I agree. It’s basically the same! Maybe you’ll have to add an ad-blocker plugin to block the other internal ads! 
1 Like
That sounds illegal. Because they’re using other peoples content without consent to earn money.
4 Likes
Good point, DarthGuido.
I can’t see how it is any more illegal than blocking the ads in the first place - as that’s all it is doing with respect to the web sites visited…
The person using the browser has chosen to use it. They are doing two things independently:
- they are blocking the ads on all the sites they visit
- they are paying for the use of the browser by letting the browser display ads.
The only difference from how early versions of Opera collected payment for the use of the browser through advertising is that Opera had a separate ad area as part of the browser chrome whereas Brave is reusing the space made by the adblocker.
2 Likes
Pure and simple:
Website owner struck an agreement (legal binding) with Ad Publisher X
Brave replaces Ad Publisher X with their own ads (without any concent from either party)
Website owner (potentially) and Brave make money from said ads
Ad publisher X has its profits stolen by Brave.
Pure and Simple, that is how it is illegal.
Customer installing software to strip ads definitely harms the website owner and ad publisher from making money, but it doesn’t try to replace one of them from making any money and substitute third party over here. Yes, it sucks, but at the same time corporate proxies have been blocking a good majority of ad publishers too. For years.
Doesn’t make it right, I agree. I personally limit my ad blocking usage to only sites that in my opinion make it hard for me to read the content I enjoy. And I only do that if I’m unable to find a more suitable site to read the same story. So by the time I’m blocking them, it is because I’ve tried 3 or 4 sites already and I’m tired of trying to navigate to one that isn’t impeding my ability to read the story.
3 Likes
Good thing neither Brave nor Brave user are legally bound by an agreement between two other parties.
Disclaimer: I think that, upon research, Brave is a crap move, and bad for the Internet, and we’ll see if it stirs up more problems. But I think most of the arguments against it on “legal” grounds are not sound.
1 Like
So if I deface your website to unknown number of users, you are okay with it? If I make it have a background of clown vomit with unicorns and rainbows? You won’t try to stop me?
1 Like
Exactly. Brave are complying with the agreement that they have with the person who is using their browser to provide the ad block service. That agreement also requires that the person view ads provided by Brave in order to pay for the use of the browser.
Brave isn’t defacing any web sites other than blocking the ads as ANY ad blocker does.
The ads Brave provides are part of the agreement they have with the person using the browser - they are not blocking ads for anyone who isn’t using their browser.
Brave is as illegal (or not) as any other ad blocker. The ads they display are a part of the agreement they have with the browser user that no one but the browser user will see and that person has agreed to see the Brave supplied ads as a part of the conditions for using the browser.
They are not defacing any web sites any more than any ad blocker does - in fact less since they are actually retaining the page layout as if the blocked ads were still there and using that space for something that the person using the browser has agreed to them using it for.
For now. But this clearly opens the way for companies to insert or replace whatever they want in a website they don’t own.
What if Google all of a sudden finds it appropriate to replace the word “Microsoft” with “Hitler Loving Sex Robot”? Surely that wouldn’t be withstood. Replacing another companies ads with your own is down right unethical and border lines legality. There is a reasonable expectation that when a website is downloaded for viewing, the browser simply attempt to render the markup and not replace anything. Sure the rendering engine may try its best to fix bad markup, but it isn’t attempting that in bad faith, it is trying to ensure the data you are trying to view is visible to you. Brave on the other hand is saying “here is the data you requested (more or less), but we’ve made our own modifications to the actual content within (ads are content) to what we consider acceptable”
But all ad blockers do that - as does any other browser extension or userscript that does any DOM manipulations.
I have been adding extra links into all web pages for the last ten years plus to make it easier for me to help others with debugging their page.
Being able to manipulate the page content from the browser certainly isn’t new - the most recent browser where you can’t do it is Netscape 4.
The introduction of Internet Explorer 4 was what opened the way for companies to insert or replace whatever they want in a website they don’t own.
But those are not financially benefiting a company. Which is what makes this a major differientiating factor.
They are modifying the sites to increase profitability. Not because it provides a better experience (that is just pure BS). Their goal is 100% financial.
The Brave browser is using the same payment model as was used by Opera 4 - if you want to use the browser you get to see ads provided by the browser provider.
It is in fact the same payment model as web sites that display ads are using when they try to make viewing ads a requirement for viewing their page. Those ads financially benefit the site owning company.
Building an entire web browser is a much greater task than creating a few web pages and so is MORE deserving of payment for what they have provided than any web site of only a few hundred pages.
Anyway you can always use an ad blocker in your operating system to block programs from being able to display ads just as an ad blocker in the browser can block web page ads.
The only difference is that one runs in a browser and the other runs on an operating system.
Are you sure about that? So you don’t mind that Brave would be replacing the ads on your site with their own ads? And you will potentially get a smaller cut than what you might have with your current ad publisher?
They aren’t putting ads in the browser UI, they are replacing ads on actual websites you visit (from what I understand).
Nope. As all they did was fork Chromium to include their ad replacement logic, they didn’t build this from the ground up and I assure you they will continue to just leach off of Chrome. After all, they didn’t even bother to update the User Agent string.
Sure, but why run a browser that intentionally places ads on websites versus just using one that doesn’t do that. They are obviously targeting those that want to see ads to help support content currators, but at the same time, it feels like a kick in the face to those who produce the content, as it isn’t their ads being shown.
1 Like
I agree with you there.
Of course no one has to use Brave and if it is just a slightly modified version of Chrome then I can’t see why anyone would want to use it since all it is doing is replacing ads with other ads and so doesn’t really achieve anything of benefit to the person using it - might have been a different matter if they’d also added a whole heap of additional functionality to the browser that make the browser worth using in place of Chrome.
Anyway, if it is just a fork off chrome then you ought to be able to install an ad blocker in it and block the ads Brave is substituting.
1 Like
You are right about it blocking ads like any other ad blocker, and about the user choosing to use Brave including its ad showing . But this is the part I’m not sure about. It’s one thing to say “you use my browser for free, in change I show you my ads” and you show the ads in an ad bar, or a window wide ad you have to close before seeing the page, or any other way that makes it clear that the ads being shown are Brave’s. But inserting them in the webcontent like the are ads being put there by the content owner/publisher is one step further. I know that the user “agrees” with this, but the problem is not the user, it’s the third party that is using other peoples content without consent for their own gain.
Maybe I’m wrong and you’re right, but it feels like a big difference to me.
1 Like
I still can’t see that this situation is any different from using an ad blocker in any browser - the end result so far as the site owner is concerned is that the ads they are using to pay for the site are not being displayed.
Surely anyone interested in blocking the ads will install an ad blocker in Brave anyway so as to block their ads as well. From the discussion here I can’t see that Brave actually offer anything with their browser to make it worth anyone actually using it.
When Opera displayed their own ads in version 4 of their browser that browser offered features not available in other browsers so that you actually got something in return for viewing their ads.
I think that so far, we can all agree with that.
Tell you what, if you do that, and people choose to use your browser… you go right ahead I guess. I’ll worry when the majority of people use it, I guess.
The problem with your argument is that you’re marrying this point with [quote=“cpradio, post:133, topic:214199”]
But those are not financially benefiting a company. Which is what makes this a major differientiating factor.
[/quote]
Those are separate things - the only bit that they’re making money on is replacing ads with other ads. If this “opens the way” for more content replacement, how would they be financially benefiting from further replacement of content? How would it be anything more than extra work for them? They’ve already done the money making bit. Unless you think users will choose a browser with even more ads than the ones they’re trying to get rid of?
Unless you’re arguing that it’s just a gateway to other people replacing content, in which case, [quote=“felgall, post:132, topic:214199”]
But all ad blockers do that - as does any other browser extension or userscript that does any DOM manipulations.
[/quote]
is correct.
They could go to that scheme where keywords are links with tooltips that show ad-related content. I remember the popularity of that a while back. What if you had a link already in your article, linking Microsoft to your microsoft related articles (I think Gawker and many other sites do this), and Brave replaces it with an advertisement link?
I’m not at all worried about that. If Brave does that, Brave won’t last long, or do well. People hated the clicky links fad more than they hated ads, in my personal experience anyway, and replacement of links will only cause a sh** show with both users and the site in question that they won’t come out on top of.
So, no, that’s not a worry for me.
When there is money at stake, I don’t think anything is off limits to any company. Just give it time.