I installed Brave this weekend and am posting this comment from it, and I gotta say that it's really nice viewing a web without ads. I'd forgotten how pleasant browsing the web can be when you're not downloading the 100 or so ads & trackers on a typical news article and playing cat-and-mouse with their anti-AdBlock code. So from my selfish user's POV, this is a win.
It is far more practical to download an already adblock-included brower than having to mess with extensions on mobile.
I installed it soon after switching to Android from iOS and I have no complaints, it is fast and it just works.
You don't need to "opt in to receiving ads sold by Brave Software in place of the blocked ads" for that.
The earlier concern about data sharing and privacy by advertising companies is not an identical problem to users being served ads.
That's nice, but as a user I have no interest in rescuing the ad industry. The sooner it dies, the better.
I do not like targeted advertising one bit. It makes the ads boring, repetitive, and potentially embarrassing. I want to see ads relative to whatever content I am consuming. If that content is so general that it can't be targeted, then so be it. All other advertising works this way, and it has been doing just fine. Not to mention 3rd party scripts running, which only happens because the advertisers and content producers do not trust each other, so they sacrifice the security of their users.
We never had a choice of an alternative model. The monopolies involved demand privacy for their services.
You can serve ads without targeting or target content instead of audience: broadcasters have had to do this for a long time and it can be very profitable.
It is evil and bad to profile people and worse to force it on them by abuse of market position. Audience targeted ads are a form of discrimination.
Some of the data Google harvests has the potential to get people killed. For instance, when Google are gathering data about who uses membership areas of political sites, frequent sites for certain sexualities, using regulator pages to blow the whistle, etc. Google doesn't have a right to collect this data. It's evil.
Not necessarily. There is always the model of selling ads without such obnoxious tracking. If Google would base their targeting only on the phrase typed into the search bar, then I'd be okay with that. But them stalking me everywhere I go around the web is not cool.
Over 600 million devices were running some form of ad-blocking software in 2017, and that was an increase of 30% from the year prior. This number keeps growing, year over year. Something has to be done.
Users who come to Brave are already blocking ads. They understand the risk involved in letting third-party software collect information about them, their person, their browsing habits, and more. Further, the risk of drive-by downloads is on the rise (or the growing popularity of crypto-jacking).
Brave blocks ads and trackers for safety and privacy reasons. But we are not so naive to miss the impact this has on well-meaning publishers. This is why we created the User Growth Pool, and the Brave Payments system. Every month we pour hundreds of thousands of dollars back into the pockets of content creators by way of BAT (Basic Attention Token) grants, distributed freely to users of the Brave browser.
But grants won't last forever, something sustainable has be erected in place of the incumbent digital advertising system. This is where Brave Ads comings into play.
For users who opt in, Brave can deliver better quality ads, without the risk of personal data leakage. We do this by using local machine-learning to understand the user better, and making local decisions as to which ads should or should not be shown, and when (the user controls all of this). Furthermore, the user gets 70% of the ad revenue for browser-private ads.
When you consider the amount of money lost to digital ad fraud each year (over $20,000,000,000 I believe), you can see how the Brave system would lead to a much better, and more sustainable future for the web.
We're not simply replacing ads. We're rescuing an industry.
I don't have any hard evidence, but I imagine most people block ads because they don't want to have to scroll past a bunch of banners and videos to read the article they want to read. Certainly there are many people who are concerned about privacy, but I don' think that's what's driving the popularity of ad blockers. At least personally I have always viewed ad blockers like DVRs for the web.
It took a crypto malware to convince a company I was working with to install uBlock. No more ads, no more flash, no more ransomware.
"Contrary to what many marketers claim, most adult Americans (66%) do not want marketers to tailor advertisements to their interests. Moreover, when Americans are informed of three common ways that marketers gather data about people in order to tailor ads, even higher percentages - between 73% and 86% - say they would not want such advertising. Even among young adults, whom advertisers often portray as caring little about information privacy, more than half (55%) of 18-24 years-old do not want tailored advertising. And contrary to consistent assertions of marketers, young adults have as strong an aversion to being followed across websites and offline (for example, in stores) as do older adults."
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1989092 (64% find the idea of ad targeting to be invasive, most participants would prefer random ads to targeted ads)
https://news.gallup.com/poll/145337/internet-users-ready-lim... (67% of those polled said advertisers shouldn't be able to "match ads to your specific interests based on websites you have visited")
References all came from a paper by Jonathan Mayer. Third-Party Web Tracking: Policy and Technology which I'd heartily recommend to anyone who is interested enough to be this deep into the comments (https://jonathanmayer.org/publications/trackingsurvey12.pdf)
My usage of ad-blockers is to make webpages _readiable_. When ever the privacy aspect of it comes up its like, "well that's nice." Just the bandwidth overhead of ads alone makes it worth it.
I run Adblock software for privacy, primarily.
Even an asshole like me will remove ublock origin if websites start to self-host ads. But they won't.
When they pay me, they can get some of my data. I'm just waiting for their call.
It's the truth. You don't get to control how I render the page, on what device, whether I've decided to use links (or lynx) today, or any of that. It's my computing device, I'll render data as I please.
> I support the notion that having access to good content requires a way to compensate content creators.
Sure, but again if you send me the data, I'll render it as I see fit. Let's find another way that doesn't involve stalking, and trying to shove commercial messages in my face every few seconds.
That I know of. With smart TVs I guess it could well.
Because in my experience, offering paid options to remove all ads and tracking if you want doesn't stop or even put a dent in the adblocking crouds. Trying to not send content to those blocking ads only increases anger and often reduces the performance of the page for everyone, and gating all content behind paywalls is not only opposite to how I feel information should flow and impacts some users more than others (someone making minimum wage has to give up a lot more for a $1/month subscription than someone making $150k/yr), but also destroys the ability for many to discover my content, and makes discussion and interaction significantly harder.
And other approaches like closed off apps or alternate formats like video can be a much worse experience for the user, and can hurt those who need accessibility considerations.
So I genuinely want to know if there is a better way that I'm missing, because if I can't, then my options are to "sell my soul" and just try and for you to be tracked as much as I can, or just close down my service entirely (which if you ask my users, would be a bad thing and would negatively impact them)
Your best bet is just to block folks like me. Make the deal explicit - turn on ads, get content. I'll probably move on somewhere else at that point.
I'm not going to be unblocking ads anytime soon.
Actually, the air of entitlement I detect in this entire discussion is around people who strongly believe that everything should be free and magically self-sustaining.
But neither do I believe that I'm obligated to render data the way you ask me to.
Some widgets are useful. Most ads are not useful. Bundling your free widget with an advertisement doesn't mean I have an ethical obligation to look at the advertisement or keep it there.
If you want to make money on your widgets I'd recommend selling them rather than trying to sell your consumers to advertisers.
I hope brave is able to make a dent in this system - alternatives and competitoin are always welcome.
We're currently testing user-private ads right now; these originate as signals outside of the browser (system-level prompts). If the user engages the notification, a private tab is opened and the advertisement is shown. In the future, we'll be testing publisher-ads (but only with publisher consent).
We'll have more information to share in the future on how quality will be handled. Please keep following official channels for further developments.
The BAT grant is just Brave burning VC money to get some market share and eventually some pie of the Adtech eco-system?
Also, not sure how ad fraud is relevant here or how Brave will prevent it?
The Basic Attention Token User Growth Pool was created during our Token Sale in 2017; not from VC funds.
Ad Fraud is relevant because it claims more and more digital advertising dollars each year. Estimate today put it over 20 billion. By reducing middle-men, clearing up reporting, and more, there is less revenue lost, and therefore more revenue for creators and users alike.
By moving ad-matching and more into the Browser, we make it much harder to defraud the system. Further, this system rests solely in the user's domain; you control what is shown and with what frequency.
You realise that's what every ad-revenue driven company says right?
There are a number of proposed systems under the rubric of "privacy preserving advertising systems" and they are very different than what ad-revenue driven companies are doing today and similar to what he is proposing above.
One thing that gives our users great comfort is the fact that this is an optional component. As it's baseline, Brave blocks ads and trackers. If you don't want to see them, you stick with the default, out of the box experience.
But advertising is what keeps the web open and free-to-low-cost for the masses. Walled gardens and paid subscriptions ad a high degree of friction to the industry; to much friction and you'll melt the system. Ads are a better route, for now. But ads, as we have come to know them online, are suffering greatly.
Brave's model gives the user the power to decide whether or not they participate, and to what degree. As for client-side machine learning, I suspect users today will understand the benefits better than we would have 20 years ago. In fact, Tim Cook praised the iPhone and Apple Watch for utilizing similar features (using similar terminology).
Another difference between users today and users in the early-to-mid 90's is the lived experience. In the 90's, as a Netscape user myself, I had little concern about invasive ads and trackers. Sure, we had web bugs, but not anywhere on the scale of what we have today. Today, our attention is being harvested for the profit of others. This limited commodity is being sold around every corner, and everybody but me is getting a cut.
With Brave Ads, users who opt-in to the new experience will make as much as 70% of the ad revenue (70% goes to ad-slot owner, which is the user in the case of browser-private ads). Now, you're able to enjoy the benefits of high-quality ads, the liberty of being private and secure online, and a portion of the revenues themselves.
I'd love to know more about what you pitched, from a historical perspective. I always love an inside story :)
Websites that wanted to place targeted ads on their site could then do so with some special markup indicating exactly what criteria they wanted to use. They could specify an almost limitless number of different creatives and corresponding targeting criteria right in their HTML. My thought was that they could pay Netscape for the privilege of enabling highly targeted ads.
The privacy downfall here, at least in Netscape’s opinion, was that sites could extrapolate whether or not someone matched the criteria by watching to see which banner their browser downloaded. I countered this by having an option for the software to download 5 or 10 other banners in random order in addition to the one that actually met the targeting criteria in the background, but that wasn’t good enough to overcome the perception of privacy issues in their eyes.
Better models definitely exist, and I'm convinced Brave has proposed one with great potential. Let's catch up in 10 years to discuss this again ;)
This stinks of meaningless PR copy. You're rescuing an industry most people would like to see gone. If you want to do good, move away from Google-created products, and focus on the benefit for the common person, not for an industry.
I've installed and tried Brave a few times for this specific reason that I keep reading about, but I've never figured out how to receive these kickbacks from enabling and viewing ads. Was I just not looking close enough, or is this still a beta/planned feature?
Sorry. This is just wrong. You don't nor never will have the volume of data that the major ad platforms have collected for 15+ years. You don't have the pure analytical power of these companies in compute capacity. You will not serve better ads by disabling third party retargeting platforms.
There are many positive ways to spin an obvious blockchain-craze inspired endeavor, and I applaud the Brave team for blazing a trail, but you are calling out all the wrong value propositions.
Fraud is not as big of a deal as you state it is. It is not a problem for the primary ad networks to which the lions share of the ad revenues goes to in the first place. Companies like WhiteOps and Moat already do a great job of fraud detection when an advertiser is not buying from one of the popular and safer exchanges.
I applaud your conviction, but the problem with advertising is not solved by attempting to de-throne Google and Facebook.
Brave is offering publishers a solution to their dying revenue streams. First, by way of monthly grants (we give $500k/mo to publishers right now), and secondly through a better advertising model. Note, publisher ads is not presently an option; we're testing user-private ads, which are ads shown in a private tab, not owned by any website.
No one deserves to stay in business. If the model doesn't work, find one that does.
Yeah, find some other way to make money than ads.
Whenever you tell me that I have to watch ads for the good of capitalism, I feel a horrible contradiction in my gut. I don't want ads at all.
It's like everyone has wasps and needs their wasps to get into my car and some businesses promise me that their wasps aren't so bad, so can I please roll down my windows so a few wasps get through? Honest, these are good wasps. You won't mind these wasps too much.
People don't want ads. Ads are inherently adversarial. They interrupt, they manipulate, they intrude, they try to provoke a need in you that you didn't have before you watched the ad. The conversation has to be about how do we do better than ads, not how do we do better ads.
Secondly, for those who opt in, they decide how often they'll see an ad. And unlike annoying interstitial ads and more, Brave Ads begin outside of the browser as a system notification. If you wish to see the ad, click the toast. If you don't, simply dismiss or ignore it.
As for the desire to see ads, many users (myself included) don't mind this. In fact, I enjoy high-quality ads that don't require me to give up personal information. I'd love to know about a sale at my favorite store, gift ideas for my wife's birthday, and more. The problem is, to get this today, I have to hand over too much to Google and Facebook. Unacceptable.
With Brave's on-device machine-learning, you hand over nothing. Ads are proposed to your device, and your device choosing what you might like to see. And you, as always, remain in complete control. Should you decide to see an ad, you'll even get paid for your attention (70% of the revenue in user-private cases).
But the baseline is always the same; if you don't wish to see Brave Ads, Brave won't show you Brave Ads. That's our promise to you.
I gain nothing by watching ads. All I get is the creation of a need or desire that I didn't have before I watched the ad. Ads increase demand. Telling me that your business will fail unless I voluntarily inconvenience myself is not endearing me to your business.
Life without endless, wheedling attempts to sell, upsell, and generally manipulate you into buying more crap is frankly better than the alternatives. I can’t tell you how many cord cutters I’ve met who lost their tolerance for tv advertisement once they weren’t bathing in it every day. Ads are miserable, they drive a consumer culture that is pointless, and lead to endless loads of clickbait and “content” thst exists just be a platform form advertisement.
The industry doesn’t need saving, it needs euthanizing.
You get the site getting revenue, which allows it to continue existing and creating the content you enjoy.
Are you suggesting that we make it illegal to enter into this kind of consensual and mutually beneficial business arrangement?
Ads are no longer pixels on the screen; they're so much more than that. They're monitoring your activity, your movement, your most intimate details, and more. They're collecting this data, storing it, selling it, and all without your consent.
Users have the right to protect themselves. Unfortunately, the current solution (simple ad-blocking) hurts the web and all who create it. Brave wishes to deliver a better solution; one that protects the user, and serves the content creator.
By improving the system, you reduce fraud, which in turn creates more revenue for the content creators and users alike. Everybody benefits under this model, unlike the current model, where everybody is equally, and increasingly suffering.
That's pretty interesting. So, as an online publisher, if I make my own deals directly with the advertisers and then host and serve the assets myself, Brave doesn't flag it.
I used to do this, but it's very time consuming. I've essentially delegated this work to Adsense.
I can't be bothered to use a browser who's developers can't be bothered to be honest about the feature set and how they work.
As for transparency, we couldn't be more open. Take it from me, an ex-Microsoft engineer, Brave is an open book. We talk about features before they're shipped, our source is open to all (github.com/brave/browser-laptop, github.com/brave/brave-browser, github.com/brave/browser-core, etc.), and we regularly host AMAs. The openness of this company still, to this day, gives me wonderful culture shock.
With regards to your conversation with one of the Brave team members, do you have a link? I'd love to gather context and establish a frame of reference. The only white lists we have in brave are for ua-strings and siteHacks.
For some websites, we'll identify ourselves as "Brave". To all others, we identify as Chrome. This is for many reasons (which I'm happen to discuss if you're interested), but this is the first white list. The second "white list" would be our siteHacks.js file. This file contains special logic to repair sites which are broken as a result of ad/tracker blocking. But again, this isn't letting flagged scripting through to the user, this is laying our own custom logic on top of an otherwise broken experience.
I hope this explanation helps shed some light on the matter. If you have any questions, comments, or feedback, please do not hesitate to reach out. Again, we're open and eager to share.
You're still replacing ads with other ads.
The users have already responded en masse with the explosive growth of ad and tracker blocking software. We acknowledge the necessity for this move, as the industry has become overrun with parasites. But we also recognize that bloodletting isn't the solution; bleeding the publishers of their revenue isn't the solution.
Brave introduced Brave Payments as a means of supporting content creators. We're staking users with $500k/mo to support their favorite sites. But this isn't a short-term solution while we work on the long-term solution of reforming digital advertising.
With that said, what jonathansampson is proposing mitigates at least one harm of advertising: ubiquitous tracking which violates privacy.
They're trying to replace ads with ads that don't require tracking by third parties.
There's actually a whole area of research on this that's pretty fascinating called privacy preserving advertising.
If a website owner changes from an ad supported website to reading ad copy in a podcast, your same criticism would apply.
* by changing from ads to ads they get rid of entire classes of bugs: cryptominers, drive-by malware, click-jacking, etc. Perpetuating a capitalist system by requiring users to take undue risks to support my content != perpetuating a capitalist system without making users take those risks.
* by changing from ads to ads, I get rid of an entire class of privacy-invasions for my audience. Perpetuating a capitalist system while making users leak enormous amounts of data to who knows where != an perpetuating a capitalist system without making users do that.
There are probably other points to make. But that's enough to assert that ads != ads in your comment.
For users who don't necessarily have the funds to purchase BAT, safe, private ads offers an option to learn BAT (which can, in turn, be given to their favorite sites).
Maybe the "digital ad fraud" they're screaming is the sign they belong rightfully in the void we're trying to bury them.
We've seen enough shit from the ad industry, and it's time to leave them behind as humanity progress and improve.
NYTimes seeing 2/3 of its digital revenue from subscriptions: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/08/business/media/new-york-t...
TheAthletic growing like wildfire on subscription model: https://www.adweek.com/digital/the-athletic-built-its-compan...
SubStack raises for subscription newsletters: https://www.axios.com/substack-raises-2-million-newsletters-...
With Brave Payments, the user needs only to fund their wallet with BAT, and browse the web. By default, each property will receive a portion of the user's monthly allotment, relative to the amount of attention to user spent on that property's domain.
If a user has chosen to give $10 worth of BAT to 5 sites, and one of them received 80% of the user's attention, then that site will get $8 worth of BAT. The rest of the sites will get the remainder, pro rata.
Brave goes a step further though, and issues BAT grants monthly to users. So users don't need to fund their wallets to participate. Soon, users will be able to fund their wallet by opting into Brave Ads.
> Advertising isn’t personal, and doesn’t have to be. In fact, knowing it’s not personal is an advantage for advertisers. Consumers don’t wonder what the hell an ad is doing where it is, who put it there, or why.
> Advertising makes brands. Nearly all the brands you know were burned into your brain by advertising. In fact the term branding was borrowed by advertising from the cattle business. (Specifically by Procter and Gamble in the early 1930s.)
> Advertising carries an economic signal. Meaning that it shows a company can afford to advertise. Tracking-based advertising can’t do that. (For more on this, read Don Marti, starting here.)
> Advertising sponsors media, and those paid by media. All the big pro sports salaries are paid by advertising that sponsors game broadcasts. For lack of sponsorship, media—especially publishers—are hurting. @WaltMossberg learned why on a conference stage when an ad agency guy said the agency’s ads wouldn’t sponsor Walt’s new publication, recode. Walt: “I asked him if that meant he’d be placing ads on our fledgling site. He said yes, he’d do that for a little while. And then, after the cookies he placed on Recode helped him to track our desirable audience around the web, his agency would begin removing the ads and placing them on cheaper sites our readers also happened to visit. In other words, our quality journalism was, to him, nothing more than a lead generator for target-rich readers, and would ultimately benefit sites that might care less about quality.” With friends like that, who needs enemies?
Versus the top four things he says about adtech:
> Adtech is built to undermine the brand value of all the media it uses, because it cares about eyeballs more than media, and it causes negative associations with brands. Consider this: perhaps a $trillion or more has been spent on adtech, and not one brand known to the world has been made by it. (Bob Hoffman, aka the Ad Contrarian, is required reading on this.)
> Adtech wants to be personal. That’s why it’s tracking-based. Though its enthusiasts call it “interest-based,” “relevant” and other harmless-sounding euphemisms, it relies on tracking people. In fact it can’t exist without tracking people. (Note: while all adtech is programmatic, not all programmatic advertising is adtech. In other words, programmatic advertising doesn’t have to be based on tracking people. Same goes for interactive. Programmatic and interactive advertising will both survive the adtech crash.)
Adtech spies on people and violates their privacy. By design. Never mind that you and your browser or app are anonymized. The ads are still for your eyeballs, and correlations can be made.
> Adtech is full of fraud and a vector for malware. @ACFou is required reading on this.
> Adtech incentivizes publications to prioritize “content generation” over journalism.
He also makes the point that adtech is fundamentally closer to direct marketing (mail spam, email spam... all spam except meaty SPAM):
Brave replacing adtech with advertising is intelligible if you understand the distinction being made.
For example, their first point about Advertising not needing to be personal is disingenuous. Advertising needs to be relevant, and personalization is one facet of relevancy. A perfect ad is 100% relevant to every buyer it is consumed by, meaning the ad is personalized for each consumer. Is personalization necessary? Not if your goal is inefficient advertising.
They are ensuring user privacy by doing all machine learning locally. Google had the unofficial "don't be evil" motto and Brave has "can't be evil" as a motto.
Call me crazy, but in no future can I imagine anyone willingly paying their browser vendor for anything. Brave isn't the future, it's yet another cash grab.
The real future is fully-decentralized websites, and it doesn't require new browsers.
Edit: Fixed inaccuracy pointed out by Brave developer
Also, consider reading my response to "replacing ads" here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17972072
Let's say I want to run a forum. Something equivalent to, hmm, https://forums.sufficientvelocity.com/
How do I do that as a decentralized website?
I like the vision of decentralized computing, but I'm afraid it'll be at minimum very inefficient, and possibly infeasible.
Freenet's FMS allows moderation using a web of trust. You provide trust to users pseudo-anonymous identities. And you can choose to trust who they trust. Trust scores are computed and any identity below a level will not be seen by your identity.
Freenet's Sone has similar functionality using a web of trust plugin (FMS has its own trust implementation) that can be used by other plugins.
But that will have implications for latency of post updates, security, and complexity of maintaining the system.
That was effectively funded by taxpayers by way of universities.
Maybe the answer is public funding for online content, but we should be clear about it. This is an economic problem, not a technical one. Federation might slice the economic problem into smaller pieces, but they still need to be paid for.
Slice it down even further, and it can simply be the cost of entry. In the same fashion that P2P sharing communities usually require that you make X gb of data available before you can join, or closed torrent communities require an even seed/leech ratio, your federated network can require that you allow upload and 10gb of hard drive space to use (or vary based on usage or something)
Distribute the cost to the point that for any given person the cost is negligible is the ideal.
The example used (Sufficient Velocity) does not appear to be profit-based either.
At the very core it comes down to whether or not people will have always-connected device that can do simple tasks for them. Imagine a layered webs-of-trust from Layer 2 up. Person P1 can trust router R1 (the one they use at home) to accept messages for them. They follow P2, P3, P4 on this future Twitter. P2 may entrust their friend's router. To deliver messages from internet piece to internet piece you use the WoT to make sure that the packets you are sending are from trusted computers. Some institutions, like banks, say, may be more forgiving than others because they have a profit incentive, so if your home computer gets hacked they may disallow your packets for a while, but once you get a fixed computer you're off to the races again.
Forums could be done in a multitude of ways, but what you are primarily asking for is for open forums. But it isn't possible to secure an open forum. We see this over and over again as spammers push their garbage down everyones throats or gloss it up by astroturfing. We can have relative anonymity, for example, Person P1 signs trust to Alias A5. We could even use something more complicated like what Monero does, but I worry at some point it will just turn into another form of money and that is antithetical to the whole model which should harshly punish people and devices that supply trust for cash.
Anyway, I know its a bit abstract, but you could have a forum. And it could be more or less realtime (since I'm getting updates pushed to my own device) but you're right, it is way more complicated and wouldn't truly be the same thing.
Well, depends on what you mean by decentralized and whether you meant distributed instead. If your use case allows centralization that you control, just put it on your always-on home computer and expose it as an onion service over Tor. The more infrastructure requirements you have (e.g. HA, load balancing, backups, etc) the larger the burden of course.
Of course, if it must be distributed/decentralized using others' resources (beyond just disk space), this is not a very mature area and the app has to be written to take advantage of the limited options that do exist.
Brave is also built on top of Chromium. What ramifications that might have I'm not sure.
If the browser provides a value add through integration and support, then I could completely imagine that.
Brave isn't the future, it's yet another cash grab. The real future is fully-decentralized websites, and it doesn't require new browsers.
If we make it too hard to make a profit while protecting our privacy while it's too easy to make a profit by eliminating privacy, there's only one way that story can end.
For one thing, the clickthroughs are certainly important, but advertising is also just impressions and brand recognition---even if somehow everyone magically stopped clicking on ads, companies like Coke and Pepsi would still pay top-dollar to remind you you're thirsty for sugar-water right now, and if you're reading websites or watching videos online instead of watching TV or reading a newspaper, that's where they'll do it.
But additionally, a very, very small number of Internet users click on ads. And those clicks float the entire industry. I'm not super-excited about any solution that assumes a tiny minority of people stop doing a thing; statistically, it's unlikely to pan out that way.
So yeah, "That industry makes an awful lot of cash" is useful to factor into one's thought process when one tries to reason through how one could tear it down. If nothing else, it's a first-approximation barometer of how much people will spend to oppose your efforts.
You can find this version online at brave.com/download-dev
Also, thanks for the bug link. If there are any other items on iOS and/or Android that I can review, please do share.
Now we can't even show an in-house ad without getting an error about the site having "malware".
Nice try, like GDPR itself, but the intent does not match the implementation. There are trillions in market cap standing in the way and this will end in nothing but a waste of legal fees.
But since you're operating on assumptions and have nothing better to offer than saying "denial", then I'll just go ahead and assume that your experience with both adtech and GDPR amounts to something less than insignificant and that your future comments on this topic will remain lacking.
I've seen so many enraged comments related to the new copyright laws, that my instinct says it will be a good thing.
That unethical companies tries to push that view isn't particularly unexpected. But that doesn't detract from the massive success it has had in imprinting the notion that personal data must be treated with respect and comes with responsibilities. This is a game changer.
Also now, for the first time, if you are in the know you have something you can do.
I'd really like to know how you would have done this.
What would happen if a company decided that 4 percent of turnover is much cheaper than properly securing all of their data, and just chooses to pay the fine every year?
Of course, there are hypothetical scenarios - though I can't think of a realistic one right now - where the EU division is only profitable with the economies of scale enabled by worldwide data-sharing. The assumption that anything and everything can be done profitable in a GDPR-compliant way is naive at best, deluded at worst, but not universally wrong.
Though between GDPR and the link tax proposal I can see news aggregators ceasing to exist entirely within the EU. Which seems very likely to do a great deal of harm to a lot of newspapers.
Practically: per reasonable timeframe, where a company who continues to do bad things a good time after been fined can get another fine.
Brave Ads, which is an optional component, also will not track the user. Local machine-learning will decide what willing users are interested in, and whether or not to show them particular ads.
The Brave Ads system is antithetical to the current form of digital advertising. Rather than radiating personal information to innumerable third parties, you secure your data on your device, and let your device privately and securely determine what you would like, or would not like, to see.
How are you countering my claim? It is trying to establish a monopoly on the ad-targeting protocol. Brave is not a regulated party, and as well-intended as Brave could be, all it essentially doing is moving one part of the architecture to the client, and granting control over it to a single party.
Google used to "do no evil" what guarantees Brave will not?
As for what guarantees Brave won't do evil, look at our design principles. When it came to syncing data from one device to another, we designed it in such a way that we could never see what data was moving from device to device. Encryption on the machine shields all eyes, including our own, from your data. Consider also Payments--the user's ability to support content creators. Even here we implemented the ANONIZE protocol to protect your anonymity and privacy. That alone wasn't satisfactory, so we also channel the info through a VPN to mask your location as well.
All that we do remains open, and engineered in such a way that Brave couldn't abuse your trust even if we wanted to. This future friendly principle ensures that Brave couldn't turn sour on you in the future; not without a massive re-engineering effort beforehand. But even then, all of our code is open and auditable.
Google was "Don't be evil," but Brave is "Can't be evil." The difference is subtle, yet profound.
Local AI keeps sending this guy ads for shoes and cottage cheese == this guys keeps searching for shoes and cottage cheese?
We have a passionate group of security-minded folks internally who have been exploring ways to game the system, and closing those holes preemptively.
I'd love to see us publish something in the future about specific types of attacks which work on the present-day model, but not on our model. Additionally, what types of new attacks could be possible, and how we've prepared.
Suffice it to say, having the home-field (the user's machine) advantage is going to play well in our favor.
The official reason given being: "Over 70% of all trade in services are enabled by data flows, meaning that data protection is critical to international trade."
While Britain is on course to leave the EU (one specific body), it will continue to co-operate at a European (continent) level in all sorts of ways. Common data protection legislation being one example.
I'm curious though why Brave chose Britain and Ireland as the two places to complain. Maybe because English speaking?
Seems like a lot of people are. ;)
> The complaint argues that when a person visits a website, intimate personal data that describe them and what they are doing online is broadcast to tens or hundreds of companies without their knowledge in order to auction and place ads.
It would be great if someone with real expertise in GDPR or adtech could provide context: Isn't this violation obvious and therefore don't the adtech companies have a strategy prepared? Could a ruling effectively outlaw the modern surveillance-based online business model and therefore wouldn't this issue be existential for adtech?
I don't know the details of GDPR and its application; perhaps this issue is narrower than it appears or maybe there are substantial ways to workaround a ruling and preserve the adtech model.
What they sell is ad spots in webpages, when those webpages are visited by people who satisfy some demographic matrix. The data itself, generally, does not get sold.
An ad network answers the question 'what is the best way to spend $$$ and win this election' _using_ personal data of millions of people, but not _revealing_ the personal data to the paying customer. The paying customer is highly unlikely to have the technical acumen to turn personal data into actionable insights anyways, service readily provided by the ad network. The fact that personal data was not revealed is irrelevant, the end effect was bought by anyways.
The evil is in collecting personal data to begin with, not in the technical manner it is used against the people it belongs to.
It is why video rentals were protected information. That and the sublime trolling of reading Robert Bork's video rentals into official record after he stated there was no constitutional right to privacy.
Do you mean it's evil to collect the personal data for the purpose of selling ad impressions of it's evil to collect personal data, full-stop? I want companies like Google collecting my personal data to, for example, provide me context-relevant search and map navigation results and voice-assistant actions. So it doesn't seem like evil-full-stop passes the smell test.
Also, per the article, the complaint claims that the collected information is shared with many other companies. How does that square with what you are saying? Are they sharing it with partners but not selling it to them? Does that make a difference under GDPR?
There is a great NGO of lawyers called NOYB (None of Your Business) in Austria who has filed complaints with Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram and Android about the consent dialogs not being valid under GDPR.
The complaint PDFs are worth glancing through to see how disingenuous the adtech companies are in their attempts to appear to comply with consent, when I think anyone reasonable would agree they are not.
I'm curious as to the detail of Brave's complaint, which seems to add even more to this.
Google does the hard work of aggregating and anonymizing the data, I simple scrape their results on my page.
Also, version information would be helpful. In brave-muon you can find this in about:brave. In brave-core, it's in about:version. Thank you!
Also for good measure my version info
OS Release: 4.15.0-29-generic
Update Channel: Release
OS Architecture: x64
OS Platform: Linux
Brave Sync: v1.4.2
All the best!
I assume they have just upped the ante of their heuristics, but am still concerned about the fallout, since I am starting to ignore them.
Not related, but considering that it does not scan except on demand, why is it ALWAYS running? Who vouches for Mr. Malwarebytes?
(Not an official Brave endorsement, but I personally like their team)
It looks like this happens often enough, there is a whole page dedicated to false positives.
EDIT: not sure why they prefer blacklisting to whitelisting, anyone know the reasons?
It's not like false positives are uncommon.
Or in affiliate-type linking into Brave installer ?
Google Chrome cracked down on these 2 yrs ago but making they are making a comeback ?