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…
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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?
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.
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!
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.
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.
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
And there is another, perhaps equally important factor: fake suggests what is worth listening (massively bought 'likes', misleading information on popularity, unless one anonymously identify each like author and get their context)
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.
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.
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.
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: