I don't ask for donations or crowdfunding on any platform. If that ever changes, it'll be incredibly obvious. If someone's asking you for money or suggesting that you can donate to me, it's not true and you should stay well clear.
-
-
I did ask Brave how keeping profiles on untold numbers of people and assigning donations to them without consent complied with GDPR, at which point the person talking to me stopped replying to emails.
Show this thread -
If you would like to donate this Christmas, then please send something to the Against Malaria Foundation. They're one of the most effective charities in the world, and a cause I support!https://www.againstmalaria.com/
Show this thread -
There have been hundreds of replies to my thread about Brave overnight. Here's a summary as I understand it:
Show this thread -
Brave believes opting every creator into their system, and holding donations without consent, is ethical and in line with privacy laws. They also claim that a domain name or YouTube channel URL is not personally identifiable information. I disagree strongly with both of those.
Show this thread -
I cannot see how 'a YouTube URL is not personally identifiable information' is compatible with the CEO's statement that 'Tom has $33 waiting for him'. Under GDPR, that's clearly information (and money!) they're holding that is connected to me.
Show this thread -
Brave is changing their UI to make their policies clearer, and considering providing an opt-out. That's good, but they still take and hold donations on creators' behalf without consent by default, and I think that's wrong.
Show this thread -
A lot of people got caught up on photo copyright, which wasn't the issue: it's about "passing off", claiming you represent someone when you don't.
Show this thread -
Finally, I've sent Brave a formal right-to-be-forgotten request requiring that any profile they've built, and any records of donations tagged to me (via domain name, or YouTube channel, etc), are deleted. They have acknowledged it, and have a month to reply under GDPR.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
We do not keep it for ourselves; we put it back in the user growth pool that funds user grants & creator referral awards. Tom has a point, we should let creators say "no thanks" and be auto-excluded. Users may already auto-exclude unverified sites/channels. We will work on this.
-
There have been multiple schemes of this sort in the crypto world, e.g. soliciting crypto tips to github contributors without their permission. Every one's been shut down as donation fraud. Because it's donation fraud.
-
predecessors include Tip4Commit https://www.itworld.com/article/2693360/cloud-computing/linus-torvalds-and-other-developers-are-leaving-bitcoins-on-the-table.html … there have been others
-
"Please remove my repositories from the website and do not add a way to add them again. I do not value third party websites gameifying my projects." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8542969
-
@XRPBOT and other such systems are still going. So are we. We have 30K creators verified and paid. Not illegal and not fraud - our terms are clear. -
I realize some don’t like it, agree we should respect their wishes. But the ability to paypal or western union or otherwise send to people without their consent exists and is not illegal or unethical. Nominative fair use of public data also legal.
-
There's a big, big difference between "sending someone money" and "setting up a donation page for untold numbers of people without their knowledge and keeping the money if they don't claim it". This should be 100% opt-in, not opt-out.
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
-
Brave users (I'm one) are very aware of how the system works, and support it because the current broken ad-tech system is very harmful to everyone. I wouldn't argue it's perfect but from a GDPR / consent POV the current ad-tech system is much, much worse.
-
Micro-transactions / general donations are coming on multiple fronts, Brave just happens to be the first innovator who will succeed in breaking thru. It is opt-in: you have to register to access the donations and participate in this new model which is +ve for users / publishers.
-
Showing a publisher's name / imagery as part of the donation mechanism in-browser is no different to search engines crawling the web to show snippets of public content and user can (and will) understand this. Portraying it as a scammy system / con is bad faith analysis tbh.
-
Especially when you consider Brave is leading on GDPR actions on multiple fronts and the team is comprised of high-quality individuals with great intentions. See:https://twitter.com/justsee/status/1052723181893476352 …
-
But on the specific issue you raise, I think the UX solution
@brave /@BrendanEich could implement is a disclaimer in the tipping prompt that a publisher is not 'active' on the system and that donations will flow back into the pool. -
It is hard to fit in the UX, especially with the condition that user grants can be reclaimed from long holds in settlement to the pool — but user-funded tokens will be held indefinitely.
-
Below the 'Send a tip', for any site that hasn't opted-in yet to the new ad-tech model, have a link like '[name] might not get this tip.' which links to a page explaining the model? On the publisher banner, more real estate for similar explanations?
-
I don't think denying the ability to tip to a user / site is a good idea. You then have to hold specific information for that site and it creates the incorrect sense the system is opt-out. That allow bad-faith beneficiaries of the existing system to claim it is an opt-out system
- 7 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.