zlacker

>>rand0m+(OP)
It's always surprising to me when I hear people using the brave browser... It's by a company that initially tried to replace their blocked ads with their own "safe and non-intrusive" ads as far as I remember, until they backpaddled because of the outrage.

It's also a for-profit company and you're not the customer, as you're not paying them money.

I'd be way more worried how they're using the data they're collecting on you vs Google or MS

>>411111+hn
You are a victim of the Mandella effect. There never was anything related to replacing ads in-page, yet if you ask all detractors what they don't like about it, that's the first point they bring up.

>>rglull+Cu
I think some initial news articles claimed this and everyone went with it. Which is basically how it worked, replacing ads, but in a different way, and actually more annoying.. block everyone else's ads...and have their own little popup ads, and if you enabled that, you'd get paid in BAT tokens per view too.