FYI: Newspapers To Brave Browser: Don'T Mess With Our Ads -- Or Else
CNET.com article 04/09/16 (in toto, & unedited)
Browser maker Brave Software wants to rid the Web of the worst parts of online advertising, but the biggest newspapers in the US have launched an attack against the "illegal" plan.
Lawyers from The New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and other members of the Newspaper Association of America published a letter Thursday that threatens legal action against the San Francisco-based startup, whose browser can block or replace ads on their websites.
"Contrary to the misstatements of the NAA letter, Brave is the solution, not the problem, for users and publishers," he said.
Brave Software CEO Brendan Eich says his browser is the "solution, not the problem, for users and publishers."
The newspapers' letter targets one small startup but cuts to the heart of a profound problem: how to keep news, video, and other content freely available online without driving away readers through overly annoying and privacy-invading ads.
Online ads slow websites, track your behavior, drain phone batteries, obstruct content and sometimes even deliver attack software. No surprise, then, that 198 million people installed ad-blocking software in 2015. Apple's Safari, Mozilla's Firefox and Microsoft's Edge browsers also offer reading modes that strip out ads.
The Brave browser loads pages faster by stripping out not just ads but also website software that tracks users. The company eventually will insert ads that target your behavior but promises to keep your behavioral data on your computer and never gather the information itself. It's not clear yet how many people use the browser, which launched in February, but Brave offers versions for personal computers powered by Windows, OS X and Linux and for phones and tablets powered by Google's Android and Apple's iOS.
Brave's financial strategy is to share 55 percent of its ad revenue with publishers -- 70 percent when users don't specifically carve off 15 percent for themselves. Brave itself keeps 15 percent and sends 15 percent to ad technology business partners.
The newspapers refuse to participate.
Eich offered his own counterattack. "The news industry has been an active participant in violating individual readers' privacy by benefitting from non-consensual third-party tracking and ads," he said. "News industry leaders rightly decry the violation of privacy inherent in some NSA or FBI tactics, yet their own complicity in tracking individuals to even more invasive degrees is not addressed."
The Newspaper Association of America didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
Me Here: so what's it going to be folks? Just who should pay for what sites, and not just newspapers, publish on the web? If they don't run ads on their webpages to pay their staff, just what alternatives do they have to pay for their expenses? Not unlike, IMO, the very same issues re the music industry has re musicians earning a living, and the 'theft' of their songs!
I don't mind ads, if they don't take over the page, or pop up.
I have my own ad-blocker, in my brain.
Odd that they haven't tried to sue firms that make ad-blocking add-ons, though. Or, have they?
With Opera v12, you can block any content you like, on a per-site basis.
One of my daughter's degrees is in Journalism. She was the editor of her university newspaper in her final year. When she graduated there were NO
journalist jobs available. Most papers were letting seasoned journalists go because no-one was actually buying print newspapers and were instead
consuming free online content.
Now, there are three reasons why MSM allows free content. One they get their political agenda out there - read something like the Daily Mail online and it is obvious what political leanings they have. Two they monetise their content with sidebar adverts or click-bait links. Three, you the consumer are becoming the product and they are passing on your information to other groups in exchange for money for them.
So, should you accept adverts? Yes. It is ludicrous to expect something for nothing. Pay for quality? Absolutely. Failing up-front payment you are relegated to the questionable content available at train stations or online.
I get the Guardian Weekly delivered to my house and also get the Sunday Herald. Both are well written with investigative pieces.
I suggest that those of you who object to adverts start paying for print.
I think you are on the money, Mary. If you expect something for nothing, more often than not you get exactly what you pay for.