Printable View
https://brave.com
"The new Brave browser automatically blocks ads and trackers, making it faster and safer than your current browser.
Soon, micropayments and better ads will give users and publishers a better deal."
this from the co-founder of mozilla and inventor of javascript
he says ads are here to stay and ad-blockers are killing content
The message seems a bit contradictory.
the base concept is that the sites you visit have their 'bad' ads [which slow loading] replaced by ads from brave's 'partners' [which don't]
plus:
in principle an interesting idea, but I could see it going pear-shaped....Quote:
Replacing ads means our users get a share of the gross ad revenue. Brave will pay users 15% of gross ad revenue. This is the same amount of money that we make from those ads (the rest goes to publishers and ad content partners.) And if you are feeling generous, you may route your earnings back to the sites you browse, and even add more through the use of a Brave wallet, administered through BitGo. In exchange for your generosity, we will block all of the ads on the sites you choose to pay.
Right, so out of the frying pan and into the fire!Quote:
Originally Posted by handrawn
We still get content we didn't ask for but now someone else is deciding what we get to see.
well that is one way of looking at it :)
as a web designer though [I think], would you not agree it is usual to give the visitor what you think they should have/want/need/enjoy - and that would include ads if that was the site's funding model
so some one is always deciding for us what we get to see when we viait a site
the question of course is: whether the substitution is targeted and profiled, whether it is of quality rather then junk, and whether the process interfers with anything else
one thing for sure, nothing comes 'free'
Absolutely.Quote:
Originally Posted by handrawn
So, I buy-in to this model by using the new browser.
The cynic in me wonders when advertisers will pay the browser organisation to promote their ads and not substitute them.. ..and of course the browser people have all of the stats for who clicks what, not just on that site, but the users 'journey' across sites.
It's not necessarily a bad idea, but I'll let others jump onboard first!
I looked into this when it first came out - I actually have it downloaded but I have never used it [its on the round tuit list]
thing is noscript does a first class job of blocking most of the junk - having to manually set javascript permissions for new sites is well worth the significant speedup in loading times
on the occasion I need to use IE there are sites where I can go and get coffee and they are still just finishing off loading when I get back - that is simply no way to work efficiently
Frank - While most ads that appear in browsers are click bait and worse, the reality is, ads pay for much of the content we see. Because most websites that have content that is worth viewing, also are trying to stay afloat and pay their staff and their bills. And most visitors think that everything on the Internet is free so you don't need to pay.
Ads generate income. And the income goes to providing the content.
That is just a fact of life.
I think we pretty much have to face the fact that eventually all businesses want to monitise their service. But claiming to block ads only if the advertiser has not paid you is a good old protection racket.
Ad Blocker (the original one) went to an "acceptable ad" policy--i.e., companies that paid them to allow the ads through. They can still be set to be blocked, though. I've really had enough of money grubbing.
Ad blockers are not all about the actual ads, though. The one I use also blocks cross-domain scripts if set to do so (which I do). And sites can be much quicker. Some sites are absolutely terrible in what gets sent to the browser. For instance, Adobe's forums run in at about 7 megs of download for each and every page (mobile is a little less, but not enough less). Of that horrible amount of megs, 58 tracking and cross domain scripts are blocked here. 58!
In any case, I have no sympathy for advertisers. Me wanting something for nothing? Not really. I pay for content on a couple sites I find value at. But if the site does not charge for access, then free should mean free. If they (the sites) really want to see the monetary value of the content they provide, they can charge for it. That should be enough for them to gauge "value." And advertisers? They have no value to me.
I have no objection to ads as long as they do not slow down loading and they do not play audio or animation automatically - edit better add do not break up the content or popup
as far as I am concerned if the web site owners do not enforce these rules, then they have to accept ad blocking; it's up to them to clean up the act