> But even if you're right, why is it unethical for me to install software on my own computer to render websites differently than the creator intended?
It's not unethical for you to run that program, but what is being argued is that Brave (the company) is acting unethically, for example by taking donations on behalf of other people without their consent[0].
Just curious, what exact sentence(s) from the above links to the Brave website do you see contradicting this claim about "shadow wallets"? (if that's the correct wording)
When I read something like this, it almost sound like they're making wallets (without necessarily asking beforehand):
> If you own a website, or even just a blog or other sub-domain on a hosting site, we’ll create a site wallet for you.[0]
Yes, they created wallets without asking beforehand, replaced the ads you monetize your site with with their own BAT system, and held funds hostage unless you buy into their system.
If I feel you're owed a token, but you don't have a wallet in they currency, what should I do:
- make you a wallet and let you claim it later?
- keep the token?
Neither of these constitute a hostage situation. There's no buying in except the time it takes to move that token to an exchange and turn it into dollars or kgs of cocaine or whatever.
Yeah, I suppose it would be better to just let the tokens pile up in the wallet, the better to later inventivize adoption later.
I still think it's less shady than the concept of advertising in the first place. I have yet to come across a satisfying definition of malware that doesn't also describe web advertising.
It's not unethical for you to run that program, but what is being argued is that Brave (the company) is acting unethically, for example by taking donations on behalf of other people without their consent[0].
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18734999