Well, get to it. Give us the solution. Outright rejecting Brave isn't helpful. Newspapers financed themselves through ads for decades, but now because websites try to do the same (while abusing their position) and Brave tries to find a fair middle ground that still respects our privacy and rights, they're suddenly the bad guy.
They haven't even given a valid reason to consider the solution shitty enough to reject. All I could derive from their comment is that they doesn't like ads at all (while ignoring the fact that nobody else has managed to implement a working solution, that ads work, and that Brave is implementing the one solution that has traditionally had plenty of support (micropayments) and some hope of working).
Like, weren't micropayments all the rage just 5 years ago?
Are ads really the problem in itself? I'd say the real problem with ads are ad networks that track you, create a profile of you and use that to personalize ads, meanwhile providing an attack vector for malware and site owners abusing it historically in the form of Flash or other ugly and distracting ways of displaying them. Brave is providing a way to display ads that don't track you and don't infringe on your privacy. I don't see the downside here, only the upside that we can continue to have a 'free' internet where not only the well-off have access to vast swathes of the internet.
Most normal businesses don't provide free access without payment. Until recently, the only ones that did were newspapers. They were financed through ads and to a minor portion subscriptions. If you remove ads, you remove free internet. That's how it works. Unless you propose taxing everybody.
Exactly. Ads are a legacy business model of a legacy distribution system. Too few people have read JPB's excellent "Selling wine without bottles", but that is in full effect here.
The problem is that new content-centric business models have not yet emerged. So, some people remain chained to the old paradigms.
The crisis we have is a gap in vision. People don't realize that driving cost of information distribution to zero means that it no longer has enough scarcity to force the economic transfer of other scarce resources. Basically, what OSS did for commercial software, the Internet did for anything that fits within a 2D screen. Netflix, NYTimes, Fortnite, JK Rowling, and Jenna Jameson are all competitors in a space whose Pixels*Seconds value is commoditized.
Capitalism doesn't thrive unless there is an exponentiating dynamic. The only one available on the Internet is bandwidth capture. Which, for now, translates into attentional capture.
With the imminent arrival of P2P web software (e.g. Beaker Browser) and mesh networking, the tides will turn back towards a creator-centric peer network.
