Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla Co-Founder's Ad-blocking Brave Browser Will Pay You Bitcoin To See Ads (pcworld.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Brave, a new privacy and speed focused web browser for Windows, Mac, Linux, iOS, and Android, backed by Mozilla co-founder Brendan Eich, will pay its users in bitcoin to watch ads. From a PCWorld article, 'Under this plan, advertisers pay for a certain number of impressions, and Brave aggregates those payments into one sum. Websites that participate in the scheme get 55 percent of the money, weighted by how many impressions are served on their sites. For both users and publishers, Brave deposits the money into individual bitcoin wallets, and both parties must verify their identity to claim the funds. This requires an email and phone number for users, and more stringent identification steps for publishers. Users who don't verify will automatically donate their share of the funds back to the sites they visit most.' It appears Brave's strategy hinges on, among other things, collecting your browsing data to display relevant ads. The aforementioned article also says that users will have an option to block all ads by paying a monthly subscription to Brave. Not sure how many people would want to buy that.
i'll bite. still won't watch the ads, though.
I'm not enabling the ability to see ads for the sake of bitcoins when doing so is a potential avenue for malware. You want to vet the advertisers and take on full liability in case of wrongdoing then maybe I'll consider it.
I love this flipping of the equation! I can't imagine it's a lot of money but I like it putting the control to default off but letting me decide if I want to opt in. then compensating me. the feeling would be more important than the cash. and if it works we could have a world where it's default-off without an arms race in ad-blocking software. Ad blocking software is broke as a model because the ad blockers themselves track me, and it makes browsing unstable when it doesn't work right. Worse ad blocking is all or nothing. Sure you can limit by web site but you can't limit it by avertiser type. I'm happy to have some advertisers I'm interested in funnel interesting ads regardless of what site I visit.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Why does this parse as "scam" to me?
What exactly would I, a "subscriber," be subscribing to? "Look at all this lovely personally identifiable data we've collected. Sure would be a shame if something happened to it..." Yeah, the word "subscription" doesn't properly describe that kind of transaction...
And what's to prevent me from launching a phalanx of Brave browsers and have them randomly surfing the Web and accumulating Bitcoin for watcching ad impressions? Sockpuppetry is still trivial. Hell, why would I need to use the Brave browser at all; I could just emulate the protocol and then install the client on millions of compromised Windows machines...
This strikes me as really goddamned dumb...
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
If only I can access my so-called "preferences" profile to edit the categories I'm actually interested in instead of letting ad companies "guestimate" my interests from websites I'll only visit once in my lifetime
I know of only a few web sites that, imho, get their ads right. And they're all sites that do it in-house.
Why they get it right? They serve ads that are related to the content. A web site that serves as market place for recycling companies, serves ads of those very companies as well. They passed right through AdBlock (for not coming from one of the major networks I guess), and proved interesting as I visited that site with the purpose of getting company contacts in that trade.
Google's ads on the search page are also generally relevant (though they're getting intrusive now and harder to distinguish from organic results). Those are based on what you're looking for there and then, not what you were looking for last week or last month.
So the only ads that I've found useful and relevant to me, are the ones that were served to me without any profiling of myself (except a geolocation on my IP for Google's ads, as many are localised). No massive databases where my browsing has been tracked or anything.
Now all the rest is blocked by AdBlockPlus. Mostly for being annoying. After a reinstall of the computer I not always install it right away, but after a while the ads get so annoying (flashing, floaters) that I install it again. Most of the ads I see in those periods have nothing to do with my interests. Most are generic ads (like the billboards along the roads), that's OK as long as they don't flash or so. Again no need to do any tracking or profiling to serve those.
It is really time for a new ad network that can offer more bang for the buck to advertisers. They serve only "acceptable ads" that can bypass AdBlock; these ads don't contain any scripting (plain JPG) so can not serve malware; less cost per impression for the advertiser and higher payout for the publisher as the network doesn't spend any money on large-scale tracking servers but just uses the content of the publisher's site to target ads.
Personally I find it hard to quantify how much money I should be paid to face the greater risk of malware infection. I value my data and time very highly, so it's unlikely they could pay me enough.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
So a privacy-focused browser has code specifically written to send all your browsing history to a wide variety of third parties? Something's wrong there...
In order to receive the payments, the browser requires that you register three things: a bitcoin wallet [otherwise you won't get paid] an email address and a phone number. In the small print you can bet that you are signing away permission for this company to "sell on" your activity data. How would you like to be plagued by telephone marketing? Worse, the way this is going to work is by use of things like session cookies, because this browser is going to need to have a way of identifying itself to participating infrastructure. What this does is "expand the identity attributes" [i.e. add to the vectors] by which you can be identified as a real person. This is very much like that ultrasonic audio trick that was recently banned [that allowed a smartphone app to figure out what channel and what TV commercials you were watching]. In other words, you are giving away FAR, FAR more than just the time and intrusion that these ads will cost you. Seriously, don't do it.
The money has to come from somewhere. The ROI of online advertising is already iffy at best. Now you want to add an additional cost by charging for viewability? Please. You can't change the math just because it sounds good. The only way that can possibly work is for even less money to go to publishers who are already on their last legs.
Besides, this system will be *instantly* gamed by browsing bots that surf 24/7 on multiple virtual machines making the ROI of online ads rapidly approach zero.
if you have content compelling enough to monetize (which is very few sites these days, as they are all click-bait designed to shove ads down your throat), do the fucking leg work to secure a few sponsors for the site
What resources can you recommend for someone looking into getting into ad sales for the first time? Even if you have a platform that lets advertisers upload creative, specify start and end dates for campaigns, and lets the site owner approve them, how is such leg work done? And how can such a platform reassure advertisers that view and click statistics are genuine as opposed to fraudulent?
And there's a condition for that condition: buy a house in the service area of a DSL, cable or fiber connection. A lot of especially rural places have only satellite, only cellular, or a choice between satellite and cellular.