Brave expands Basic Attention Token platform to YouTube

(basicattentiontoken.org)

Show context

skywhopper ◴[17 Nov 17 21:38 UTC] No.15726194[source]▶

"The Brave browser provides an ad-free YouTube video experience. It also enables a direct monetary relationship between the content creator and their audience."

Is Google party to this? And if not, how is this sustainable model?

Honestly I hadn't looked into this browser previously, but I don't understand what their value proposition is, beyond handwavey promises that crypto-currency utility tokens and some future machine-learning developments can get around the ad fraud problem.

But if they need to build this out by subverting YouTube's advertising and revenue flow and replacing it with their own, that is not going to last.

replies(2): >>15727099 #>>15730193 #

1. jMyles ◴[18 Nov 17 00:33 UTC] No.15727099[source]▶

>>15726194 #

> But if they need to build this out by subverting YouTube's advertising and revenue flow and replacing it with their own, that is not going to last.

...why not? Subversion of Youtube's advertising and revenue flow sounds like a prospect which enjoys high demand and low supply at the moment.

replies(2): >>15727482 #>>15729087 #

2. CodeWriter23 ◴[18 Nov 17 02:37 UTC] No.15727482[source]▶

>>15727099 (TP) #

Google kicked the Echo off of YouTube for TOS violations. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/09/youtube-is-no-longer...

replies(1): >>15727730 #

3. jMyles ◴[18 Nov 17 04:19 UTC] No.15727730[source]▶

>>15727482 #

I mean, you might then argue that the Echo (and, for that matter, Amazon generally) was insufficiently surreptitious about it. If Brave can be more difficult to distinguish, it will also be more difficult to ban.

replies(1): >>15727974 #

4. CodeWriter23 ◴[18 Nov 17 06:12 UTC] No.15727974{3}[source]▶

>>15727730 #

No, you might then argue that. :) Look how Uber’s behavior with paging and canceling Lyft rides during their poaching days came back to bite them in the ass. And I’m sure if Amazon’s small army of lawyers felt they had a leg to stand on with the UserAgent obfuscation route, they would do it.

5. skywhopper ◴[18 Nov 17 14:38 UTC] No.15729087[source]▶

>>15727099 (TP) #

Because Google will not allow it if it starts impacting their revenue significantly.

replies(1): >>15744634 #

6. jMyles ◴[21 Nov 17 00:41 UTC] No.15744634[source]▶

>>15729087 #

I may be wrong about this, but I don't think the Brave browser intends to allow google to stop them. That's kinda the point of making it a different browser.

↑