undefined | Better HN

0 pointslern_too_spel6y ago0 comments

Because it inserts a middleman who takes a cut that the publisher did not enter into an agreement with. If it was just users giving to publishers, that would be fine. Having a middleman hold the publisher's monetization hostage is ethically dubious for the middleman.

Consider that I could pirate a movie, or I could pirate it and pay the creators directly, leaving out the distributors the creators contracted with. I fully agree that the second is slightly more ethical than the first, even though the creator agreed to neither. The problem occurs when some Tube site distributes the videos without the creators' consent, collects money from the viewers, takes a cut, and passes the rest to the creator. The Tube site is ethically wrong.

0 comments

KKPMW6y ago

But nobody is holding anything hostage. When you use Brave, you can opt-in to display ads on your Browser, and while doing so still get ads from Brave. So the choice to cut-off ads from the content publisher is yours. If you think it's unethical - just do not block the ads.

lern_too_spelOP6y ago

Brave is holding the publisher's monetization hostage. Again, my issue is not with the user but with Brave.

fastball6y ago

But... they're not though.

Ad-blocking in Brave (as it already exists in every other browser via plugins) is optional.

Brave ads (a paradigm which doesn't exist in any other browser) are optional.

You can disable both, enable both, or disable one and not the other. The choice is absolutely on the user and Brave isn't holding anything hostage.

lern_too_spelOP6y ago

Using a piracy tube is also optional. That doesn't make the people running the privacy tube any more ethical. Brave is replacing a monetization scheme that the publisher willingly entered into with one where Brave inserts itself into the existing monetization flow and stops the monetization completely unless the publisher deals with Brave. Similarly, the tube sites stop monetization for its users unless the creators deal with them.

You're still confusing who is at fault here.

Ajedi326y ago

> Having a middleman hold the publisher's monetization hostage is ethically dubious for the middleman.

I think that's why they went with a cryptocurrency for payment. Brave isn't a middleman, or at least there's no technical reason why they have to be. Users pay publishers directly, using tokens that they earn from Brave in exchange for viewing ads.

bsclifton6y ago

Tokens only go to verified publishers. Signing up to receive them is basically that consent. Otherwise (site or channel not verified), the transaction never leaves the user's browser

wikipedia.org, slashdot.org, and other sites that show a purple checkmark in the URL bar have gone through that verification process

SamBam6y ago

"I blocked your source of revenue, now I'm holding some money which you can either sign up to receive a fraction of, or don't and you won't get any" doesn't sound like "consent" to me.

bsclifton6y ago

Setting aside the rewards program, people can and will use ad-blockers. Even if those were illegal for some reason, there are lists available (such as hosts, https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts) where you can make known tracking/advertising/etc hostnames non-routable

Are you saying that site owners should feel violated by folks installing ad-blockers (or using host files)?

SamBam6y ago

No one believes that ad blockers are good for content creators.

Brave, however, positions itself as being good for creators with its rewards program. A user may be forgiven for thinking that this is actually better for creators: "Earn rewards and give back to your favorite Creators. Support your favorite sites with micropayments."

If Brave takes away revenue from the creators, and offers them a fraction of that revenue back, that's one thing. BUT you can't turn around and say that a creator accepting that fraction is "consent" to the whole program.

That's what I was saying.

DHPersonal6y ago

I think you have a point, but the Brave Rewards program can also be seen as a redistribution system. For the sites that one wishes to support, one can choose to disable the ad-blocking system in Brave and see the standard ads. For the sites that are distributing bad advertisements, the ad-blocking system is useful and might be wise to enable. The in-browser ads then give a small funding to the user who sends it back to the sites that were unblocked, further increasing their revenue.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

KKPMW6y ago

lern_too_spelOP6y ago

Brave is holding the publisher's monetization hostage. Again, my issue is not with the user but with Brave.

fastball6y ago

But... they're not though.

Ad-blocking in Brave (as it already exists in every other browser via plugins) is optional.

Brave ads (a paradigm which doesn't exist in any other browser) are optional.

You can disable both, enable both, or disable one and not the other. The choice is absolutely on the user and Brave isn't holding anything hostage.

lern_too_spelOP6y ago

You're still confusing who is at fault here.

Ajedi326y ago

> Having a middleman hold the publisher's monetization hostage is ethically dubious for the middleman.

bsclifton6y ago

Tokens only go to verified publishers. Signing up to receive them is basically that consent. Otherwise (site or channel not verified), the transaction never leaves the user's browser

wikipedia.org, slashdot.org, and other sites that show a purple checkmark in the URL bar have gone through that verification process

SamBam6y ago

"I blocked your source of revenue, now I'm holding some money which you can either sign up to receive a fraction of, or don't and you won't get any" doesn't sound like "consent" to me.

bsclifton6y ago

Are you saying that site owners should feel violated by folks installing ad-blockers (or using host files)?

SamBam6y ago

No one believes that ad blockers are good for content creators.

That's what I was saying.

DHPersonal6y ago

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse