muckrakerz

Except they don't. See above.

That isn't what he is claiming though. He's claiming that they do this without the users consent. If I want a page re-skinned in purple to hell with what the content provider wants. It is also reasonable, as Eich pointed out, to act as a mediator for unrequested donations. Which is what Brave does.

Would it be nice to reject these donations? Sure. But we don't demand that with any other transmission service. If Eich and the user concede to the terms and if you accept the money, what is the problem moral or otherwise?

Why would they have to? The user has opted in. From your link: "Starting today, users of Brave’s latest release of the desktop browser for macOS, Windows, and Linux can choose to view privacy-preserving Brave Ads by opting into Brave Rewards" [emphasis mine]

Stop spreading FUD.

The link provided does not address your claims. Full stop.

Yes. I want a citation for this. As far as I'm aware this is completely untrue.

Why do you state that? Some of the largest advances in our society have come from what would be seen as toxic or hostile engagements.

You are missing the point. He's explicitly saying those _States_ aren't _Nations_. Hence the term "Nation-State" where a state is coterminous with a nation.

No. We got content without this in the past, and we can do this in the future. And I will note THEY admit this is bad. Stop trying to defend the indefensible.

Brave is doing some of the best anti-Corporatist work in the community right now.

Why in God's name if we can't trust FB with privacy of our kids photos should we trust them to handle our finances? This deserves all of the mockery that it will receive.

This is journalism worrying over people being able to watch what they want to. Notice that the things it is worried about you watching are not things that a left-leaning journalist would would find comforting.

These aren't offers. These are letters of inquiry. They tend to be automated and based on key words. So you have key words that generated interest.

FB has largely colluded with major media outlets in determining who would be "real" news. It has given the stamp of approval to most large media corporations.

Which is nonsense, I don't want it screening things. I want my family pictures and my friends thoughts and I don't care where they come from.

This is absolutely wrong. Fines scale with revenue because they are supposed to deter behavior. If I get fined $1000 the change in my behavior is different from that of a minimum wage earner and a multibillion dollar company.

FB has egregiously harmed consumers and has engaged in behavior that is criminal. In no way should they be left off the hook.