that does sound brave
I suppose bravery is somewhat akin to chutzpah ...
lol yeah, chutzpah, thinking more brave than shameless going forward with a blatantly illegal business model. Fraud is more than just frowned upon
Brave taking cryptocurrency donations “for me” without my consent
151–160 of 354 posts
Re: Brave taking cryptocurrency donations “for me” without my consent
#152Edit: title was changed, I am not Tom Scott I am not too familiar with how Brave and BAT (Brave Attention Token), so please chime in. Here's how Brave describes the BAT YouTube donations system: https://basicattentiontoken.org/brave-expands-basic-attentio... From my understanding, users of the Brave Browser select which YouTubers to donate to, but they don't know whether the channels have opted in to receive donation…
I work at Brave. Tips to un-verified publishers sit in escrow for the creator to claim. IANAL but GDPR refers to personal data collected from users. The only "Youtuber data" being "used" here is publicly gettable data from the Youtuber's channel.
[deleted]
Re: Brave taking cryptocurrency donations “for me” without my consent
#153Stop you're crashing my BAT investments! /s
https://screenshots.firefox.com/tqACbxJj731kH7Ri/pro.coinbas...
Re: Brave taking cryptocurrency donations “for me” without my consent
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
I work at Brave. Tips to un-verified publishers sit in escrow for the creator to claim. IANAL but GDPR refers to personal data collected from users. The only "Youtuber data" being "used" here is publicly gettable data from the Youtuber's channel.
I quote your own terms of service: For each Publisher URL receiving votes during a Calculation Period that is not a Brave Publisher by the end of that Calculation Period, the BAT corresponding to its votes will not be distributed at the end of that Calculation Period, and will instead be held in an Uphold omnibus wallet for no less than ninety (90) days thereafter. At that time, the undistributed BAT may be sent to C…
Sounds very clearly like "scam" as well!
Re: Brave taking cryptocurrency donations “for me” without my consent
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been using containers for some time now (probably since not long after it was announced) to keep my twitter accounts separate, and I've never had to reset or update my preferences.
On at least 3 separate occasions now I've gone to open a container tab, and found that I was back to the default set of (Work, Personal, Shopping, I think). Even better is when this happens, it also resets the count on how many container tabs you've opened, so near the end of the day I'll go to shift containers and get blocked by a "Congrats! You've opened 100 container tabs!" that needs to be dismissed.
This has happened to me several times as well. I use them with the temporary container tabs add-on (so, short-lived containers by default, plus a selection of specific sites that I retain information for, with strict cross-domain isolation), and let me tell you, losing that configuration is painful after setting it up.
The fact that you can't sync container configuration between devices is also a huge pain point, when you have a nontrivial setup.
I still use them, but I accept that I'm going to endure some pain now and then; I can't recommend Firefox containers to people who just want to get work done right now.
Re: Brave taking cryptocurrency donations “for me” without my consent
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the ability to paypal or western union or otherwise send to people without their consent exists Surely the recipient has to create a PayPal or Western Union account first, which constitutes giving permission for that company to take payment on their behalf. And in fairness, the complaint isn't even that money is being sent to people without their consent. The problem is that the money isn't actually being sent to t…
That's not how Western Union works. The recipient goes to WU and presents matching ID.
Western Union doesn't claim to be accepting donations on creators behalfs.
Western Union can refund money sent if it hasn't been collected by the recipient.
Western Union doesn't require a minimum amount of money be sent to a recipient before they collect.
Really, it is 1 & 2 together that seem to mark this clearly as fraud. 3 doesn't help either.
Re: Brave taking cryptocurrency donations “for me” without my consent
#157It does indeed sound like a mess.
Keybase had a better idea: tie various identities to something stronger (private key). That way you can say: I'm X on reddit, Y on HN, Z on YouTube, etc. I think Brave could follow the same model, just make it seamless (or partner with Keybase).
You could take it further. Why one and not multiple owners? Imagine you have a handle H on HN and then that handle publishes 5 messages of "My public key is XYZ". Then if someone were to donate to H through the system you could split it between participants.
And you could run with that! Why even split if you could build some crypto system of control on top of that through smart contracts that lets you basically manage a small organization.
Re: Brave taking cryptocurrency donations “for me” without my consent
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
My impression is that Brave's current model actively hurts small creators that would otherwise get some of that money sooner on the donation services they have signed up for, without waiting for Brave's $100 withdrawal threshold to be reached, if it ever does. I'd be surprised if this will be deemed legal, once more people will find out that there is a company collecting donations in their name and without their cons…
>I'd be surprised if this will be deemed legal I'm surprised how anyone could think this was a good idea, or even legal. What wouldn't surprise me is an incoming class action.
IANAL but I imagine that the donations are in brave tokens and it may or may not be treated as cash (even though the eventual payout is cash) which may or may not be legal depending on a lot of stuff that's beyond my area of expertise.
But if the idea was to 1) create token and 2) YOLO and yeah, lawsuits incoming.
But it could be that they have good lawyers and that it is actually legal (although as I write it I don't believe that, haha)
Re: Brave taking cryptocurrency donations “for me” without my consent
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
I quote your own terms of service: For each Publisher URL receiving votes during a Calculation Period that is not a Brave Publisher by the end of that Calculation Period, the BAT corresponding to its votes will not be distributed at the end of that Calculation Period, and will instead be held in an Uphold omnibus wallet for no less than ninety (90) days thereafter. At that time, the undistributed BAT may be sent to C…
Sounds very clearly like "scam" as well!
To be fair, it's entirely possible they're not actually making use of that, or only in very limited circumstances, and it's less "how can we trick people" and more "we didn't really think about what that looks like, because we know we are the good guys", and given their anonymous design they need some out if they don't want to be stuck responsible for funds for eternity. If it's the latter, they're now finding out that especially in combination with the deceptive UI it really looks bad.
And even without the clause, if they truly held it in escrow forever, taking money unasked without a way of returning it, is still a bad thing. Given this isn't the first "support creators" app doing this and getting publicly shamed for it, I have no idea how that went through.
Re: Brave taking cryptocurrency donations “for me” without my consent
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's the deal. If you want what you're proposing to work - you need to copy the model that Google briefly used with Google Contributor. Bid on the exchanges for the ads you want to block. Then serve cat pictures (or whatever). The creators will get paid through the existing payment infrastructure and you don't need to build an entirely parallel, opt-in system that will probably never gain enough traction to be wort…
I'm still amazed and saddened that the original Contributor didn't work out. It was such a great concept that would work all the way from first introduction to a hypothetical future where everyone uses this and nobody sees ads.
Agreed.
That said, it's better if it's someone other than Google doing it. Google only has access to bid on the Google exchanges, but a 3rd party can bid on AppNexus, private exchanges (WSJ), etc.