undefined | Better HN

0 pointshunterb1234y ago0 comments

Notice how Brave had the weakest reasoning. A little talking point about crypto pushes it away, even though it's the only browser actually taking privacy seriously, not just as a marketing technique. Safari comes in second, but Apple actively cripples it due to the threat of PWA breaking the walled garden.

You have to opt-in to Brave marketing like you mentioned. It allows people to earn BAT if they want to, so they can tip site owners. Better than ads right? The only other complaint is the home screen where you can buy crypto and they get an affiliate payout, which is how they make money. That can be disabled and have you seen the default home screen of Edge? Its news is just ads and paid campaigns.

Brave also supports more protocols like IPFS, Web torrent, and Tor, its telling other browsers don't.

The power of propaganda is strong. The GP uses Edge that he knows is spyware and doesn't even consider Brave because one little talking point that simply gets summed up as "crypto".

0 comments

Adrig4y ago

Was the affiliation links inserted in the browser opt-in? Was the unethical business model to show custom ads in place of existing ones an accident? Or the crappy marketing campaign to lure content creators into their ecosystem by playing on ambiguous terms?

I own cryptos, I like cryptos, but the team behind Brave has proven to be scammy and unethical.

hunterb123OP4y ago

> Was the affiliation links inserted in the browser opt-in

I believe it was a mistake that it wasn't, and it was quickly made opt-in.

I think it's more scummy that Mozilla makes money from having Google as the default search engine, a still active campaign.

> Was the unethical business model to show custom ads in place of existing ones an accident?

As far as I know that's a lie, did they ever replace ads with blocked ads? Brave ads are text notifications, not banner ads.

> Or the crappy marketing campaign to lure content creators into their ecosystem by playing on ambiguous terms?

Nice word salad, doesn't mean much. Which marketing campaign, how are they luring, how are terms ambiguous, please expand.

> but the team behind Brave has proven to be scammy and unethical.

Yeah that's the punchline of the propaganda, but you should provide better reasoning if you want to convince anyone.

Your scale of ethics comparing browser companies is extremely inconsistent.

Adrig4y ago

>I believe it was a mistake that it wasn't, and it was quickly made opt-in.

Sure it wasn't. And if you think having Mozilla getting paid for their default search worse than trying to profit off affiliate marketing, we really have different views on the world.

>As far as I know that's a lie, did they ever replace ads with blocked ads? Brave ads are text notifications, not banner ads.

That's still hypocrite. You block off every ads on the internet, but still display your own. Your business model is still based on the "watchtime" but you forbid actual content creators to benefit from it. It was the same thing with adblock plus. Having a stance against ads is one thing, relying on them while blocking the whole internet of their revenue is a dick move.

>Which marketing campaign, how are they luring, how are terms ambiguous, please expand.

They accept donations for creators without their consent. It is now clear on the module when a creator has no account yet to receive the tips but at launch it wasn't the case. They lured users into donating and used this money to contact creators and try to leverage the generosity of their community to bring them on board. That's quite a low growth hacking tactic.

Don't worry about my consistency, I think I'm alright.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse