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
"replaces an ad, they put the new ad"

That's not how it works. If you turn on Brave ads, they show up every once in a while, completely independently of webpage ads. And they work whether your ad blocker is on or off.