So yes, we're doing ad stuff, but we're not "replacing" the ads that we're blocking. We're not injecting ads into the HTML of sites visitors view. We're building a way for users to opt into getting a few ads a day in the form of device push notifications (alerts in the top right of your monitor etc). This does seem to be the idea the neutral tech media has of Brave, like it or not. Is that inaccurate? Was that accurate at some point in the past? I don't deny that I could be wrong and misunderstanding what Brave is trying to do, but I would posit that I have done due diligence here. Instead of using tracking cookies that follow you around the Internet, Brave will use your local browsing history to target ads." In exchange, Brave will take a 15 percent cut of the ad revenue. It sounds like these ads will be filled by ad networks that work with Brave directly, and Brave will somehow police these ads to make sure they're less invasive/malevolent than the original ads that were stripped out.
Brave isn't just a glorified adblocker: after removing ads from a webpage, Brave then inserts its own programmatic ads. "In practice, Brave just sounds like a cash-grab. Is that accurate? If so, I think "replacement" is a very accurate label.Īnd here's a bit from Ars Technica's initial review of Brave:
Could you explain what you mean by "a completely separate ad platform"? My understanding is that Brave's model is to block all native ads with tracking, and in the place on the site where that ad would normally be shown, to show an ad from Brave's own network.
0 kommentar(er)
