> Curious why you think a browser company should be acting as a middle man and taking a cut of revenue from the publisher or content creator?
Well not just any browser company, but a browser company that improves the status quo and convinces me that they deserve it. In this hypothetical, the answer to your question is "because they deserve it".
The revenue usually isn't moving from me as the consumer directly to the producer, rather it is provided by advertisers who are engaged in ever escalating tactics to increase their efficiency, with little regard for me and my privacy as a consumer. With adblocking, we have two sets of people: a smaller group who browse without benefiting the advertisers who compensate the producers, and a larger group who browse while being enablers to the user-hostile privacy violating tactics used by most advertisers.
Neither of these situations is truly desirable in the long term. I don't seen any ideal solutions, and I believe that any entity which can move us towards a new and better model might be deserving of compensation, regardless of where they sit in the stream of data.
To be clear, I disagree with your use of the word "should". The world is messy and imperfect, and particularly when it comes to advertising one might say "evil". We will not be achieving utopia any time soon, so I would embrace a solution which is better than what we are currently doing, even if it is not ideal.
I don't necessarily think a browser company should have a cut of revenue, but there are lots of other middlemen that get a cut, and a lot of them could more justly be described as rent-seekers who add no value than Brave could.
It's my choice which browser I use, and if I decide to use one that pushes money in a certain direction to fund better browser software, then I don't see that anyone can really complain.
Brave is trying to be the middleman and launching their own ad network. I think browsers forcing a business model onto publishers still isn't the right answer.
They think it's immoral but they definitely still look at that content. For advertisers it's about brand perception and not appearing next to immoral content.
No, but they will gladly indulge in a bit of pitchfork-and-torchery when someone shares a screenshot on Facebook of a Proctor & Gamble ad for baby powder next to a young woman with pigtails and tube socks in the questionably named 'teen' category getting spit roasted.
No we aren't doing that. Ads are contextual on TrafficJunky/Pornhub. Too few people actually making accounts and purchases compared to the billions browsing anonymously.
separately, has there been any consideration given to googleanalytics (+google fonts) usage on your properties, and Google's ability to track visitors across your sites and the web?
Small since ~80% of our traffic is mobile and we also serve static ads to most adblock users on desktop.
Google Analytics is the only analytics product that can support the data we need processed at a reasonable price. We do use their IP anonymization by default and it's pretty easy to opt-out of GA tracking.
wow, I'm surprised that mobile makes up that much traffic!
it would be interesting to see what sort of UA visit your site... I'm assuming Chrome is the dominant mobile browser (which unfortunately doesn't support ad-blocking)
How would you see the credit card number at all unless you are the payment processor? Payment processors show the interface into which the credit card number is entered.
