Again -I totally understand they have to make money. This is only my opinion - that's all - but it just seems wrong to replace someone else's ads with your own.
I can see how it might feel scummy to do this, but on the other hand, from a rational perspective I'm having a tough time seeing what's wrong with it. If it's because it's taking away revenue from the party serving the ads, then replacing the ads is no worse than blocking ads entirely. If it's because the organization blocking the ads is directly benefiting as a result, I'd argue that's already happening just by blocking ads, just not necessarily in a direct monetary manner.
I block ads so that I will not be manipulated into buying things I don't want or need. I'm defending myself from an assault on my ego and self worth. I'm not making money, I'm just consuming content that people have chosen to make public.
When Brave replaces the ads of a website they are just stealing the content and selling it.
1. Brave is replacing Google Ads with their own ads. 2. Brave already blocks Google Ads, they might as well make some money while doing so and add their own.
Funnily, I don't find either of these wrong, so I'm not sure which one to believe. I'd love to hear your opinion on it though!
At the end of the day I hope the brave model catches on - not only are the brave ads more ethical since the ads are served locally (ie no user tracking server side), but my understanding is you can also fill up your wallet with your own money and then use that for the micro-transactions given to each site you visit, which gives you the choice to still support the ecosystem but without ads being necessary. Unfortunately brave is not easy for me to use for other reasons but if it ever got big enough maybe they'd make a Firefox extension or something so I could at least plug into the payment system without all the other blocking/brave ads features.
Also, I turned them off as these ads are quite annoying and have a "cheap feel" to them.
And yes, the idea of sending BAT to websites directly was excellent. The website needs to have registered for the BAT wallet though. (Not a big deal, of course)
Those who serve ads might see them as a way to fund their services.
However, we see this being abused on a near daily basis, by not only service operators, but by ad networks themselves.
The flip side is, from a user perspective, nobody has a right to run ads on my machine I don’t want.
Brave solves for that. Shows me ads I opt into, and gives a mechanism for service operators to get paid.
Is it perfect? No, but I think it hits close to the target.
I'm just rephrasing it, because for some reason it would be creepier for me if Google served ads in notifications - but that may just be me.
