> When a user installs uBlock Origin, they are attempting to protect themselves from ads, not just privacy, but because the ads themselves attempt to manipulate them into buying things

I'm not sure where you're getting this statistic. Most people that I know, myself included, aren't trying to protect themselves from buying things, rather from annoying ads that clutter everything up and slow everything down. Perhaps brave isn't the best choice for you, but it certainly will be a good choice for a lot of people who are currently using adblockers.

I'm part of the group GP refers to. I have no interest in ads. I might even be aggressively against them in most contexts. At best, they are a nagging distraction, and worst they are manipulation. I understand the value they bring to creators but where possible I opt for subscriptions or donations rather than ads, and have very few qualms about it.

I'm part of this group too. Fuck the current state of online advertising in its entirety. It's manipulative and is driving the web into the ground.

I didn't quote any statistics. Perhaps I should have said, "some users" or I could have said "users are also protected from manipulation".

I think if you thought about it for a while you would object to a constant bombardment of messages that you are not cool enough, or popular enough, or attractive enough, or fit enough.

Or that when you searched for things you were shown the "best results" rather than whoever paid google the most for your attention.

Or if you were thinking of buying a thing one day, but decided not to because you decided you didn't need it, you might prefer not to be constantly convinced to change your mind and buy the thing. Buy the THING!

My iPad is too old for an ad blocker so I have to suffer constant abuse when surfing the web on it. Don't get me started on Apple.

You're absolutely right that some people are not interested in ads, at all. And this is why they install content-blockers and more. This doesn't change the fact that many others install things like uBlock Origin for their security and privacy benefits. This is precisely why Brave ships with Brave Ads and Rewards disabled by default. We believe that the out of box experience should be blocking. This works for both parties: those who want the reduced noise, and those who want the added security/privacy. I hope this helps :)

I notice you didn't address one important part of my comment, that Brave is attempting to monetize other peoples intellectual property by stripping it of ads.

There is a big moral difference between a community of people blocking ads for their own protection, and a company blocking ads for profit.

--

When somebody reads a web page, but blocked the ads, I like to think the reader is saying, I'm interested in what you have to say, but I'm not spending money today.

When somebody uses the Brave browser and has opted in to other ads, I can only think the reader is saying, I'm interested in what you are saying, but fuck you, I'm not buying what you are selling, I'm going to check out these other ads, make some money for myself and for Brave, and If I see anything I like I'll buy there instead.

> Brave is attempting to monetize other peoples intellectual property by stripping it of ads.

Brave doesn't make money by blocking third-party ads; that's a privacy and security decision. Brave could default to no-blocking (which would be unwise, given the threat to users), and still have its own ad model of displaying ad notifications.

> …people blocking ads for their own protection…

This is why people install Brave; for the privacy and security benefits. This is the baseline experience in Brave.

> When somebody uses the Brave browser and has opted in to other ads…

Why do you assume people aren't using Brave for their own protection? For many people, including myself, advertising isn't the motivator of installing an ad/content blocker. The primary reason is the security/privacy risk of running a small app (which is what modern third-party digital ads are) on my machine.

So if the problem is security and privacy, and not advertising, it makes sense why somebody would opt to participate in an alternative advertising model which does not have the same security/privacy risks, and even rewards the user (with 70% of the ad revenue) for their attention.

> I'm going to check out these other ads, make some money for myself and for Brave…

And for the publisher, since the default configuration of Brave is to queue up auto-contributions for the verified sites you visit.

>Why do you assume people aren't using Brave for their own protection?

OK, sure, lets rewrite it as "Brave is attempting to monetize other people intellectual property by striping it of ads for the protection of readers."

And sure, you could argue that you are providing a service to readers. Unfortunately, in order to provide tha service you must harm the content providers by denying them ad revenue, whether or not they are actually doing any harmful tracking.

This is why I believe content providers will come after you once you get big enough.

And you might be able to scare users, but I doubt you will be able to convince a court that just collecting the data is harmful in any meaningful way.

But come on, we're all tech folks here, Brave is only blocking 3rd party tracking, the 1st parties are still tracking what pages on their site you are reading. Facebook knows what you see on Facebook. Newscorp and Tencent and Apple all know what you are reading across their own IPs. Netflix knows what you are watching and Spotify knows what you are listening to. You have to be logged in after all.

And anyway, I'm sure 3rd parties have started serving up scripts that run 1st party now, just proxxied through the first party server.

Update: And to be clear, if you were doing this all for the good of society alone I would cheer you on, but because you are doing it for profit it becomes unethical in my mind.

Now I know nobody asked, but if I were Mr Eich and I wanted to do this is a way that _was_ ethical, I would attempt to create a parallel internet that was attractive to both users and content providers. I think both parties need to opt-in to this new trackingless internet.

I have a lot of crazy ideas for making this crazy parallel internet good for everybody, but I would be here all night.

Would you then say it's disengenous to listen to the tv or radio while browsing the internet with an ad blocker?

Considering their ads are opt-in this argument makes no sense. Which class of person both wants to “protect themselves from ads” and opts in?

Brave isn’t a browser I use but you guys are not even reading the comments you’re responding to.

People who are tricked into thinking they are helping content creators by watching the ads that Brave serves. People who feel like they might be stealing a contents creators work unless the watch the ads.

Why would anybody opt in to watch the ads otherwise?

Update: Sorry, I just ready below that _users_ are paid up to 70% to watch ads which I did not realize even though that is what is said above. Explains why you would opt in.

And what's wrong with that? Brave blocks adds then allows you to opt in to see their ads. If that some how is theft then so is blocking ads in there first place.