Replying to Avatar Leo Wandersleb

That feature still is sold as doing something good while it deprives websites of their ad revenue while not even sparing the client the nuisance of ads.

By replacing other ads instead of just slapping their ads on top, they make it palatable for the users but it's disgusting.
Avatar
armstrys 2y ago

The whole concept was always to block ads and replace with an opt in model for users. There are ethical questions there of course, but I think they were at least clear about those intentions from the start. I don’t agree with the business model, but given that it’s opt in I don’t see it as much worse than any ad blocker that takes revenue from websites. Frankly I bet a lot of people around here would be more supportive of brave if they implemented the exact same model over lightning…

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
Leo Wandersleb 2y ago

For me it's outright theft of ad revenue and I will never support its use. I'm not up to date on all this but I would support Google suing Brave over this.

Avatar
armstrys 2y ago

A user has to make a decision to use brave and opt-in to ads, which redirects revenue - I see no legal problem with what brave has done.

There are lots of ethical concerns about brave’s business model, brave’s token usage, and also the data usage by ads deployed on most websites, which are by default not opt-in.