They could have meant when Brave swapped affiliate links before the backlash had them backtrack. Which was a wild thing to do. Blocking ads in your browser while charging to not show ads is also pretty wild. Why doesn’t their ad blocker block their ads?
They didn't replace affiliate links. They had a feature similar to Firefox Suggest or whatever's in Chrome/Edge nowadays I think. They had a deal with eg. Binance, and if you typed Binance in the address bar, their Binance promo would show up as one of the results.
They had a bug in it where if you typed a valid URL (eg. binance.us) it'd still give the sponsored link as an autocomplete which it shouldn't have. That bug stood for one day, if memory serves, and the feature was turned off by default.
Oh wow. So much time had passed since that. I remember seeing the details after I had made the negative connection between Brave and “refgate”. Especially the HN thread at the time was chaotic. That negative connotation never left.
I doubt that. They said replace ads, not add affiliates, those are different words entirely. The "ad replacing" is a common lie.
Just don't use Brave search, the separate product. Or you know, add the blocking rules yourself to the ad blocker, that works. Or you know, pay the $3 dollars to support the thing you use.
Most of the people complaining here don't actually care about this. This is all just a proxy war to go against Eich for his beliefs. It happens every Brave thread, pretty transparent and pathetic.
Replacement doesn't imply a reuse of a specific location. Taking an ad out your browser and placing a different ad on your desktop is still replacement. Do you really not understand that advertising isn't about space in physical world, but about space in your mind? What brave does is absolutely replacement. They replace a bit of light that was emanating from one part of your device's screen to invade your attention to make some other party money with a bit of light that emanates from a different part of your device's screen to invade your attention to make them money. How in the world is that not "replacement"?
1. take the place of.
"Ian's smile was replaced by a frown"
2. put (something) back in a previous place or position.
"he drained his glass and replaced it on the bar"
Notice the use of place and position. If you say we "replace ads", I think you are misusing the word replace. I hope you won't from here on, because we definitely still get smeared with the lie that we replace ads in-situ in publisher pages.
1. Grass costs nothing, it's already there and we can't eat it. You have to shred it so it doesn't grow too high anyway.
2. Again, pastures are already there, nothing else is on them.
3. Perfect, that's more jobs, but I know small family farms with 100 head of cattle with no extra ranch hands.
4. Not really, unless they are very large farms, but at very large scales making artificial meet will have challenges too, much more complex than shoveling shit.
> 1. Grass costs nothing, it's already there and we can't eat it. You have to shred it so it doesn't grow too high anyway.
> 2. Again, pastures are already there, nothing else is on them.
We’ve gone way beyond pasture just “being there” to rely on for animal agriculture at the rate we do it. Look at BLM grazing rates which are there to pay for renewing the grassland but to rate limit how many animal graze or the grassland would be destroyed. Amazon in Brazil is also being cut back constantly to create new pasture land
> 3. Perfect, that's more jobs, but I know small family farms with 100 head of cattle with no extra ranch hands.
If doing things inefficiently just to create jobs is a good idea, we might as well ban shovels and backhoes and make everyone dig with spoons
> We’ve gone way beyond pasture just “being there” to rely on for animal agriculture at the rate we do it. Look at BLM grazing rates which are there to pay for renewing the grassland but to rate limit how many animal graze or the grassland would be destroyed. Amazon in Brazil is also being cut back constantly to create new pasture land
A large part of America was already grassland. Many other parts the land aren't great, but cattle can still graze over it even with really sparse or dry vegetation.
> If doing things inefficiently just to create jobs is a good idea, we might as well ban shovels and backhoes and make everyone dig with spoons
I'm talking about families raising cattle on their private land and continuing to do so, not about banning shovels, backhoes, or meat.
>A large part of America was already grassland. Many other parts the land aren't great, but cattle can still graze over it even with really sparse or dry vegetation.
a large part of America was already grassland, but that doesn't mean it can handle infinite herds, hence the BLM grazing fees[1]. This is also ignoring the fact that I was referring to pasture land globally when I included references to the Amazon.
>I'm talking about families raising cattle on their private land and continuing to do so, not about banning shovels, backhoes, or meat.
Private land means nothing when you say "Perfect, that's more jobs". You should talk about how inefficiency is acceptable if it spreads work across more small businesses then, and I will argue with you on that point. I care 0% about family's keeping their small businesses together if it means the rest of us have high prices. If those families take more money to create the same amount of food as a large scale farm, then I give zero shits if they lose the family farm. I would prefer that an enterprise takes over, produces food at a lower cost, and then sells me food at that lower cost due to the competition that capitalism causes.
Could you please explain to me why I should care about the family farm asking for my tax dollars to subsidize them while they complain that my liberal lifestyle is unacceptable and should be prevented by law?
Where is the slander, and where is the car to compare?
I see you went to my profile to find something to say to me, but nothing to expand on your opinion so we can objectively compare better cars as you suggested originally.
And yes that's why I put that quote in my profile, people will go after the person when they don't want to defend their statements, like you did.
Curious if you have much success with being aggressive and condescending in conversations? I wouldn't even bother discussing anything with you but I saw there are enough answers in the parent comment... so you can read and flamebait there :0)
Yes there are multiple people here, but the general sentiment was negative among most threads.
Go ahead and look over any Mastodon thread a year ago or before.
Generally it was dismissed with "oh it's too niche" or "moderation will be too difficult".
People ignored the communities already on it and the tech overall.
Only until people got pissy about Elon running Twitter instead of hedge funds did the general sentiment here change.
It wasn't about the tech, and not even about Elon specifically, it was the Twitter safe space got taken away.
But now hopefully the people who want that safe space will isolate themselves in mastodon instances that block all others and we can all live in peace from them.
I've been in the mastodon world for longer than the Twitter drama, so I'm well aware.
When you block other instances you realize you are islanding yourself off, right? Not the other way around.
Everyone is federated until you block, so you are isolating yourself from the norm when you block others.
It's not too noticeable as the english speaking instances are small currently, but those who don't want wolfballs and friends, or this or that are more isolated than those who do.
It makes sense that those who want to hide views from others are the outliers. Those who want to be open and allowing of diverse thought are more interoperable.
You're correct, there is no legal basis. In fact, the police have a supreme court ruling which affirms that the police has no legal duty or responsibility to protect anyone. Even when they're given roles that would imply the responsibility (such as serving in a school).
Could we hold police more accountable? Potentially. Will we? Based on historical evidence, no.
And without that accountability, this is just another deadly weapon, one they can and will (again, based on historical evidence) use with impunity.
Career pages often list specific positions that are currently hiring. A large company like Twitter will not just have a general catch-all applicant form.
So, given the current environment at Twitter, the parent post you responded to seems to have hit the nail on the head. Give things time and it will get back to normal, and we can expect new opportunities to be posted on some sort of careers page for Twitter.
People are really looking hard for reasons to be negative about Twitter and Musk. This careers page isn't one of them...
I mean don't get me wrong I'm just having fun, I'm not some socrates-truther but "generally fans don't talk directly with the creators of their process, for years on end" have you met fans? Hell yesterday the entirety of Tumblr decided to invent a fake Scorsese film with memes and slash/fic and fanart and arguments about it's place in his canon. They probably produced more in a day than was written about Socrates in a century.
You stated your opinion, but you forgot to add your reasoning.