Hacker News Reader

Comment by BrendanEich | Hacker News Reader

No, the decision was based on a spreadsheet with many items concerned with web compatibility, HTML5 DRM plugin free-as-in-beer, extension support, etc.

Chromium without Google tracking is dominant, this is just a fact (it will change some day; not soon). The best way to counter this is not to die on the wrong hill (engine wars) right now -- it is to go a level up and fight for privacy and user sovereignty where Google cannot defend: blocking all tracking, paying users 70% of user private ad revenue.

View on HN

> No, the decision was based on a spreadsheet with many items concerned with web compatibility, HTML5 DRM plugin free-as-in-beer, extension support, etc.

This is a spreadsheet I'd be interested to see. Was this compiled before or after Firefox supported WebExtensions?

This was in late 2015, but WebExtensions support in Firefox is never complete vs. Chrome, and you are ignoring DRM and all the other junk (gmeet screen sharing extension! ChromeCast! the list goes on... Chrome is the new IE, but at least most is open source or free as in beer).

> or free as in beer

IE was also free as in beer.

"Fighting for privacy" and third-party ads do not belong in the same sentence.

While I don’t like Brave, from what I’ve read the ads are decided on locally, so no information is sent to the advertiser. Again, this is what I’ve heard.

Yes, perfect. I absolutely want to download ALL ads instead of NO ads.

With all due respect, that isn't how the solution works. Users must first opt-in to Brave Ads. Once they do, they download a regional catalog. This is a text document, compressed down to about 3 MB in size. Your machine (via on-board machine-learning) studies this for relevancy. When a relevant ad is found, you are given 70% of the revenue, and a notification is displayed on your operating system. You have control from the start, even over the frequency of ads you'll see within an hour.

Why would anybody be interested in this? Content that depends on ad revenu especially written for it, is not worth consumption. The idea of solving a non existing problem is the problem with AdBuddy (AKA Brave). The way to go is ad and tracking blockers and let advertisers find a way to get to users without exploiting their ignorance. I don’t care and don’t need to build a relationship or accommodate a publisher. This is not what the internet of for.

You are correct. That’s why it’s not in the sentence. Brave blocks third party ads by default.

Lotta green handles fibbing about us here.

We don't do third party ads. We block third party tracking which takes out third party and most first party ads. We also block fingerprinting, cryptomining, and other threats.

> We don't do third party ads.

Are the ads hosted by the websites your users visit? If not, they're third-party ads, with you being that third party.

> Lotta green handles fibbing about us here.

Oh don't worry, I'd make the exact same comment from my other (non-green, thousands of karma) profile, I just like to occasionally switch aliases.

The contract-based party numbering, first and third remain in common vocabulary, does not distinguish the browser or user as zeroth party. Putting tags on a page that cause tracking ads to run from unrelated businesses and their servers is the only useful “third party ad” definition here. Browser-based ads that use anonymity tech are a different category.

If you insist on a reductionistic definition that rules out anything other than a static ad on the same site as the publisher, you will get stuck trying to improve the Web and how it is funded. I understand objecting to all ads other than static images that click through into same origin forms, or whatever, but that won’t pay the bills for most publishers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com