Conversation

I don't think calling it DRM is a mislabel. It would say exactly the same thing about a video game using this feature to enforce that people don't block in-game advertisements or bypass the need to pay micropayments for features or virtual currency.
Quote Tweet
Replying to @DanielMicay @justsee and @bcrypt
You picked a fight. "DRM" abuse, then "enforced viewing". Ad fraud is real and the $320B/year growing to $1T system uses JS nonsense against it, fruitlessly except for the CYA shakedown artists who sell tag-level antifraud. G & FB use what you mislabel "DRM". We aim to as well.
3
5
Replying to
This is false. Without safetynet users still get Brave's baseline features: ad/tracker blocking, fingerprinting protection, cross-site referer blinding, &c. They even can opt into Brave Rewards and fund their own anonymous donations. They just can't take 70% ad revshare. Yeesh!
4
2
Replying to and
I'm going to reply to my reply. You tweeted that we replace ads in page slots. False. You abused DRM to describe anti-fraud tech that limits only Brave user ads, which are opt in. These are either hugely ignorant errors on your part, or lies. No third way!
1
Replying to
Oh, so it's a problem when I do it, but you can do it. You're trying to make a subtle distinction about what it means to replace ads, and I don't agree with it. It's you that's being incredibly dishonest by misrepresenting my statements as false or dishonest when they're not.
2
Replying to and
I didn't abuse the term DRM. It's the way the term is used among almost everyone that I speak to. I'm hardly the only one using the term to include features like anti-modding / anti-cheat / anti-fraud trying to stop the user from doing something with code on their device...
2
Replying to
You need to justify your claims. Write something if you like. Twitter is valid expression of truth-claims, at least at first and from putative good-faith actors. Live up to that.
1