[1] https://www.theblockcrypto.com/2018/12/24/brave-browser-is-c...
An earlier version of the browser let early adopter users direct where Brave's own marketing budget of BAT tokens was sent to, including sites that hadn't yet signed up.
If those sites didn't sign up, the tokens would eventually go back into the marketing budget pool of tokens, to be distributed to other sites (not to Brave).
That's very different to the mischaraterisation you mention above, but no surprise as Brave's model is a threat to the current fraudulent ad tech ecosystem.
They did make changes to the product immediately after that episode though. Now if you want to donate to a site that hasn't registered your browser will try for a period of time, and if the publisher doesn't sign up the tokens are returned to you to distribute elsewhere.
Any honest onlooker doing the barest of research would understand the absurdity of the claim, but the amplification of that mischaracterisation was (and is) clearly aimed at herd programming to try to suppress Brave's growth.
I'm not saying its a Patreon for thieves, and that doesn't make what they did less unsavory IMO.
Brave does not replace publisher ads with their own.
Brave does not block first party ads. Google's search ads display. Facebook's ads display. Twitter's ads display.
Brave does block other ads by default, and as a user agent, it's reflecting the valid, ethical choices of the user not to load the untrustworthy content and scripts from these poorly-coded, user-hostile third party ad networks.
If a user opts-in to Brave's ad ecosystem, then they've also made a decision about what content funding model they want to support.
There are many browsers out there, but till now there's really only been one privacy-invading ad model.
Now we have not just another browser, but another ad model which respects privacy, and after all we've learned about the current ad-tech ecosystem I'd prioritise user agency over all other considerations.
If the primacy of user agency begins to take hold, then the market will adapt and survive and even thrive within this new model.
Because he didn't exclude first-party ads? That's what you consider to be not reflective "at all"?
Just pretend he said "all non-Adsense third-party ads" and then educate us against whatever additional misconceptions you perceive him and us to hold.
That functionality is on the roadmap, but Brave has stated that will only occur with publisher consent.
Keep an eye out for accounts that try to push this mischaracterisation and see if they're linked to the existing ad tech industry...
So I guess if you want to be technical, Brave either swaps with nothing or with their own ads.
First party ads aren't blocked.
Publisher ads aren't swapped.
If a user opts-in to Brave's model for ads, they are system-level notifications which lead to full-page ads that aren't linked to any website.
You keep making vague accusations of shilling so I'll turn the tables - what exactly is your connection to Brave?
I have no connection with Brave.
Anyway, on reddit the user with the same name has deleted their account but this one is still active and active in the BAT / Brave subreddits. [0]
Full disclosure: I came to root against Brave after seeing how Tom Scott was treated and how that whole debacle went. I don’t even work in Tech so really, I shouldn’t care.
If your product has to be opt-out to have a chance of success, then it's a failure from day one.
[0] https://old.reddit.com/user/justsee_/posts/
edit: opt-out in regards to the creaors being sent BAT by users without knowing about that. i.e. the Tom Scott Fiasco.
And they did make it opt-in for receiving 'real' tokens, as far as I can tell from the last few minutes of searching. The UGP tokens can still be sent at people that didn't opt-in, but those are more like coupon codes than money. Users can only get them for free, and they have an expiration date.
No they don't, I've been using the Brave browser for over a year on desktop, with the users ads activated
This is the most common seen misconception on HN about Brave, Brave is not replacing ads with their own ads
It just doesn't work like this
A great comment from a Brave team member about that misconception on Reddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ethtrader/comments/bby4um/the_la_ti...
It absolutely both blocks (many) pre-existing ads and places its own ads. Those are both overt features of the browser.
> If a user opts-in to Brave's ad ecosystem, then they've also made a decision about what content funding model they want to support.
It's not really a content funding model, since whether Brave shows (and derives revenue) for ads or not (and whether it blocks the ads the content supplier has decided to place or not) has nothing to do with any agreement or payment to the content source; it's a browser funding model.
The content funding model it (indirectly) promotes is the covert “organic” advertising model, where rather than being separated and distinguished from the editorial content, the promotional content is integrated with and inseperable from the organic content.
No it does not, I've been using the Brave browser for over a year on desktop, with the users ads activated
This is the most common seen misconception on HN about Brave, Brave is not replacing ads with it's own ads
It just doesn't work like this
A great comment from a Brave team member about that misconception on Reddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ethtrader/comments/bby4um/the_la_ti...
This alone is enough of an inflammatory and conspiratorial statement that I have a hard time taking you seriously. It's a bad look to cry "shill" in the face of fair criticism.
They only backed down when one of the content producers who had no relationship with them and did not want a relationship with them cried foul.
https://twitter.com/tomscott/status/1085238644926005248
"A final update on the thread about Brave: they're now opt-in for creators! While it's still possible to tip folks who haven't opted in, the data is stored in-browser and the UI has been clarified. These are good changes, and they fix the complaints I had!"
Your [2] reference has nothing to do with me. That's not my handle. If we err, we'll fix the error when it is pointed out clearly. If we are attacked with misinformation, we'll defend. Same as you'd want to do if roles were reversed.