Convopage
See the entire conversation
Would you pay for @brave instead of YouTube Red? Would you use Brave if you got paid for your attention (default flowing to your favorite creators)?
HN commenter seems to want it both ways. Faulty logic aside, who would pay to block ads, as we do already? news.ycombinator.com/item?id=180286…
103 replies and sub-replies as of Sep 20 2018
Only if you got rid of David Temkin
I'd be more likely to pay if it was clearer exactly who my money was going to and what they were doing with it. I think this is why patreon is so much more successful than flattr was
Funding your Brave wallet and pinning 100% to your favorites is like Patreon in the browser -- bonus: censor-resistant.
but what it doesn't have (and what makes patreon different from flattr) is a special communication channel between the author and the consumer. people give money to patreon because they feel a personal connection to the author & patreon optimizes for that
We are working on that -- has to support 'nyms of course, and be opt-in for anonymity by default.
Would it allow background play in addition to no ads?
Right, we do not charge for blocking, bg play, other affordances that web standards enable by design.
If default is flowing to your favorite creators then it is not 'you got paid', it's 'your favorite creators get paid'... you might want to elaborate on that point at some stage, as this phrasing has always rubbed me the wrong way a little.
Users will be able to change the default, but we expect most will want to give back. The choice of default is important for the ecosystem, but it can be overridden. Same for just-block-and-never-fund. All settings allowed, but defaults based on consent first, ecosystem second.
never. Paying for "hacks" is totally wrong.
Quite, so you wouldn't pay for YouTube Red -- right?
why you think YouTube Red is just set of hacks? Maybe I'm wrong (without sarcasm, really), but they provide a service, so why they don't have a right to put ads? Their service should be profitable and they don't force anybody to pay.
Why do you call it a hack when the client side removes the ads but not when the server side does? The underlying standards enable either side of the protocol to do so.
Because it's their service and their profit - when they remove ads it's their right, when third party app removes their profit - it's hack.
Screen readers for a11y remove ads too; does not make them a hack. Your pejorative use of "hack" as conditioned on a "right" not enforceable per design of Web standards is meaningless. Neither ad blocking nor a server paywall is a hack, in truth. Both are supported by standards.
"hack" is not defined by standards, it's true. And it's a wide term. Would be interesting to see wen standard of ads removing - I curious if such exists. And I think removing ads in a11y tools is still "hack" - imagine if there was an ad targeted to the screen readers users.
"wen" - "web", sorry. And in my usage "hack" doesn't contain any "criminal" meaning. I like how powerfully Brave can block ads, but paying for it - it's too much, crossing the line of ethics.
We are not going to charge for Brave. People do fund wallets and take BAT grants to support their favorite YouTube creators -- many of whom are demonetized if not underpaid for bad ads we block per Web standards. "Ethics" applies to the platform lord looting the content creators.
I still think YouTube should receive some profit, their service deserves it. Sorry to be disagree with you, I truly respect you :)
We will let users dial that in, but you're talking about Alphabet, a megacorp that has abused users & creators for years. There is no ethical or technical requirement for anyone to sit through ads, or pay for ad removal only the server side (YT Red), but not on the client side.
so Brave is the weapon of judgement. Ok then, I'm sure you'll find people who wants to support this weapon :)
"hack", "weapon", "tool". Try to use words in less loaded ways unless you are taking a side here. Again, just because YT sunk costs to host UGC does not entitle them to all the "rights" or money.
I'm not trying to daemonize Brave, sorry if it sounds so. I think most of money should be transferred to content creators, but YT deserves also money for their service.
We'll likely add a slider. It will be up to the user to dial in the amount for the landlord. A better model: pay creators and they pay rents.
that's a really better model, agree.
Ads condition people to expect baseline = free while shifting costs onto creators and users, resulting in negative externalities: ad blocking w/o BAT or equiv to help cover costs; malvertising; ad fraud; targeting for trolling/psyops. The only winner so far has been the megacorp.
that's why all content creators left this shitty service where they don't have any profit.
Not yet. Lots of creators still on YouTube because so many users are there. I support alternatives such as DTUBE & BitChute but they need not only servers but POPs near our homes + least-RTT routing. I have hopes for networking solutions under way that the megacorps do not own.
so YT gives them viewers - nothing is bad in it. It's not an issue that YT is so popular, it's feature content creators use.
I could not be sure where you were sarcastic, but in fact creators are leaving YT, and many are not making what they used to. This is not all anyone's fault, it's complex -- but it suggests a better model is needed. Consider user comments (on any site), which we each should own.
YouTube Red is their "another model". Your solution can be viable also if this solution keeps YT profitable (I have no doubts your solution will help content authors also).
I'm really not worried about YT profitability, they are doing fine and by bundling music (also doing their own shows to chase Netflix into huge forward debt liability-land, lol) may justify the premium asking price. Not for ad-free or background play, though.
ok, I prefer more civilized ways of cooperation than "I use them and don't care about their profitability".
There you go again with the slanted language! I "care" about YT way behind much worse off people, inculding creators they have exploited. That is more neutral and accurate even though it encodes my value preference. You dismiss enormous asymmetries in loading words in YT's favor.
More: they give the content out in a way that allows ad blocking, so what's the problem? Let them paywall harder & see if they gain or lose. Or try DRM if they can afford the overhead (real costs) for all the long tail UGC that has ads one may block at will. I doubt they'll try.
that evil corporation also started and still puts a lot of efforts into Chromium. I guess you know what is it and what browsers use it as base.
I'm grateful for chromium; I'm also one of the founders of Mozilla, which taught Google how to do open source browsers, where they did not use Apple's WebKit, forked from KHTML. Please stop cheap, one-sided lecturing, as if someone "stole first". I've paid my dues here than most.
And there you go yet again: "evil corporation" is either redundant or a reflection on fallible humans caught in the late-stage capitalist system, but I never said "evil". I said "megacorp", "exploited", "one-sided", and these shoes manifestly fit! Leveling excuses abuse of power.
oh these behemoths... Please stop pretending you are Robin Hood when you just want to make your browser little bit more profitable.
We are not profitable yet, so not out to be a "little bit more", but once again you set up a strawman: I never said making a profit was evil. That's your fallacy. Sorry, you really suck at arguing, so I'm muting you now. This was useful to a point, on "DIY" user rights at least.
I don't give a fuck about YT at all, I barely use it, maybe once per month. I was trying to talk with you polite, but you're still trying to find some bias in my words and lying about me that I'm Alphabet defender. Just because I have different opinion. Let's agree to disagree.
I'm not lying about anything. You called me less "civilized" for using the web standards you admitted above enable a "wide term" sense of hack. Check your own words harder.
for using web standards? Lol, I think even kids can find cheap trick in this response. Sending spam emails is technically also "just usage of web standards" but nobody thinks it's civilized :)
So my blocking ads on my own computer in my own browser, when they are requested separately via a downloaded HTML5/JS video player, is the same as sending spam?
You threw "hack" pejoratively, now you're complaining it is too wide a term. None of this refutes user right to block.
I mentioned 3 times already that I don't use "hack" in this discussion pejoratively, it's boring to remind it already. Your redirecting money without care of YT profit is same "civilized" way as sending spam. It's not the same thing, but both of them are ethically wrong.
Don't try changing "hack" to be a good thing or you will agree with me except for the name! The argument we were having was not about nominalism. It was about why people should pay for something they can do themselves. That is too thin as a for-profit business plan; a "bad hack".
"do it themselves" doesn't mean paying to the browser for doing it.
Careful now -- I "DIY" around the house but still pay for the hand tools to do so, in preference to paying for finished goods or contractor services. Am I thereby violating "ethics" in doing it myself but paying for hand tools? If so, why? If not, how might paid-for Brave differ?
YouTube spend money on servers and employees, it's obvious. Your DIY example is not the same.
On the contrary, finished goods purveyors sunk costs on factories, etc. I still need not buy from them. Here's a tighter analogy: I can get parts in kit form from finished good maker's vendor and assemble myself, "blocking ads" by excluding some parts as I go. What differs & why?
Remember, YouTube downloads an HTML5 video player that sends ad requests from my browser on my computer. My rules apply there, this is legally well supported as well as enshrined in Web standards for a11y & other such primal reasons. Users have rights too, enforceable by design.
with this part I agree.
What about rights to fair search result?
LEAKED VIDEO: Google Leadership's Dismayed Reaction to Trump Election | Breitbart
Breitbart - Breitbart News Network
Syndicated news and opinion website providing continuously updated headlines to top news and analysis sources.
breitbart.com
Did you really just unironically cite Breitbart?
difference is that you'll receive ad-free content and provider of that content will receive nothing to pay for servers and employees. And only excuse is "they are huge and evil".
There is no need to make an excuse, since they put user-generated content (not their content) out via web standards that allow such blocking by design. Stop the biased, bleeding heart rhetoric on behalf of behemoths!
stop trying to call me biased, I'm not the part of YT or Brave, my opinion is my only.
I get that but you are using "hack", "ethics", "weapon" and other words in a one-sided fashion. Please reflect on why.
because you are trying to be a populist. I wrote already I don't put any "criminal" meaning into "hack" word. And you are trying to present me as biased Alphabet defender just because I'm saying they have rights to have profit from their service, especially when it's so popular.
Oh please. Here (visible right upthread) you used "hack" pejoratively first, applied it only to client side not server, then tried backpedaling.
I'm not backpedaling and I never called YT behavior of removing ads as "hack" - it's not a hack, it's their right. Don't go into simple lie, you are capable of more.
Here: you argue server side ad removal is not a hack; also here: . And here: you seem to backpedal via "wide term". Anyway, the thread is all visible above.
Evgeniy OZ on Twitter
“@BrendanEich @brave "hack" is not defined by standards, it's true. And it's a wide term. Would be interesting to see wen standard of ads removing - I curious if such exists. And I think removing ads in a11y tools is still "hack" - imagine if there was an ad targeted to the screen readers users.”
twitter.com
in none of these quotes I call server-side ads removal a hack. I'm saying quite opposite.
Your "it's true" was confusing, then.
I wrote ""hack" is not defined by standards, it's true." - sorry if there's anything confusing.
I simply don’t give a crap about blocking Google’s ads and analytics. We have tracking up the wazoo. I won’t be the ‘ethics crusader’, not for Google
Glad to hear it.
If you’ve got a John Deere tractor...
Bingo. (boingboing.net/2018/09/11/ten… boingboing.net/2015/05/13/joh… boingboing.net/2017/04/22/drm… boingboing.net/2017/04/10/ten… boingboing.net/2018/03/08/you…)
Vendor lock-in, DRM, and crappy EULAs are turning America's independent farmers into tenant farmers
Vendor lock-in, DRM, and crappy EULAs are turning America's independent farmers into tenant farmers
boingboing.net
I pay for YouTube Red in part to get Google Play Music streaming, so it's complicated.
I'd be happy to pay for Brave. Make the price reasonable and add a token premium feature. Say 2 bucks a month for a premium brave subscription. I also don't mind subscribing to sites like The Athletic. I absolutely hate third party javascript.
Mark Twain's Tom Sawyer reminds that it feels like job if one gets paid, it feels like fun if one pays.
I cannot agree: the painters were donating labor, not paying in a quid pro quo fashion. Communal work with a clever coach (Tom) can be fun. One pays what is owed; what one gives freely is not payment.
I would not pay for YouTube Red in the first place.
If YouTube on Brave were as fast as the YouTube mobile app, maybe I’d pay.
But content publishers should ask. I’ve seen 1000 videos asking to donate via Patreon; 0 asking for BAT.
I actually cancelled Youtube Red about 4 days ago.
there’s far more to Red than just hiding ads. Play Music, background play (yeah, ugh, but still a feature), easy downloading in the mobile app. also consider that Red pays creators at a much higher rate than ads do, so there’s a lot of value in that $10/month
Pays *some* creators.
Background play works great in browsers such as Brave for Android.
Music is a confounding variable and may justify the price of Red all by itself, but it's off-topic here.
it was the only reason I joined. Wanted to listen to youtube while my phone Screen was OFF in my pocket.
Oh really? Perhaps they will offer Redder to get rid of such shenanigans.
Networks are like that, from physics on up. But we are not machines, we can do better. My hope for more decentralized systems with p2p + diverse local/regional/various overlay networks on top is that we all can "DIY" more, using a client to disintermediate the big network powers.
Servers, but not just "central", "edge" (POPs) matter a lot. And the providers are many and more diverse, and they sell extra capacity. Same for Radio Access Networks, wherefore MVNOs and more operators with diff Central Networks over time. The networking tradeoff game continues.
right. i’d still rather pay and support creators i watch. the features don’t do much for me, background play is useful but yes, many workarounds i can use instead. downloads, sometimes useful, i still prefer youtube-dl. music, well i use spotify. supporting creators is why i pay
People want "spotify for the web" but the content is not owned by a relative-few rights-owners. Publishers wait for scale from users, making a huge Catch-22. Brave is my best shot at building such a "spotify" for the Web, by decoupling identity and buffering µpayments settlement.
i super appreciate the effort of course 😊
it’s just unfortunate it seems to be only a niche that understands the Brave system makes sense. Spotify struggles to get paying subscribers, the ads are annoying but people just learn to live with them, and YT has never made a profit
Google's internal financials are confidential so it is not clear to me that YT is unprofitable. I've heard this said, but top analyst friends say it is profitable. It now uses Google's borg and centrally routed networking infra, a huge savings compared to when it was independent.
It was mentioned in a private email that the only reason YouTube exists is that Google's servers happens to have a lot of free disk space in the days before SSDs.
If Google is not profitable is because it became a weird social engineering cult.
No tears will be shed the day their shares tank
that’s interesting. the infamous rumor is that it’s simply never made a profit because hosting that much content especially as video keeps getting bigger and devices more capable of higher bandwidth is insanely costly. never heard the contrary
Lots of space in the GFS successor, what’s it called. Owned fiber all over the place, PoPs too. It may be unprofitable but how would we know? They could and probably would subsidize for a long time. If profitable enough in face of demonetization + Red, watch for long tail cuts.
oh yeah, not a doubt google knows how to run it super efficiently. plenty of infra can be shared across their products and they can cover it all financially
Am pretty sure most "mainstream media" networks aren't for profit. Seeing's how there's a cohesive underlying network, its pretty much a circle jerk on advertising. Those who control such networks know the power of media on influence and control of information/belief.
Yahoo network... used to have everything Facebook has. When facebook was rolled out, how much was Yahoo bought for? Not in 100yrs would the buyer's recoup that money in advertising. Yahoo features shut down so no competition for FB, and Yahoo turned to propaganda dispersion.
also you can watch content without ads on all of your devices: tablet, phone, tv.
yep, TV especially. sure Brave might be installable on my Android TV but a TV app needs a TV interface, not the tablet web app controlled by my remote. Just Works™ > messing around with some 3rd party workaround
I really like the idea of the BAT token system for rewarding content creators but I also hope it's not too utopian. I fear that most people have to be forced rather than enticed into supporting creators. A bit like OSS where the majority don't pay.
So long as micropaywall-in-browser avoids cc fraud & cross-subsidy macropaywall risks (which mean most users never do more than a handful) and BAT comes into user wallets easily, flows to creators by default, I think the brave-user+browser can replace "ad tech" and macropaywalls.
I hope you're right, it would mean a major shift in the way creators and consumers relate.
Is there a risk of the BAT becoming a monster in its own right due to trading, rendering it unfit for purpose?
That would be a good problem to have. User on-device private ledgers control velocity and at scale should stabilize BAT price. See 7.3 in our white paper. Note also BAT is among least volatile as of end of 2017:
Best 100 coins by lowest volatility. #Bitcoin totally dominating despite the increase of 2017 when the hedge funds came in to trade the swings. #cryptotwitter