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
Seems you're wrong. Here's an archive link to Braves page in '16 were their planned add replacement is explained:

https://archive.md/W0k4j

>>tokai+ZH
One minor note: they made a slight change in plans from that initial design.

How it works now is that when Brave replaces an ad, they put the new ad in a popup, not in-page

>>lalala+IK
Correct. I've been using Brave since their very first versions on the desktop, and there never was any in-page ad insertion.

The one type of in-page modification they used to do is that they would add a "tip" button to the content creator of some social networks like Twitter or reddit. That had nothing to do with "replacing ads" though.

> replaces an ad, they put the new ad in a popup

Incorrect. There is no 1:1 replacement. You as the user can define how often you want to receive notifications, and even then the notifications only come when you are switching context between any action. It won't interrupt you while you are watching a video, working on google doc spreadsheet or reading though HN.