It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mozilla co-founder's ad-blocking Brave browser will pay you bitcoin to see safe ads

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 08:51 AM
link   
Since there is no clear cut "internet" forum, I'll post this under Technology.

Finally! Someone gets it!

My stance with ads and data farming of users has always been, 'You want my information, you PAY for my information, since you're selling it to someone else anyways'. Why not pay me for something you're taking from me so YOU can get money but cut me out?

Someone has finally stepped up and started pushing a solution. Ok, so the solution is not full proof but it's a major step in the right direction.



First announced in January, Brave is a web browser for Windows, Mac, Linux, iOS, and Android that has ad blocking built in. But instead of eliminating ads entirely, Brave wants to replace them with speedier, non-intrusive ads from its own network. Users who agree to see these ads will then get paid in bitcoin.

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. Brave then divvies up the remaining bitcoin between itself, its ad-matching partner, and the users, each getting a 15 percent share.


Personally I feel the user should get 50% right off the top since the data is ours after all. I can't agree that since they're doing all of the work, they should get majority. Not when the information is our own information. We did the real work by existing. After all, celebrities get paid millions for movies because people want to see them act in them. We're the ones creating the data by living, doing, existing in the world around us, so in a way, we're the celebrities that these companies want to know all about.

But it's a start. A problem I see here is, there needs to be more clarity to exactly what information you're giving up. At 15%. it'll probably take you years of browsing all by your lonesome to get any amount of worth mentioning.

Still... It's a start.

However... With a great idea comes a very BAD idea by these same people.


Alternatively, users will have an option to block all ads and pay a monthly subscription to Brave, which gets distributed to publishers on a weighted basis (minus a cut for Brave, of around 5 percent). The company is also working on granular options, such as the ability to pay a handful of favorite sites with wallet funds to block their ads. Users can also choose to go ad-free without paying anything, though Brave seems to think this won’t be the norm.


So you're saying that you either pay me to view ads or I pay a subscription to block ads? Sounds kinda pointless and dumb to me. Why pay when I can use a free blocker?

[url=http://www.pcworld.com/article/3050923/software/mozilla-co-founders-ad-blocking-brave-browser-will-pay-you-bitcoin-to-see-safe-ads.html]Source[/u rl]




posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 09:08 AM
link   

At 15%. it'll probably take you years of browsing all by your lonesome to get any amount of worth mentioning.

Not only but we're probably talking minuscule fractions of a bit coin. The part they aren't mentioning.

edit on 4-4-2016 by intrptr because: bb code



posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Like 0.0000000000036 BTC or so...
Damn it I once bought 2 BTC for 25€ each and printed them out, hid it somewhere to not loose them....
guess what... I wish I could find them now...



posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: StallionDuck


Personally I feel the user should get 50% right off the top since the data is ours after all. I can't agree that since they're doing all of the work, they should get majority. Not when the information is our own information. We did the real work by existing. After all, celebrities get paid millions for movies because people want to see them act in them. We're the ones creating the data by living, doing, existing in the world around us, so in a way, we're the celebrities that these companies want to know all about.

Website owners getting 55% seems very fair to me, people visit their website because they take the time to make it worth visiting. They need a way to fund the website, and there's no reason the user should get get a huge cut of advertising profits just for clicking an advert. If it's a basic pay-per-click ad then you're not giving them any personal information except for any information you choose to give them when purchasing any advertised products. Trackers and bugs may gather personal information about you but an non-intrusive advert will not do that.

This actually seems like it could be a good idea, I know I would be much less likely to disable ads if those ads actually make me money. But it seems to me the system will be very easy to game, people may just start clicking on every ad in order to increase their earnings. I'm sure they must have some sort of method to minimize that sort of thing but I don't see any way they could completely prevent it. I'm guessing it may be based on how many ads you view, but then you could just repeatedly refresh the page or something.
edit on 4/4/2016 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: StallionDuck


Someone has finally stepped up and started pushing a solution. Ok, so the solution is not full proof but it's a major step in the right direction.

Exactly. Also, a helpful step to utilize for some of my plans in adverting merchandise/web design.


But it's a start. A problem I see here is, there needs to be more clarity to exactly what information you're giving up. At 15%. it'll probably take you years of browsing all by your lonesome to get any amount of worth mentioning.

So true. It adds up being a plus to what you already have saved. Even for some might save time instead of surfing ads to be paid it will happen with normal browsing for example.



posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 02:41 PM
link   
okay, but well let's take ATS for example, one of the few sites that I allow ads to show, I want to support ATS, so if I switched over to their browser, would I still have the option of accepting ATS ads? or would they have some way of snagging that space and replacing their ads in their place and thus denying ATS of the income unless of course, ATS decides to go with their ad service?



posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 03:04 PM
link   
As for now 1 BTC is 100.000.000 satoshi, wherein 1 sat is the smallest possible part payable theoretically.
The minimum of an actual transaction is higher, not only because of the transaction fee that is paid to the miners. I never tried so small but I think the minimum in a transaction was in the 200-500 sats range.

So with each ad you could earn a few 1/100s of 1/10s of a $0.01, just like any other bitcoinfaucet. But mind you, it is per ad and playing a lot of different faucets can bring that total up if someone puts in the effort. For a Westerner it is not much of course. But if you have access to the internet and are stubborn enough to put in the effort and live in a country where the standard wages are way below ours (like a lot of Asian/ south-east Asian countries) it might be well worth it.



posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: StallionDuck

Off the top of my head...I believe the internet will survive without all the marketing and corporate investments. The downside of that is it'll look like the mid-90s web and run about as quick too.

This means we can use all the available apps to block out the commercials and sponsors if we also agree that the big money will go somewhere else. It'll be what's called a Pyrrhic victory.

This is the opinion of someone who runs a 1.75 ratio on uTorrent and uses adblock on all but a handful of sites (yeah ATS incl). As much as I wish the internet could exist without all the corporate influence and commercials, the objective side of me knows it can't.

I'm no where near smart enough to work out an alternative.



posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 03:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: StallionDuck

I'm no where near smart enough to work out an alternative.


But you could try, Kandinsky!

Think of the children

-
To be sirius, b, I thinketh this a step in the right directioneth.
I imagine that the idea of paying users (you know, net addicts) for ads, is going to inspire a lot of innovative ideas.



posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 04:48 PM
link   
a reply to: StallionDuck

Here is a link, directly to their website where it explains and shows models of the idea, concepts, and to download the browser.

Might be worth checking out, as there is option(s) to allow ads etc from sites.

Comes with HTTPS everywhere already built in, as well.

Nifty stuff!

Brave website



posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 04:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: verschickter
a reply to: intrptr

Like 0.0000000000036 BTC or so...
Damn it I once bought 2 BTC for 25€ each and printed them out, hid it somewhere to not loose them....
guess what... I wish I could find them now…

Bummer. You got in early. They worth hundreds now, aren't they?



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 02:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: StallionDuck
Mozilla co-founder's ad-blocking Brave browser will pay you bitcoin to see safe ads

Ah, he assumes that we are whores!
I will not sell my Soul (or self respect, or intellect) for 'bitcoin'!
Ads are propaganda, brainwashing, meant to trick you into giving them your money.
I will not subject myself unnecessarily!
It's enough that I cannot turn around anywhere without this offensive artifact of offensive capitalism everywhere else!
I will block it when and wherever I can on the only place where I seem to have any choice at all!



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

I think last time I checked the current vault they were around 250€ each, highest I saw personally was 800+ but I know it was higher.



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 07:08 PM
link   
People hate ads.

Websites cost money.

People block ads.

Websites block people who use adblockers.

Everyone looses.

Eventually, people will just shell out money to have an "ad free internet experience" and subscribe to certain bundles of interet websites they like to visit.

It'll be like cable packages. You can get the "basic internet package" that has a few hundred sites, the "news" and "sports" add-ons...

Oh wait, this sounds like the whole net neutrality thing we fought against...


They're making the internet into such an untenable place for people, that they'll scream and beg for the solution we rejected before.



posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom


They're making the internet into such an untenable place for people, that they'll scream and beg for the solution we rejected before.

Yep, eventually pay for the ads they used to include free. Not only have they gotten us to watch them but pay for them now too. Just like Cable TV.

The only way around this is to train the mind to ignore them. I have no problem with that, I can't stand commercials. The people that write ads are seemingly the least expensive, dumbest people out there. They write tittles and jingles they plan to pound you with so it gets stuck in your mind, so you go buy whatever product.



posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 09:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: verschickter
a reply to: intrptr

I think last time I checked the current vault they were around 250€ each, highest I saw personally was 800+ but I know it was higher.

Then the banks pulled the rug out, because the 'currency' wasn't 'approved' by big banks. They didn't get a cut. They'll keep doing that until it becomes just another commodity, Bit coin will never be allowed to take off on its own.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 05:05 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Well, if I could find the other two, it would be a 1000% win if I sell them for 250€. Best deal ever ruined.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 05:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Kandinsky

The other way, if all the analytics / ADs are out, you would gain speed. I don´t know why you come to the conclusion everything would look like 90s internet. If you mean cheap HTML and static pages, you´re wrong. Advertisement had zero input on the development of HTML5 for example, although, macromedia / adobe flash is and was used for advertisements, they being used for ads, also had little to do with the development of all those technologies.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 06:19 AM
link   
Damn, keep hitting that quote button instead of edit! lol
Double post.
edit on 7-4-2016 by Rocker2013 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 06:22 AM
link   
a reply to: StallionDuck

We have a whole generation who want something for nothing, people who don't understand that it costs MONEY to operate a website, to create things, to deliver entertainment and information.

Ad-blocking is going to lead to a massive collapse in website revenues. You can say bye-bye to millions of blogs, millions of forums, millions of free sources of entertainment and information as ads are no longer generating revenue to keep those sites running.

The minority who move to in-content ads might last a little while, but most will be gone, or they'll be putting everything behind a paywall.

Why do you think YouTube has just started rolling out their paywall model? It's the same thing, they know that YouTube revenues are going to be decimated as ad-blocking expands and they are desperately looking for another way to monetize. What they've failed to grasp is they their largest audience thinks everything should be free and they don't understand the first thing about the money needed to run such a business.

The Internet is not free, it didn't arrive overnight through the kindness of millions of charitable webmasters. If you cut off all revenue streams for these sites they will disappear.
edit on 7-4-2016 by Rocker2013 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join