Hacker News Reader

Comment by Ajedi32 | Hacker News Reader

I don't really see how a browser that blocks ads is any different from an extension that blocks ads.

Well, it blocks adds and collects money on the behalf of others without having permission to do so...

And it's all done client side. What is the issue? Or does it bother Google and other online players that they can not control what is being done?

> blocks adds

Yes, but so does uBlock Origin, Adblock Plus, etc.

> collects money on the behalf of others

Why would they need permission from Google to do that? That's completely unrelated to them.

Because it's illegal. You write a book, I sell some home-printed copies of it and might give me some money if you claim it. It's clearly illegal.

That's not what's happening, though. Brave is not running a streaming video service. They aren't hosting or distributing the content. There's nothing illegal about holding money and pledging to give it to someone if they ask for it (as long as you actually do).

That doesn't matter. Torrent websites don't host or distribute any content, yet they still get shut down. Not opposing you, just saying your argument isn't enough.

It does matter, because your argument categorically does not apply. Brave is not involved with the distribution of content.

> I sell some home-printed copies

That'd be a copyright violation. But Brave isn't making or selling copies of anything, so I don't see what your point is.

Whose permission does it need exactly?!

1) It blocks ads, just like a browser extension would

2) It has a set-up a payment content creators can take advantage of.

I fail to see what is wrong with either.

That doesn't make any sense. Right now, I'm going to start putting money into this jar to my left. I'm going to put a sticker on it that says your name. You can come retrieve this jar if you like. Therefore, I have done something wrong?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com