Publishers call Brave's privacy-centric browser "illegal"; Brave responds

[Read the post]


Consumption is justice! Obesity is patriotism! Adblocking is terrorism!


I remember when they said the same about TiVo.


If the publishers want to squash his plans, maybe they should just make sure the Do Not Track flags are honored so their ads get shown.


It’s a shame that the accompanying graph image has been anti-aliased so much that the numbers are illegible.

1 Like

OK. I’ll ask this here…

How “experimental” are we talking? It looks like it’s online and running:

I’d give it a try but don’t want to invest the effort if it’s not ready for primetime yet.

1 Like

I gotta admit, I find something really unsettling about the Brave ad model, because there’s something fundamentally different between ‘I choose not to look at ads’ and ‘My browser shows me different ads and earns a profit on it’. I suppose the goal is good, but that does seem like a weird path to walk.


Isn’t Brendan Eich the homophobe who donated money to the anti-gay marriage campaign and got booted from Mozilla after protests? Probably worth mentioning.


Sounds like a fun browser but I would like answers to the following before I switch over:


it doesn’t work on my pc ATM, i launch it it comes up, then immeadiatley closes, no error message.
so i’ll re-grab once a month until it works, it’s a great idea

Why yes, yes he is!


WTF?! Last time I visited Queerty, I don’t recall seeing all these ads for Chick-fil-A and Mormon dating sites!!?


I find something really unsettling about the Brave ad model, because there’s something fundamentally different between ‘I choose not to look at ads’ and ‘My browser shows me different ads and earns a profit on it’.

Yes. There is a fundamental difference here that is being elided over. From a historical perspective, once I have your content I can do what I want with it so long as I don’t redistribute it in violation of your copyright. If you sell me a newspaper I can cut all of the ads out of it, I can cut the comic strips out of it, I can discard the entire classified ads section - all of that is me making a choice to do with the content what I see fit.

What Eich is proposing is basically the equivalent of him taking a stack of free newspapers (that are supposed to earn their money via advertising), pasting his own ads over the existing ads, sticking them back into the pile and telling the newspaper “hey, I’ll give you a cut of my advertising”. He’s proposing to steal their content and redistribute it without their permission - and that’s a line that no content creator should really want to see crossed.


He admits donating to the Prop 8 campaign, which was supposed to restrict marriage in California to one man and one woman.

That said, I knew him at Netscape and later at AOL, and I have never known him to be homophobic in word or deed. We are not friends-- I don’t like him and he doesn’t like me, and he’s one reason I didn’t last at AOL-- but I think he’s being tarred inappropriately with a SJW brush.


Wait, so I’m supposed to give up my AdBlockers and use his “approved” ads instead so the end result is that I see ads again?


So don’t install it. Brave isn’t being deceptive in any way. It’s entirely opt-in.

Newspaper publishers could start honoring do-not-track or use a reverse-proxy to turn third-party ads into first-party ads.


There are lots of reasons people use ad blockers. Some people don’t want to see ads. Some people don’t mind the ads, but they don’t like tracking. Brave caters to the latter group.

I’m in that group - I’d like websites to know as much about me as the publishers of People magazine do after I read a copy in a waiting room.

(of course there are other reasons to use an adblocker including minimizing bandwidth and power consumption and maximizing browser speed)


Um… donating to the Prop 8 campaign is itself a homophobic deed, and all 'round dick move.


That’s not how I’m taking it. He’s proposing to block their ad revenue and replace it with ads that generate revenue for him. Which I don’t really see how, from the blocked company’s perspective, is any different than running an ad blocker - they still don’t get their ad seen either way.


I think he’s talking about “stealing” the content creator’s content; not the advertiser’s.