https://www.businessinsider.com/newspaper-publishers-send-ce...
https://www.wired.com/2016/04/brave-software-publishers-resp...
Where is the opt-in from the website who are getting their ads blocked/replaced?
The idea is to remove the coercion from ads. Users will earn 70% of all gross ad revenue. The remaining 30% will be split between publisher and the browser.
Users can get paid to tolerate ads, or they can choose to see no ads. If users see ads then users, the browser, and sites all earn money. If they don't then nobody earns money and they get to experience an ad free internet.
> With Brave, publishers get around 55% of revenues: 15% go to Brave, 15% go to the partner that serves the ads, and 10% to 15% goes back to the user
So they went from 55% for the publisher... to 15%?
I can't immediately find a source for the publisher opt-in thing. But brave definitely hasn't been doing anything like that in 2016 as your articles suggest, because they only just started now with beta testing brave ads[0]. From my personal testing of brave a couple of times, with the ad opt-in activated, I have also never seen this happening.
And publishers (now) seem willing to join[1].
[0] https://techcrunch.com/2018/06/20/blockchain-browser-brave-s...
[1] https://www.cnet.com/news/ad-blocking-brave-browser-gets-dow...
I'm not affiliated with Brave, but IIRC that requires opt-in from both the owner of the user AND the website. So it seems like a bit of a stretch to call it hijacking, when the website, ads are being "hijacked" from needs to opt-in to this.