zlacker

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+(OP)
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.

>>rglull+(OP)
As a detractor and therefore a part of the set "all detractors", I do not believe this. I just don't buy their shady marketing and try not to support engine monoculture.

>>rglull+(OP)
They don't replace ads in-page, but they do something very very similar.

They block the in-page ads and instead provide their own ads through popup notifications.

So they are replacing advertisements on websites.

>>rglull+(OP)
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+nd
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+xc
Every time this comes up, the argument is the same. People always forget:

- The ad blocker works separately from their own ad service.

- Their own ads are opt-in.

- People receive 70% of the revenue from the ads they see.

- The ads from Brave do not track you and whatever personalisation happens in-device, no data is mined.

So, no. They are not "replacing" anything. They are not stealing anyone's revenue (and no matter how much Linus from LTT argues, he is not entitled to any revenue just because I watched any of his videos) and Brave's own ads are from deals that they closed themselves and a essentially fraud-proof compared with whatever payouts are given by largest ad networks.

In other words, they are just offering something that happens to be infinitely more user-focused than the status quo. Every attempt at framing this as unethical came from an uninformed or biased source.

>>lalala+6g
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.

>>lalala+6g
"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.

>>rglull+er
You're responding to a comment that gave you a link to their inital plan, which was literally replacing the ads.

click on it, your horizon might be broadened by the added knowledge.

>>411111+hs
That was their original plan, yes.

lalaland1125 is making claims about what they actually did, and those claims are not correct.