Brave expands Basic Attention Token platform to YouTube

Is the "ad-free YouTube video experience" something that violates some Google user agreement? Just thinking that Brave is a high profile project and not a tool you download.

I don't really see how a browser that blocks ads is any different from an extension that blocks ads.

Well, it blocks adds and collects money on the behalf of others without having permission to do so...

And it's all done client side. What is the issue? Or does it bother Google and other online players that they can not control what is being done?

> blocks adds

Yes, but so does uBlock Origin, Adblock Plus, etc.

> collects money on the behalf of others

Why would they need permission from Google to do that? That's completely unrelated to them.

I'm surprised YouTube doesn't just block the Brave browser entirely. The entire business model of Brave is "siphon off some of the ad revenue from websites".

Because it's illegal. You write a book, I sell some home-printed copies of it and might give me some money if you claim it. It's clearly illegal.

During an anti-trust investigation by a governmental body that has punished large company before over abusing its browser monopoly?

Yeah, I don't think so.

Whose permission does it need exactly?!

1) It blocks ads, just like a browser extension would

2) It has a set-up a payment content creators can take advantage of.

I fail to see what is wrong with either.

That's not what's happening, though. Brave is not running a streaming video service. They aren't hosting or distributing the content. There's nothing illegal about holding money and pledging to give it to someone if they ask for it (as long as you actually do).

> I sell some home-printed copies

That'd be a copyright violation. But Brave isn't making or selling copies of anything, so I don't see what your point is.

Do you mean Microsoft or something else I might be missing? In Microsoft's case, they were punished for their OS monopoly being used to create a browser monopoly by making a default choice for the user, not for abusing its browser monopoly.

Blocking Brave for violating their usage agreements seems very much in another league, even though it might sound like they are building a browser monopoly via their video streaming monopoly. They are not in a position where they take the choice of defaults away from the user, and as long as Firefox, Safari and Edge have some market share, the user still has a choice of compliant browsers. Blocking Brave might be more akin to enforcing their ToS for Youtube via their Play store by blocking 3rd party apps with download function (which is prohibited in Youtube ToS).

That doesn't matter. Torrent websites don't host or distribute any content, yet they still get shut down. Not opposing you, just saying your argument isn't enough.

It does matter, because your argument categorically does not apply. Brave is not involved with the distribution of content.

That doesn't make any sense. Right now, I'm going to start putting money into this jar to my left. I'm going to put a sticker on it that says your name. You can come retrieve this jar if you like. Therefore, I have done something wrong?