Because it's monetizing other peoples content. In my view, it's the same as cutting and pasting somebody else's content onto my own site with my own ads.

Even if I promise to give most of the money I make back to the original content creator, I really have no right to the small part I skim.

Update: Sorry didn't mean to suggest it was unethical for you to view a page any way you want, but I think the creators of the Brave browsers are scuzzy.

Update Two: I see now that Brave have updated the policy and will only collect funds for creators that have opted in.

Also, as others have pointed out in this thread, they don't replace ads on websites with their own. It blocks ads, and if you want you can view Brave ads in exchange for their cryptocurrency and optionally donate them to participating publishers. I'd say this is no worse than a regular ad blocker, but you at least have the choice to attempt to remunerate the publisher for the lost revenue.

That's right -- user first. Users will do right by their favorite publishers.

> But even if you're right, why is it unethical for me to install software on my own computer to render websites differently than the creator intended?

It's not unethical for you to run that program, but what is being argued is that Brave (the company) is acting unethically, for example by taking donations on behalf of other people without their consent[0].

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18734999

Except they don't. See above.

Well, that's good! Might give Brave a spin then.

Just curious, what exact sentence(s) from the above links to the Brave website do you see contradicting this claim about "shadow wallets"? (if that's the correct wording)

When I read something like this, it almost sound like they're making wallets (without necessarily asking beforehand):

> If you own a website, or even just a blog or other sub-domain on a hosting site, we’ll create a site wallet for you.[0]

Am I reading that wrong?

[0]: https://brave.com/how-brave-works-for-you/

Yes, they created wallets without asking beforehand, replaced the ads you monetize your site with with their own BAT system, and held funds hostage unless you buy into their system.

If I feel you're owed a token, but you don't have a wallet in they currency, what should I do:

- make you a wallet and let you claim it later?

- keep the token?

Neither of these constitute a hostage situation. There's no buying in except the time it takes to move that token to an exchange and turn it into dollars or kgs of cocaine or whatever.

> - make you a wallet and let you claim it later?

> - keep the token?

The problem is pretending to do the first while actually doing the latter (when the token isn't claimed after X days, etc...)

Yeah, I suppose it would be better to just let the tokens pile up in the wallet, the better to later inventivize adoption later.

I still think it's less shady than the concept of advertising in the first place. I have yet to come across a satisfying definition of malware that doesn't also describe web advertising.