I don’t doubt that at all; I just doubt people’s interest in switching en masse to a browser that did that.
For what it’s worth to anyone interested, I’ve done some research on my own last night and this morning, and I’ll note that the discussion both here and in Slack both positively and negatively misrepresents Brave, its purpose, and its usage (including some of my own thoughts previously). I’d strongly suggest people to read their blog posts, read their payment specs on GitHub, etc, and then read some articles for and against it and make their own decisions. I’m no longer even sure I’m particularly against what they’re doing. I don’t think it’s illegal, but I’m also not even sure if I think it’s bad. Will have to read about it more, and see what happens, personally.
1 Like
I’m still torn on the ability of letting a third party alter what I consider an acceptable experience for my users and that third party is gaining financially over their alterations.
That still doesn’t feel exactly ethical to me, even if they promise to share a part of the proceeds with me. I’d rather be in such an agreement before they make said changes to my site that they deliver to end users.
I still feel it would put me as the website owner in an awkward position, as ads I may have approved are now no longer in my control. Brave is potentially advertising things I’m not okay with. What if some of the adverts it puts on my site are in support for efforts I don’t agree with? I can probably communicate that with them later on, after the fact, but why should I have to? It isn’t like they can respect my wishes without talking to me.
I get they are targeted at serving ads for the user who visits your site and that is their motivation, ensure they see ads they would want to see/click/interact with, but man it is shaddy as all get out.
1 Like
Every different browser version alters the experience they offer all their users for each web site that uses anything that their browser handles differently to the way other browsers handle it. If you use anything beyond basic HTML 1.0 there will be browsers that offer their users a different experience with your web pages.
The key phrase cpradio used was “what I consider an acceptable experience”.
Just to put you on the record, you consider minute browser differences in rendering not acceptable? You find this unacceptable, for instance? I’m just trying to make sure that you want to stand behind what you just posted, and that I read that right.
In some browsers the differences are not so minute.
Anyway, I am actually arguing the opposite of how I think you have interpreted what I said.
There are going to be some differences in the way web pages display between web browsers and if your visitor chooses one that displays things in a way the site author finds unacceptable but which the site visitor finds acceptable then there isn’t much of anything that the site owner can do about it.
Those differences that are big / breaking are fixed before the users even see them.What do you count as “not so minute”? I can’t think of any differences that the end user would see besides minute ones 
.
It depends on how much user CSS they have installed in their browser.
The site owner at most has control of the content of the HTML in the page. The visitor can if they want to change everything else.
If a user is savvy enough to add CSS to their browser, then they are aware of the effects of doing so, and I don’t see how that applies to this in that situation.
Think of it as breaking the warranty. If you don’t use a product as intended, then your warranty is invalidated.
It is no different from selecting a browser because of a feature that browser provides that affects the appearance of web pages - eg. Brave replacing ads with other ads.
Also if a user is adding CSS, it’s likely out of necessity, whether that’s bigger font sizes, more contrast for colors, etc. I think that any reasonable site owner would be fine with this.
Also
In some browsers the differences are not so minute.
That was the original argument; browsers don’t come with custom CSS installed that would break or change websites a lot.
But people can choose a browser based on features already built in or that make it easier to add features (such as custom CSS).
They do come with default CSS eg. browser chrome and style for “replaceable” elements" eg. form inputs.
True, that shouldn’t cause any major problem except maybe to the site designer that would be upset if a user didn’t have a certain font available, a user had the “wrong” zoom level or view-port width etc.
But a page that isn’t pixel perfect wouldn’t be considered broken.
I wonder how Google would take it if a browser took to replacing their paid adverts on SERPs.
Really? Why? Because the browser will protect you from being tracked? Because it’ll serve only safe and fast ads?
I’ve been reading, and it sounds like a browser I might use. All I’m saying is that the fact that they put their ads in the content of a web page, thus making money using the content of others without permission, doesn’t sound very legal at all to me.
And I don’t know about you, but somehow it seems to me there is a flaw in the logic? I’ve not searched very much yet, so maybe I just didn’t find it so far, but if I want Brave to add ads to my site and have them pay me my share, do I really have to subscribe to adsense first and put ads on my site? Wouldn’t it be easier if I just filled in some form to give them permission to insert ads into my site’s content?
Yes I know, we’re getting a bit off topic here.
they are placing the ads there WITH THE PERMISSION of the person using the browser.
If any part of the process is illegal it is the REMOVAL of the ads put there by the page owner just as with any other ad blocker.
If you’re right, then I guess the browsers will soon all adapt this model, and they’ll put ads on every page you visit, and nobody will use the actual “on site” ad providers anymore.
I mean, is there a better way for MS for example to ruin Google’s and FB’s biggest money maker? And you as a publisher will only have to sign an agreement with the 3-4 biggest browsers out there to get your share.
1 Like
Wonder what sort of internal conversations are happening at places like Google about this 
3 Likes
Hey everyone, we have an interview with Brendan Eich (CEO of Brave) over on the main site: http://www.sitepoint.com/interview-brendan-eich-ceo-brave/
In the interview, Brendan explains Brave’s business model and addresses a couple of common misconceptions.
Whatever your stance on the debate, it makes interesting reading.
4 Likes
There are several ways to fight adblock!
People land in your website because your content was share-worthy or good enough to appear on search results for the visitor’s search phrase.
Disabling adblock take two seconds for a user.
I am actually losing 0 dollars because of adblock! Because I have blocked adblock instead of letting the app to block the ads on my websites.
when a users lands on my website have the plugin enabled, they will get a full screen message that either they should disable their adblock to see the content or register/login in the website.
This way I am at least getting their email address for email marketing purposes which is worth of investing such a plugin for your website.
That’s not true. I use adblock plus but I as well click on ads when I am interested.