The founder of AdBlock Plus weighs in on PPA:

Privacy on the web is fundamentally broken, for at least 90% of the population. Advertising on the web is fundamentally broken, for at least 90% of the population.

Yet any attempt to improve this situation is met with fierce resistance by the lucky 10% who know how to navigate their way around the falltraps. Because the internet shouldn’t have tracking! The internet shouldn’t have ads! And any step towards a compromise is a capital offense. I mean, if it slightly benefits the advertisers as well, then it must be evil.

It seems that no solution short of eliminating tracking and advertising on the web altogether is going to be accepted. That we live with an ad-supported web and that fact of life cannot be wished away or change overnight – who cares?

And every attempt to improve the status quo even marginally inevitably fails. So the horribly broken state we have today prevails.

This is so frustrating. I’m just happy I no longer have anything to do with that…

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
13 points

If brave wasn’t completely unhinged, the idea of the brave attention token was kind of a cool idea (assuming you could pay a reasonable rate and not with ads).

But yeah, I fundamentally am not OK with tracking, am fundamentally not OK with companies paying to try to manipulate me, and am fundamentally not OK with the big attack vector ads expose. I would be willing to pay a reasonable rate for quality content, but it’s so fragmented there isn’t really any way to do that, and because of the way the monetization works, a lot of that content is compromised. So the end result is I don’t contribute anything to most sites I visit because I don’t have a real way to do so, but will not watch ads.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

The economics of Brave don’t work.

Pay-to-surf doesn’t work because it’s essentially a Turing test. These didn’t work in the 90s and they sure as hell won’t work today.

Paying a third party to automate donations for you introduces a trusted third party, who in the crypto world are infamous for robbing their customers. They don’t even make it to enshittification.

Brave is a scam. The CEO got kicked out of Mozilla for being a raging homophobe, and even the Bitcoin community told him to fuck off before he started a shitcoin. It’s like if you could invest in early flying machines that flapped their wings - there’s a problem and this rhymes with an answer, but it’s not even close.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I said “if Brave wasn’t unhinged”. But the core concept absolutely has merit.

There’s no inherent reason you couldn’t have sites opt in to another third party service, hosted by someone credible like Firefox, that just signed the connection as “paid”, then distributed most of the revenue to the sites, and it wouldn’t be hard for sites to take that “paid” signature and not display ads or trackers.

Look what they’re doing now. They’re using anti-adblocker tools to limit your access to the site, even though they know the conversion rate to people willing to watch ads is basically zero. If they had an option for “here’s how you can give us money”, a lot of them would take it. And there are plenty of people like me who would like to pay generally, but not dollars here and there to read single articles I have a passing interest in, and am just unwilling to allow the maliciousness (on several levels) of ads or the tracking for ads anywhere near my computer.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

But it is unhinged, the concept has no merit.

If you just want automated payments, we don’t need yet another shitcoin just for that purpose. “Most” of the revenue? We don’t need a third party at all, much less one that requires trust.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Firefox

!firefox@lemmy.ml

Create post

A place to discuss the news and latest developments on the open-source browser Firefox

Community stats

  • 3.4K

    Monthly active users

  • 409

    Posts

  • 4.5K

    Comments

Community moderators