Brave expands Basic Attention Token platform to YouTube

(basicattentiontoken.org)

Show context

joshuamorton ◴[17 Nov 17 16:40 UTC] No.15723512[source]▶

(disclosure, I work at google, and previously at YouTube)

This allows a user to donate to a content creator even if that creator doesn't have any way to get access the donations. That is, until youtubers start registering themselves in the payment tool, this is essentially watching someone's video, and then throwing money into a hole.

With other patronage systems, like patreon, you cannot donate money until the creator has an account. To me, that feels super sketch.

Edit: It reminded me to go and check my old bitcointip and altcointip accounts on reddit, on which I apparently had combined closed to $30 in BTC at today's prices, but which have both been shuttered and are now inaccessible. That's not promising.

replies(18): >>15723732 #>>15723785 #>>15723806 #>>15723836 #>>15723845 #>>15723862 #>>15724118 #>>15724297 #>>15725087 #>>15725839 #>>15726351 #>>15726823 #>>15726897 #>>15726948 #>>15729967 #>>15730194 #>>15730606 #>>15731703 #

1. philsnow ◴[17 Nov 17 17:12 UTC] No.15723836[source]▶

>>15723512 #

for disclosure, I also used to work at YouTube.

revshare is complicated and governed by, among other factors, deals YouTube makes with various parties. Brave doesn't have access to any of that information, so they couldn't possibly know how to split revenue between the uploader of the video and all the other parties that might have content embedded in the video, even if it were their intention to do so.

replies(2): >>15724338 #>>15724647 #

2. stcredzero ◴[17 Nov 17 18:03 UTC] No.15724338[source]▶

>>15723836 (TP) #

As a consumer, the direct relationship between me and the content creator is much more important to me than those other issues. Those "other parties" other issues are actually between the various content creators, sponsors, and platform providers, and aren't really my problem. I'm quite tired of those other parties interposing themselves into my relationship with creators.

replies(1): >>15724711 #

3. wolco ◴[17 Nov 17 18:31 UTC] No.15724647[source]▶

>>15723836 (TP) #

Why would they split anything with youtube sponsers or care about deals they are not a party to. That's youtube's business. In those cases the content creator is paid by two parties.

replies(1): >>15729432 #

4. fixermark ◴[17 Nov 17 18:38 UTC] No.15724711[source]▶

>>15724338 #

Right, but as a consumer, you don't have to deal with the ramifications of the other parties failing to be paid, a scenario which generally results in the content creator having their content pulled for incorrect / unauthorized (re-)use.

replies(1): >>15725386 #

5. stcredzero ◴[17 Nov 17 19:46 UTC] No.15725386{3}[source]▶

>>15724711 #

Right, but as a consumer, you don't have to deal with the ramifications of the other parties failing to be paid

Such issues came up in the old days, but they were settled without interposing themselves directly in my life. Back in the 90's, my music collection didn't start partially disappearing because of these things.

6. pgeorgi ◴[18 Nov 17 15:54 UTC] No.15729432[source]▶

>>15724647 #

I think the issue is with collab videos (multiple parties) for which creators can setup a sharing agreement.

In such a video every currency unit inside youtube (Ads, Red, ...) can be split up automatically according to some per-video sharing agreement. Everything that comes through Brave has a single recipient, the channel operator (because Brave can't read this contract).

↑