TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Newspapers slam ex-Mozilla CEO's new ad-blocking browser

37 点作者 randomname2大约 9 年前

16 条评论

mikegioia大约 9 年前
The argument against ad-blocking is that the content-creators don&#x27;t get paid for their content. But, honest question: who cares!?<p>If you push out content and you can&#x27;t make money on it without ads, then that content didn&#x27;t need to be created in the first place. The argument then devolves to &quot;there won&#x27;t be any good content&quot; but I&#x27;ll _gladly_ roll the dice on that world to see what we&#x27;re left with.<p>Ads, to me, represent a monetization strategy rooted in &quot;I did something, and you&#x27;re looking at, so I deserve to get paid&quot; but that makes no sense. The disconnect here is the presumption that the content has any value to begin with. I think what scares traditional content-creators is the idea that the vast majority of content has no inherent value.
评论 #11461787 未加载
评论 #11461596 未加载
评论 #11462037 未加载
评论 #11461736 未加载
评论 #11461773 未加载
评论 #11461779 未加载
评论 #11461586 未加载
RandomSeeded大约 9 年前
What I don&#x27;t understand is how Brave expects to gain a userbase. It&#x27;s a Chromium fork with an ad-blocking&#x2F;replacing scheme. If a user wanted to install an adblocker, why wouldn&#x27;t they simply install an adblocker which removes all ads instead of an entirely separate browser which still has ads that some third party has deemed acceptable? It&#x27;s not like the Brave scheme has any moral high ground here to appeal to; it&#x27;s not a unique scheme and when others have tried it it generally wasn&#x27;t received well[0].<p>I simply can&#x27;t come up with a way in which Brave wins market share.<p>[0] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;arstechnica.com&#x2F;tech-policy&#x2F;2014&#x2F;09&#x2F;why-comcasts-javascript-ad-injections-threaten-security-net-neutrality&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;arstechnica.com&#x2F;tech-policy&#x2F;2014&#x2F;09&#x2F;why-comcasts-java...</a>
评论 #11461777 未加载
评论 #11462127 未加载
eveningcoffee大约 9 年前
I must say that I have nothing against ads in general, but I am fiercely against the ads that are predatory in their nature.<p>This includes the ads that rely on the network of global surveillance of every web user actions in the Internet,<p>this includes the ads what main indention is to disrupt and control the main flow of the user who perceives the Internet mainly as the reading medium,<p>and obviously everything that is clearly malicious including direct malware attacks through the ad systems to the more subtle malicious attempts to market products or services that are attacking users sexual, financial or emotional integrity.
评论 #11461609 未加载
jusben1369大约 9 年前
Is his business model any different to me selling my own dish, intercepting Dishtv&#x2F;satellite streams, redirecting it to my users and inserting my own ads in place of the ones already being shown?
评论 #11461714 未加载
评论 #11461791 未加载
askyourmother大约 9 年前
Businesses who expose their users to malware and harm via infected ads they choose not to screen or vet in-house, complain when those same users take steps to protect themselves.<p>Maybe we need to change the terminology: &quot;I use a browser condom to prevent ad STDs from the various glory hole, sorry, glorious content, sites I frequent&quot;.
评论 #11461871 未加载
simeonf大约 9 年前
From the response <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.brave.com&#x2F;blogpost_4.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.brave.com&#x2F;blogpost_4.html</a><p>&gt; Brave is not, as the NAA asserts, “replac[ing] publishers&#x27; ads on the publishers&#x27; own websites and mobile applications with Brave&#x27;s own advertising.” We do not tamper with any first-party publisher content, including native ads that do not use third-party tracking.<p>Is this a refutation or an evasion? Does Brave replace 3rdparty tracking ads?<p>I fired up brave and visited a few sites - I don&#x27;t see any ads at all...
joesmo大约 9 年前
Using Brave is almost as dumb as not using an ad blocker at all from a security perspective unless Eich has a plan to 100% eliminate malware, something I&#x27;d be extremely sceptical about. I don&#x27;t see how his malware is going to be different from the regular malware in ads currently. Now where is the full list of newspapers because I&#x27;m interested in actively avoiding their content due to this obviously political (and extremely disgusting and greedy) move.
评论 #11461805 未加载
J_Darnley大约 9 年前
Cry me a river. Publishers and ad companies deserve everything they&#x27;re getting and more.
评论 #11461594 未加载
bhickey大约 9 年前
I&#x27;d like to see a copyright attorney weigh in on the NAA&#x27;s claims. There seems to be an analogy between what Brave is doing and ClearPlay&#x2F;CleanFlicks. ClearPlay offers filters based on tagging offensive frames in films. Congress amended copyright law to bless this as lawful.
davidf18大约 9 年前
The advertisings <i>must</i> change their business model. They should follow the models used by content providers on Cable. I pay Verizon an enormous amount of money each month for the &quot;pipe&quot; as do others pay high fees for cellular phone providers. The content providers should get a portion of the excessively high amount of money I pay to Verizon to pay for their content.
uw_rob大约 9 年前
It seems that most people in the comments haven&#x27;t actually read the article as the complaint seems to not be about ad-blocking but about the browser replacing ads with its own.<p>What would the argument for this being OK be?<p>Also as an aside, it seems insane to me that people are comparing the ad-blocking to having others decide what you can and cannot read, and that it is somehow a violation of advertisers freedom.
评论 #11461863 未加载
评论 #11461819 未加载
strooper大约 9 年前
In the world of multi billion dollar ad industry literally controlling the contents in www, it is truly brave effort, or blackmailing based monetization. Remember Ad block plus whiltelisting ads after getting paid?
r0muald大约 9 年前
It&#x27;s very odd that a letter written in purely legalese terms receives a reply that is mainly hand-waving and pointless in the remarks that are made (as if all the details given by Brave&#x2F;Eich weren&#x27;t already known). Doesn&#x27;t strike me as particularly brilliant, but IANAL etc.<p>I also wonder how long until Brendan Eich is just &quot;Brendan Eich&quot; and not &quot;Mozilla former CEO&quot;. I can&#x27;t imagine Mozilla is very happy with being associated with a competitor, especially in a situation like this.
评论 #11461638 未加载
评论 #11461800 未加载
michael_h大约 9 年前
&gt; It is the rich and self-righteous, who want to tell everyone else what they can and cannot read and watch and hear<p>That is a rich vein of irony
mtgx大约 9 年前
Brendan Eich just can&#x27;t seem to catch a break.
评论 #11461529 未加载
NelsonMinar大约 9 年前
The headline and post title are misleading. Brave is not an ad-blocking browser. It is an ad-replacing browser. Blocking ads is useful and ethical. Replacing ads to capture revenue is bad and unethical.
评论 #11461802 未加载