Thanks for sketching out some of your concerns in a bit more detail. Need to ponder.
So is weak attestation bad, or all attestation b/c it ultimately leads to lack of user agency?
Is the bigger criticism simply that ad-funded model is totally unworkable as a model?
Conversation
If the last, then good bye Internet. It own't be user funded, not at $320B/year globally growing to $1T/year. If you have a better way, lay it on us. In the meanwhile, we level the antifraud playing field vs. G and FB native stacks (low adfraud incidence) vs. programmatic (high).
1
The painful reality seems there is no 'best' way.
Appreciate fear that normalising strong attestation for ad-views may lead to mandatory rather than optional ad-view by industry even if not Brave.
Also appreciate that without attestation fraud wins, content loses.
2
No Best Way = Worse is Better.
I object to double standards. Apps (including big ones) use safetynet and are not pilloried for "DRM" or accused of "enforced viewing".
Use the same yardstick on us.
1
I do call that DRM consistently. I'm using the same standards. I was very put off when I saw that Brave was doing this. Regardless, I suggested a stronger way of doing it without a hard dependency on a Google service to try to be helpful and was basically told to fuck off.
2
github.com/brave/browser- is one of the places that this started and github.com/brave/browser- is another. Notice how in both cases I was trying to help and was told to fuck off in response. I even put in work to resolve an issue for other browsers, but you aren't welcome to use it.
1
2
1
I talked about it on Twitter a while ago, which was followed with you folks spreading misinformation about Chromium and Android without Play Services. I took a deeper look into what Brave has been doing in particular with using SafetyNet attestation as a form of advertising DRM.
2
1
Who in that issue (github.com/brave/browser-) "spread misinformation"? Your comment points towards pairing, which is ok and we are doing it. But you are making a strong claim. Link to the issue comment, please.
1
I'm talking about the follow-up on Twitter. Anyway, now I just need to point to our own conversations for a whole mountain of bullshit and corporate spin. I was put off by far less than what happened here. None of the past nonsense compares to this. Really, *this* makes my case.
1
What "follow-up on Twitter"? Link to it if you can, or GTFO.
Your own record here, for all to see, is terrible: "DRM", "enforced viewing", "(the site with different ads)". Own it or retract it.
1
It's accurate. Your spin is what's misleading and inaccurate. I stand by what I said. I don't buy into your spin about the semantics on whether it counts as replacing them because it's not a 1:1 in-page replacement. Doesn't pass the smell test. A reporter might buy that, I won't.
Spin isn't you contradicting EFF's DRM definition.
Spin isn't you saying we "enforce viewing" of ads.
Spin isn't your false insinuation we replace ads in pages.
You provided no links to back your "misinform" claims.
If you can't do better, give up. You lost on your own terms.